There are several hundreds of government, non for profit, media and corporate organisations advocating for redefining marriage in the Australian law. The list is so broad that it effectively establishes ideological monopoly in many markets and sometimes over entire industries. A clear example can be seen in the payment processing industry where it practically impossible to conduct financial transactions without supporting this specific ideology, there are many more. How can a corporations formed by thousands of employees and millions of stakeholders make a claim to represent people? These are legal constructs, mostly created for profit and non-democratic, reaching moral conclusions without a consistent process and proper consultation. Several local government organisations and popular representatives officially advocate the currently illegal concept. These are the institutions created to listen to the people they represent through democratic processes, instead they choose to urge us to vote a certain way with unsolicited communications. Conscientious objectors have been left with no choice but to support the movement through their taxes and daily transactions. Does it not come down to elitism, believing that the people are ignorant and not able to reach the right decisions for themselves.

They have tried to compare the issue with the civil rights movement but the type of activism and support is completely different. The civil rights was a grassroots movement led by the unquestionable moral authority Martin Luther King, it did not have the support of government nor corporations. This issue instead has no clear leaders and the few poster figures like Penny Wong were just recently against it until faced with pressure by the LGBT lobby. So now, half a century later, have the likes of Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Visa and Mastercard become the new moral authorities in matters of civil rights? These names belong in the list of sponsors of the latest Justin Bieber concert but should never be in the list of organisations we look up to as a guiding light on human rights

//Should corporations and other organisations influence public opinion on same sex marriage?//

What, like churches?

Toni,

Red herring and old and on the nose!

Should corporations and other organisations influence
public opinion on same-sex marriage?

No they should not.

The postal survey is supposedly to determine
individual opinion of Australian voters and not the
dictates of Churches, Corporations, or any other
influences, including those of politicians.

The biggest mistakes the politicians make is
attempting to influence the electorates which only
results in division - which is damaging to the
political parties. Prime example is the behaviour
of former PM Mr Abbott.

They won't allow a free-vote in Parliament, yet they
are determined to influence the voters.
Now isn't that hypocritical.

The taxpayer-funded leftist-leaning ABC deserves mention as the most obvious and most persistent culprit over decades, so in a way it is nothing new and the federal politicians have presided over that,

http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984

"Peter Hitchens v the ferals on Q&A: a masterclass in disdain
November 8, 2013"

"For those who missed Peter Hitchens on Q&A last week, here he is in all his curmudgeonly magnificence, amidst the regulation four lefties.
Note his prescient comments in 2011:

“People like me – though still allowed to speak – are allowed on to mainstream national broadcasting only under strict conditions: that we are ‘balanced’ by at least three other people who disagree with us so that our views, actually held by millions, are made to look like an eccentric minority opinion.”

PETER HITCHENS: "You’ll have the whole world to yourself soon. You can’t imagine anybody else is entitled to hold a view different from yours without having some kind of personal defect. That’s what’s wrong with you…"
DAN SAVAGE: …" It’s a less intolerant world than it used to be because people like me are now empowered to look at people like you and say you are full of [profanity]".

What about sporting organisations?

I take offense to all of it, only people can vote, local councils, corporations, sporting bodies are all trying to influence the outcome.
Politicians personal opinions - 'their vote' so to speak should not be publicised too much because of 'Us and Them'.

They should all respect the right of people to choose for themselves, as all eligible voters must be over 18.
They should all stay out of it.

It all sets up a bad playing field, and precedent.
Suddenly business owners feel compelled to choose a side, and then victimise their own staff for having an opinion other than their own.
I support prosecution of businesses who deny the right of their employees; actual eligible voters on this issue - to speak freely.