Modern marriage and historical marriages are about external appearances and not so much about actuality; about <i>saying</i> that it is a couple's permanent, monogamous, heterosexual union of love and family. Too often this is not the case, though this seems not to concern its supporters.

This article is about an imagined "right" of individuals to demand that others conform to their views. It ignores the reflective nature of rights - my right in an issue is balanced by your rights not to yield to my opinion. It fails because of marriage's historical common failure in practice to attain its goals.

The author seemingly approves discrimination in employment, association and more, without justification.

Conscientious Objection is only justified on the basis that it is private and respects the rights of others to hold opposing views.

It's not justifiable to deny public or employment rights on the basis of choice of life partner (spouse), eg in taxation, health insurance, inheritance, property rights after a relationship dissolves, or do these require commitment to the notion of exclusive, heterosexual marriage.

Exclusivity, which is part of traditional marriage though clearly never universally observed, is, like religion, in these days of Tinder, now a rarity, it seems.

Should the secret cross-dresser, though heterosexually married in public, be denied the rights of marriage due to his or her private activities? What if the spouse though not necessarily happy with this chooses to continue the life partnership?

If I had my way, I'd remove the word "marriage" from the statutes in favour of "life partner", but that won't make LGBTIQ folk happy either. Change is afoot, whether we agree or not. Society's rules must mirror its members. So, get on with it - abandon the outdated, imperfect definition of marriage.

The question is only the extent of necessary in a society which accepts the need for acceptance, fairness and, yes, the private right to conscientiously object but not at the expense of others' rights.

I'm not gay and I'm voting 'selfish' on the basis that voting 'Yes' does not in anyway benefit me, and why should I support something that does not benefit me?
You'll have to make me a better offer, and it will have to include a large sum of cash.
None of the other regressive brainwashed retards would support something that did not benefit them so why should I?
Vote your conscience they say, I will and you can guarantee it.
In my opinuion 'fair go' is dead and it's a sign of the times to vote 'selfish'.
The gay lobby have pushed too much of their agendas onto innocent underage schoolkids anyway, and for that alone they cannot and should not be trusted.

And I'm not going to give them the power to force Christians in their own churches to go against their own religious beliefs to marry gays, just so the mentally challenged freaks can have a token win to destory the fabric of moral decency.
They'll never stop, because its a global socialist agenda, but at least I can cause them some anxiety and depression, just like they did when they wanted to sexualise the children of decent heterosexual couples.

For those gays that seek only to mess with other peoples lives, like legitimised members of ISIS you can forget about me supporting gay marriage, because I support gay suicide.

Getting married wont stop their mental issues or thoughts of suicide, and that's a proven fact.
When they start acting rationally and respectful of others, I might reconsider my position.

I absolutely agree with those conscientious objectors! Who should never ever be forced against their will, to marry same sex partners or bisexual turd burglars!

But particularly if the turds have been seriously polished in overused elephantine passageways, to the point, it'd be tantamount to throwing a sausage down a corridor? Who turned the lights out?

It's all downhill from here? And or, backwards on out of control roller skates? MUMMY!
Alan B.

Where's the need for such tedious arguments?

Forcing someone to work/perform a task against their will is slavery.

Surely we can all agree that slavery is not on?!

Thanks for the homophobic post Alan B. You should marry Leo Lane, you're both haters.

Most of the nostalgic back-to-the-past proponents of "time-honored traditional-marriage" just havent done their homework re the always fluid and changing nature of what could be called "marriage" and the way that both women and children treated and mis-treated (as chattels or property of the husband/father).

This reference describes the on-the-ground realities of the always changing situation: http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/thewayweneverwere

Changes in technology and thus by cultural extension have been one of the principal determining causative agents in marriage/family relationships, and human relationships altogether.

Will today's young people addicted to the narcissistic nature of selfies and social-media be in any sense capable of incarnating the necessary qualities for sustaining a good marriage and/or raising sane healthy children?

Meanwhile do a search of the ultra right-wing outfit The Alliance Defending Freedom
This reference would be a good place to start:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/the-800-pound-gorilla-of-the-christian-right-89b8cfca7051
It is interesting to note that Tony Abbott gave a talk at one of the ADF gabfests.