Steele:

I was thinking that denial of free speech was denial of speech. What would you call it when people are denied the opportunity to speak at all so we could never know what their opinions were? Facebook gives people a platform which they might not otherwise have.

I think the term 'societal' is a bit broad. Within that society we have smaller groups who have the right to set their own rules and members of those groups agree to abide by the rules. The couple have not been banished from the church just refused one of its services.

The "NO" campaign is falling apart, this week they wheeled out their big gun, the old fuddy duddy himself, Geriatric Johnny, who tried to unload om Malcolm.

In a statement, Howard said the Government was "washing its hands of any responsibility" to protect religious freedoms should the survey come back with a majority Yes vote.
Turnbull has repeatedly said the Parliament will change the Marriage Act, with the necessary gurentees before the end of the year if there is a Yes vote. So much for the half baked claims by Howard.

In other news; The political stoush over the same-sex marriage postal vote has taken an ugly turn after former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s godson was punched “standing up for marriage equality”. The Queensland police are on the case, could this be the work of "NO" extremists?

There has been stuff ups with the postal vote, one voter received seven voting forms at his address. six for previous tenants who had not changed their address details with the AEC. Is this a $122,000,000 sham? With two thirds of those intending to vote indicating a "YES" vote preference, the "NO"'s will need every vote they can get by hook or by crook, including the above mentioned seven!

In advertising the "NO" campaigners have been exposed as liars, with such nonsense as schools will force boys to wear dresses, and then they will teach children how to masturbate, disgusting lies from some desperate people!

Why shouldn't the public vote 'No' to a proposal, the push for which has been from the leftist political elite, who inform the public that they are not going to discuss what comes next after they trash the Marriage Act, notwithstanding that it is one of the fundamentals of society?

The public are being treated as bovines, "Just vote with the eye-blinkers on (also known as blinders) and never you mind, we the superior 'Progressives' take it from there".

Up until very recently, homosexuals to a man, and emphasis on 'man' because it is gays who are strident and bullying, were utterly opposed to and dismissive of State controlled heterosexual marriage. Marriage was the butt of their jokes.
Now the public is being led to believe that overnight black has turned into white and the backflip has it that is was actually the nasty exclusiveness(sic) of heterosexual marriage that is causing some homosexuals to feel offended and even to harm themselves.

The other, far more numerous backers of SSM and its engine room, are the feminists, who are on record as despising marriage for its inevitable power imbalance and dreadful harm done to women. -But now they would have the public believe they actually love marriage and marriage IS love. Just as feminists have no problem with Islam, the 'most feminist religion' with beaut dress-up for women ('empowering' according to feminists), so too they laud same sex marriage. Amazing!

The wedding dress, the church, the vows, are now feminist approved?

If there is one thing the 'Progressives' who trash 'traditional'(sic) marriage and plump for the new, u-beaut and wonderful SSM agree on, it is that marriage never had a definition (according to them) and it is just 'love'. That must impact on the already ambiguous and broad definition of de facto 'relationships'(sic) that feminist and marriage-dissing Julia Gillard brought in (again without public consultation, of course).

The public are being required to buy a pig in a poke and questioning what and why is not allowed, wrong and invites censure. Why?

leoj says:
“Up until very recently, homosexuals […] were utterly opposed to and dismissive of State controlled heterosexual marriage. Marriage was the butt of their jokes.”

It’s interesting to watch, isn’t it.

Back in the heady days of Les Girls and Carlotta, there were only two identifiers in play - gay and lesbian. The surrounding embryonic movement grew into the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras which, over the years, became a cultural icon.
The gay and lesbian community got to show off and be outrageous in a street parade. When the straight community got the hang of it, they also applauded the idea and the Mardi Gras went on to become a yearly highlight televised around the nation. The Rev. Fred Nile was quietly ignored by all.

These folk were celebrating their differences and the last thing on their mind was conforming to any notion of patriarchal conformist marriage.

Fast forward to 2017 and there seems to be a very different agenda promoted by a very different group of people.

The new crowd demand respect.
The old crowd commanded respect. That’s very different . . and they got it.

The upcoming postal survey is pretty straight
forward. One simple question is being asked.
And all we have to do is say yes or no.
The other arguments being presented are merely
suppositions on what may or may not happen.
Why not just take the opportunity to have
your say. That is all that is being asked of you.

Why should the public buy a pig in a poke?

What is the definition of marriage, Foxy?

What about resolving these outstanding matters?

"Same-sex marriage: What does human rights law say about claims of equality?
..
But the "marriage equality" claim is not borne out by the decisions of the highest human rights authorities in the international order. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have held that there is no inequality where a state retains the traditional definition of marriage. In so ruling, these bodies have actually affirmed the inherent equality of all persons..

United Nations Human Rights Committee

In Joslin et al. v New Zealand, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that "marriage" is a definitional construct which, by the expressed terms of Article 23(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), includes only persons of the opposite sex.

Importantly, the committee held that the right to equality under Articles 2 or 26 of the ICCPR, which is the applicable international covenant that Australia has ratified, was not then violated.

That is to say, there is no inequality because the definitional boundary did not enfold persons of the same sex.

Such people are equal in all respects and defining marriage as being between persons of the opposite sex was not to render such people as unequal.

That is consistent with the UNHRC's clarification, that "not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the covenant"."
tbc