In a different time, a 'gay' marriage would have been understood to be a happy, harmonious one. But then that word - gay' - was suborned into helping to make homosexuality seem more palatable. Torture the language to achieve a political end. Take a word which applies to something pleasant, apply and the enforce its use elsewhere and elevate alter the understanding of that other thing. (Read Orwell for a fuller understanding of the process.)

When Fred Astaire made 'The Gay Divorcee' he meant something quite different to what it would mean today. Its only a matter of time before that movie is banned as homophobic with cultural appropriation :) .

The rainbow has suffered a similar fate.

And now 'equality' is similarly suborned into the work of achieving political ends. 'Equal' doesn't mean 'identical'. But now we are told that it must because of human rights. People who are clearly different in a substantive way from those who are married demand that we ignore the difference because of equality.
Equality is good, right? So everyone should be equal, right? Who could argue with that?

Well equal isn't identical. If it were then equal rights for women or aboriginals would rule out affirmative action because their rights would be identical to non-native men.

I'll go along with 'marriage equality'. But my meaning is that we all have the equal right to marry any one person of the opposite sex who'll have us.

But this whole 'equality' malarkey is just a means to an end. I'll continue to call it what it is - same-sex marriage. Or at least I'll continue to recognise the difference and that the two aren't equal, until the time when such recognition becomes illegal - and that won't be too longer after the marriage act is changed.

That it will change is a certainty. And then the boosters will spend the next 50years trying to prove that the adverse affects on society didn't really happen, just as they've done with easy divorce and single parenthood.

Philips:

“What’s wrong with the term ‘marriage equality’?”

Everyone can marry if they want to so no one is being denied marriage equality. Everyone who marries has exactly the same rights as everyone else that marries. You cannot marry someone of the same gender so what you are being denied is not marriage but a certain type of marriage – a same gender marriage.

A bit of a laugh that note to ABC employees.
My son started working at the ABC ages ago and on his first day was
told if he wants a career at the ABC do not let on if he votes Liberal.
The only people in the closet are the Liberal voters.
The leftie attitude has been there at least since the 1940s.

Only the author of the instruction need worry about his employment.
The staff runs the show and brooks no interference.

Dear Bazz,

And your son believed them?

I guess the joke was on him.

How long did he last?

Foxy, it was no joke, it is real. He was there for more than twenty
years and had a fairly significant technical supervision position at
Gore Hill and was involved with the planning for the shift to Ultimo.
The leftie culture is not as strong with the technical staff.

The term "gay" dates way back. From 12th Century
England. In the 17th Century it was associated
with immorality. Noel Coward was using gay in song
lyrics from as early as 1929. In 1940 the term
came into its own. By 1948 Gore Vidal was writing
that the words fairy and pansy were considered bad
taste and that it was fashionable to say a person was gay.

Each society views its own pattern of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and
usually God-given as well. Much of the current concern
about the fate of the modern family and marriage stems
from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume
that there is only one "right" marriage form, then
naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding
the doom of the whole institution.

Still according to the research 70 per cent of Australians
support same-sex marriage. I guess only time will tell
what the country decides on this issue.
Interesting times ahead.