I was openly discussing 'separate but equal' in terms of the potential for such differences to create an apartheid type society. Unfortunately, unlike Blecks, who did not self-exclude from basic equalities and rights but were actively excluded, gays did and do self-exclude as a matter of choice knowing the reality, for the simple reason that marriage was between man and woman.
I've long argued this back and forth, and couple of years ago arrived at the conclusion that since gay marriage did no harm*, at the end of discussion it was acceptable to me. That was changed by the harm inflicted and sought by the YES lobby during the campaign, and the potential for harm to be done to OTHERS as a result of the inclusion of gay in the definition of marriage became a reality.
I thus rejected gay marriage. Now I am awaiting the screeching jihads against any who dare disagree or who refuse to kow-tow to it against their personal beliefs.
In that sense - with a significant number not acceding to gay marriage for many reasons, it would appear that 'gay marriage' IS viewed as separate though having been made 'equal' by legislation, by a very large number.
Let's await these proceedings and see what the real vote was... somehow I doubt the vote in a non-binding poll .. that poll should have been used as a trial with a sunset clause, and if warranted by the actual outcomes, a binding vote of the people taken, after they've had the opportunity to view at first hand what would happen.
Can you begin to imagine the carry-on if a future government reversed this falsely-based decision?
* I can't PERSONALLY see that the gays I know being married would mean trouble for anyone else - but there is a large group intent on jihading others for perceived discrimination etc in the past - e know full well from the 'feminists' that once the foot is in the door, all of hell follows after it... for everyone else, but primarily for those perceived as being the past 'oppressors'.