Clicked through and looked over the author's site. It quietly junks the Conservative notion of marriage having been the same in all times and places.
I think he wants to draw attention to the fact that while all people are equal, not all relationships are equal, and not all behaviour is equal. If we think about all that for a minute, it is of course true.

So where should the line be drawn? The current definition describes a behaviour that it holds up as iconic of democracy, and therefore a democratic society is required to recognise it. Definition doesn't have anything to say about other relationships, whether love is love or anything else - that's not the law's job. Outside of criminal law, we are free to choose whatever relationships we like, and since we are all equal no one can hassle us about it. Changes in law of recent decades regarding homosexuality have been a big improvement for personal liberty and privacy, but both the campaign for SSM and the 'tradition' argument against it fail to understand equality.

Australian Government
on relationships

www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/your-relationship-status

.

Enough about 'equality'. The Yes campaign just wants what it wants and to hell with everyone and everything else. Changing the rules just to satisfy a few at the discomfort and concerns of the many does not sound right. I have slowly lost patience with these freaks of nature, because they are not normal as humanity describes normal. We have slowly come to tolerate them, but at greatly increasing emotional and social compromises along the way. This debate should not have been given oxygen from the start. By accepting the yes mob we have let our guard down and they have now aggressively moved to try to control the debate and in turn the very lives of the straight people of the world. They have something to prove, we don't, so beware those of you who are sympathetic to the yes campaign you will live to regret your decision if they get their way. I am sick of their reasons as they are worthless in content, they are simply trying different words and approaches to try to find ways of making their case. THERE IS NO CASE! Only pathetic attempts at justifying their cause. I say to them, go back in your closet and do what you want to/with whoever you want as long as its not in public, it's your business, and you are welcome to it. Better still seek medical advise as to how to get gender corrected.

ALTRAV,

Again with the anger and hatred? I cannot imagine what has happened to you to make you such an unhappy person.

<<Changing the rules just to satisfy a few at the discomfort and concerns of the many does not sound right.>>

No, it certainly doesn’t. Luckily, all polling and research done in the last 13 years indicates that this is not the case.

<<I have slowly lost patience with these freaks of nature …>>

That’s not a very nice thing to say. I trust you have some science to back this claim? You may want to define more precisely what you mean by “freak”, though.

<<… because they are not normal as humanity describes normal.>>

How are you defining ‘normal’?

<<We have slowly come to tolerate them, but at greatly increasing emotional and social compromises along the way.>>

Such as?

<<By accepting the yes mob we have let our guard down and they have now aggressively moved to try to control the debate and in turn the very lives of the straight people of the world.>>

How will same-sex marriage control you, or us straight people?

<<I am sick of their reasons as they are worthless in content …>>

What do you think their reasons are then, and why are they worthless? It doesn’t sound to me like you could even list them.

<<… they are simply trying different words and approaches to try to find ways of making their case.>>

Really? They’ve sounded pretty gosh darned consistent to me. How have their words and approaches evolved, may I ask?

<<I say to them, go back in your closet …>>

A rather brave way to speak to 70% of the population. You ‘No’ mob are getting rather big for your boots, aren’t you?

<<Better still seek medical advise as to how to get gender corrected.>>

Do you understand the difference between gender and sexuality?

AJ can't you tell by the mood of my comments? I will entertain you once more as a favour to you. All my comments have been clear and un-ambigiuos. I will not bother to elaborate yet again. I will however say, look up all my previous comments and this time take them in. Don't come back questioning my comments without you first actually understanding what I have said. Every paragraph or sentence is clear and is formed from actual and current or historical events. You want ME to give you quotes? Hah, if your so smart and apparently know it all you look it up, but this time without any bias! Oh and the anger and the hatred. How many times, and how much time does one spend on a bunch of brain dead selfish morons in trying to explain that the world is not flat, but NO not the yes camp. The world is flat and here's the reasons why. I'm not sure where you stand in this whole debacle. Whether your straight and just like a verbal stoush, or whether your gay, which would make a little more sense. Either way I have said my piece now it is up to whoever to find the origins of the points I have made. Some of them are thousands of years old. Happy hunting and sayonara.

ALTRAV,

Yes, I can tell a lot by the apparent mood of your comments. There appears to be a psychologically-disturbing level of hate there. I can only guess as to what is feeding that hate.

<<All my comments have been clear and un-ambigiuos.>>

If a vile and irrational hatred is what you want to convey, then you are indeed doing a very good job of that.

<<I will not bother to elaborate yet again.>>

Thank you. That will save me a lot of time in the future.

<<I will however say, look up all my previous comments and this time take them in.>>

I have. None of them provide a rational explanation for the level of hatred you apparently feel.

<<Don't come back questioning my comments without you first actually understanding what I have said.>>

I believe I have understood you perfectly well thus far. You are yet to demonstrate that I have not.

<<Every paragraph or sentence is clear and is formed from actual and current or historical events.>>

You have not yet provided a single piece of evidence for any of the claims you have made.

<<You want ME to give you quotes?>>

No, unless they’re somehow relevant, of course. Quotes from whom, by the way?

<<Hah, if your so smart and apparently know it all you look it up …>>

Look up what?

<<Oh and the anger and the hatred.>>

Yes, the anger and hatred. What’s that about?

<<How many times, and how much time does one spend on a bunch of brain dead selfish morons in trying to explain that the world is not flat …>>

I’m guessing not much. Why’s that?

<<Whether [you’re] straight and just like a verbal stoush, or whether [you’re] gay, which would make a little more sense.>>

Why does one have to be gay to believe in equality? I’m not in an interracial marriage, but I still believe in interracial marriages.

<<Either way I have said my piece now …>>

You have explained precisely nothing. Try again.