A Typical YES Voter., page-81

And the "Quote of the Year" goes to.....Astro Laaaaabbbbbeeee

"I've grown up head-butting my friends all my life"
(cheers from the crowd)

"I belive in human rights..."
(ooooh, you do Astro?)

Oh, Astro, the friendly head-butter, what have the fine Tasmanian people done to deserve you ?

"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."
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.

European Court of Human Rights

Although Australia is not subject to its decisions, similar conclusions have been reached by the other principal arbiter of international human rights jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights.

In decisions handed down in 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the court has also concluded that the European Convention on Human Rights does not impose an obligation to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.

Consequently, the court has consistently held that the prohibition on discrimination (the right to equality) under Article 14 of the convention was not breached by states that continue to recognise that marriage is between a man and a woman.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...s-law-say-about-marriage-and-equality/8856552