A New Protector of Marriage

In “Gay marriage advocates must now protect marriage as I’ve tried” Andrew Bolt claims:

The battle for same-sex marriage has been won.  Now the winners must defend marriage as fiercely as we conservatives tried.

And their first test comes now.  Before they get our politicians to take the final step and change the Marriage Act, they must help to maximise the good — and minimise the damage.  […]

Moreover, the Yes vote in Catholic Ireland last week broke the back of any real resistance here, too.

We can, no doubt, expect to hear discussions, in defence of marriage, like this very soon: 

Bi-bloke:  Hey, Gay-chap, old friend, you were allowed to marry your boyfriend for two reasons according to you:  “love” and “equality”.  Well, I want to marry both my boyfriend and my girlfriend for the same two reasons:  “love” and “equality”. 
Gay-chap:  Nah, but you could just live together and call yourself whatever you like.
 
Bi-bloke: Isn’t that what people said to you? 
Gay-chap: That was different.  My man and I wanted a big, fancy wedding, with all our friends and family there to witness our eternal commitment to each other, and lots of wedding presents, and lots of flowers.
  We also had a big cake.  Admittedly, we had to sue the baker because, though he made and decorated a lovely cake to our exact specifications, he didn’t enthusiastically support our marriage, the bastard.  We did get a nice out-of-court settlement.  Anyhow, cake, flowers, presents, and friends and family! 
Bi-bloke: We want a big fancy wedding too, with all our friends and family.
Gay-chap:  You can still have a ceremony—just without State sanction.

Bi-bloke: But we want State sanction; we want what you got. 
Gay-chap:  Well, you can’t.
 
Bi-bloke:  Why the hell not?
 
Gay-chap:  Because marriage can only be between two unrelated, adult human beings, to the exclusion of all others.
 
Bi-bloke:  Yeah?  Says who?
 
Gay-chap:  I do.
Bi-bloke:  See, I want to be able to say that.  Tee hee.  Seriously, what’s the basis for this old-fashioned, bigoted and narrow notion that marriage must be between only two people?
Gay-chap:  Tradition, and, and, and that’s just the way it is.
Bi-bloke:  Isn’t that what opponents of your same-sex marriage said?
Gay-chap:  There is no similarity and, anyway, it’s the Law.  And it’s different.  Because, well, because.  So there.  You can shut up now. 
Bi-bloke:  Now, look—
Gay-chap:  Homophobe!  Racist! 
Bi-bloke:  But—

Gay-chap:  Fascist!  Hater!  Misogynist!
 
Bi-bloke:  Hey, steady on, I’m not the one who won’t touch women—
Gay-chap:  Police!  Help, Police!  I’m being oppressed by an opponent of same-sex marriage!
Constable Sonja:  Is, uh, there, uh, a, a, oooh, is there a, uh, problem?  Sorry, I, ooh, just had to, uh, jog nearly seven, oooh, yards then, uh, in full rig.
  So, uh, wot’s goin’ on here, then?
Bi-bloke:  I give up.

Gay-chap:  Yay!  I have successfully defended marriage!  I’m a hero!