Opponents: Lyle Shelton, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby and Karina Okotel, vice-president of the federal Liberal Party. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen The "yes" campaign has framed its debate about being one for equality and for justice. And who could stand against this? When I first considered the legalisation of same-sex marriage several years ago, I was all for it. I thought that if two consenting adults want to marry, what does it hurt anyone else? At that point in time I would have voted "yes". But the more I looked into the issue and the more I have observed the experience of other countries that have legalised same-sex marriage my concerns grew. You cannot, after all, fundamentally shift an institution we have always had, that is practised the world over without there being consequences. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage (the Netherlands) did so in 2001, and we only have recent history from which we can observe the consequences. But the consequences that flow from legalising same-sex marriage should not be ignored.

Karina Okotel, vice-president of the federal Liberal Party. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen In all of the arguments of the "yes" campaign they never do talk about what impact same-sex marriage has had on basic freedoms, they simply say the sky won't fall in. Sure, but we can talk about what has actually occurred. When same-sex marriage was legalised in Massachusetts, children were given literature including that said it's a myth that marriage is about children and a myth that children are best served when raised by a mother and father. When parents complained about a picture book shown to children with a same-sex couple kissing, their school said that they'd continue to read these books. They took the matter to the court but the court found that schools now have an obligation to normalise same-sex marriage. Senator Eric Abetz listening to Karina Okotel, vice-president of the federal Liberal Party on Wednesday. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen In Canada, law graduates from a Christian university are refused admission to practise in certain parts of the country because the university holds the view that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Three months ago in England, a Jewish school failed three inspections as they didn't teach about homosexuality and gender diversity, and therefore as same-sex marriage is legal, the students were not being provided a full understanding of fundamental British values. And that school now faces closure. Currently in England, where same-sex marriage was only legalised three years ago, a same-sex couple are taking the Church of England to court to require them to officiate their wedding, challenging the religious exemptions that were enshrined in British law. Later this year, a student will go to the UK High Court to ask to be readmitted to university after being thrown out of his social work degree for expressing his view about marriage on his personal Facebook page. Three weeks ago in our own country, the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, said if Labor were in office – and we hope that doesn't happen, don't we – it would examine any potential exemptions that would go some way to providing protections for churches, mosques and temples. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has previously committed a future Labor government to winding back religious freedom protections offered in any same-sex marriage legislation. Labor would also establish an LGBTIQ watchdog funded by taxpayers to monitor and take action against Australians. And last week, a petition was set up to deregister Dr Pansy Lai, who challenged the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the Coalition for Marriage's television advertisement.

And this is while same-sex marriage still remains unlawful. In all the arguments of the "yes" campaign, they don't talk about what impact same-sex marriage has had on basic freedoms. Clearly there are significant consequences in terms of the impact on free speech, religious freedom and the rights of parents – and this is just at the beginning when same-sex marriage has only been legal for a short period of time in a minority of countries. What happens when a whole generation who have grown up with same-sex marriage and gender theory as the norm become the legislators? The easy path for me would be to ignore these questions and support same-sex marriage. I don't like being thought of as homophobic – I am not and I refuse to accept that label. I have dedicated my professional life and everything I do to fighting for justice and equality. But if the debate is just about love, then why have any legislation at all?

Presently, same-sex couples have the same rights as de facto couples in law, even if you don't want to be considered a committed couple, after two years of living together, that is what the law says you are. You can also register relationships at any time. Marriage, on the other hand, always has been about the law assisting the stability of the family unit. Of course, there are exceptions and unforeseen circumstances, but fundamentally this is what marriage is all about. When "yes" campaigners talk about equality, they're talking about equality for adults and their wishes. What is left out of the conversation is the rights of children. What the "yes" campaign is really about is asking the state to sanction the creation of an institution that by design will contain children who may never know or have relationships with their biological parents as their family. Eight weeks ago I had my third child and I stand here today extremely sleep deprived and with a pretty serious case of baby brain, so apologies. But I stand here because I do fight for justice and equality. And I do so for the those whose voices have been left out of this debate – the most vulnerable: children.

In legalising same-sex marriage, we are telling children that they must not feel any yearning or incompleteness in not knowing, having a relationship with or being parented by the person from whom they received half of their genes. This is what happened to Millie Fontana – an adult child of a lesbian couple. Millie describes the gay community as promoting this ideology that love is love and that we don't actually need any biological roots at all to be parented well and to be well adjusted and happy. She says that this has been incorrect for me and for many others. And the promotion of this ideology has made it difficult for me and people in my position to come forward and say what is actually going on. But even the voices of those like Millie are being shouted down by a campaign that doesn't tolerate any opposition. I'm often asked how I would feel if my child was same-sex attracted and my answer is: I do now and always will love them unconditionally, regardless of their sexual orientation. The questions though that I do not hear being asked are: would you be happy for your grandchild to deliberately never know their biological parent? What type of society do we want them to grow up in? What do you want them to learn in school? If same-sex marriage becomes lawful, then children will be taught about this in schools.

They will be taught about gender fluidity and sexual subjects; yet surely, children have the right not to be confused by adult agendas. And in legalising same-sex marriage, we would inevitably lose the freedoms to call this out because it would be viewed as discriminatory to do so. It is an entirely Western-centric view to say that legalising same-sex marriage equates to progress. In claiming that other Western countries have legalised same-sex marriage and, therefore, Australia should too is to suggest that the majority of other countries that have not are somehow backwards. In a multi-ethnic society like Australia, this suggestion is even more hard to take. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and for you to have listened to me so respectfully today without being shouted down – yet – or ridiculed but this is not the experience of those who speak outside the confines of this room against the legalisation of same-sex marriage. I honour my friend, Cella White, who is here with us today. She's a courageous woman who spoke out about her son being told he could wear a dress in school as part of the Safe Schools program on the Coalition for Marriage's television advertisement. I first met Cella when she spoke at a forum about the program over a year ago. Her story has always been consistent about what their school taught her son. Her mother attended the meeting at school with Cella about her concerns. If anyone looks at the content and promotional material for the Safe Schools program, it's clear that children are encouraged to wear the uniform of their choice. Yet, for speaking out in opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage, she was publicly called a liar.

She received abusive messages on Facebook every two minutes to the point that she shut down her Facebook account. These messages were from people from all walks of life, including someone who worked at a suicide prevention hotline. She would be standing here speaking to you today but for the abuse she's already received as a result of telling her story. If we cannot speak freely now without attack when same-sex marriage has not been legalised, what consequences yet lie ahead if it is? Karina Okotel is the federal Liberal vice-president. This is the speech she gave at the National Press Club this past Wednesday. Maryke* is not her real name.