• Mark Latham: Gender politics burning down the house
• Mark Latham: Diversity brigade kicks merit out the window

THERE is a widely held expectation in Australian politics that once the result of the same-sex marriage postal vote is announced on November 15, the matter will be resolved, once and for all.

According to opinion polls, a Yes vote looks likely, clearing the way for amendments to the Marriage Act.

But perhaps there’s one more twist in this long-running, vexed issue.

I hate to say it, but it might run for a good while yet.

By now, we have all heard the Australian Bureau of Statistics advertisements, encouraging people to vote on “whether Australian marriage laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry”.

If the proposition is carried, the average voter would expect extra clauses to be added to the Marriage Act, widening the scope of wedlock to include homosexuality.

Marriage is currently defined as “between a man and a woman”.

One would logically expect the new legislation to read:

“Marriage is a union between:

a) A man and a woman; or

b) Two gay men; or

c) Two lesbian women.”

But this is not what our parliamentarians have been proposing.

When Bill Shorten introduced his private members’ Marriage Amendment (Marriage Equality) Bill in 2015, its purpose was to “allow Australians to marry regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.”

He sought to define marriage as “a union between two people” — meaning that all Australian adults were eligible: heterosexuals, homosexuals and people of any other gender or sexuality.

In the Liberal party-room, whenever private members’ bills have been proposed to amend the Marriage Act, they too have followed the Shorten formula.

That is, marriage as a union between any two people of any gender or sexuality.

This raises an immediate contradiction. The current postal vote is asking about “same-sex couples”.

But where is the question covering other possibilities — the various sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex statuses allowed for in both the Labor and Liberal private members’ bills?

This is no small matter.

Left wing activists claim to have identified up to 250 gender and sexual categories. These include the well-known LGBTI designations — lesbian, gay, ­bisexual, transgender and intersex — plus a bewildering array of other ­terminology.

Apparently it is now possible to be genderqueer, demisexual, twospirit, asexual, pansexual, polyamorous, fluid, femme, gender-binary, gynephilic, SAAB, MSM/WSW, skoliosexual, agender, androsexual, bicurious, cisgender, demiromantic, down low, FtM/F2M and MtF/M2F.

I swear those last two featured in one of the Star Wars movies.

I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage and would like to vote Yes in a plebiscite. But clearly Labor and Liberals have in mind a far broader definition of marriage.

It won’t be restricted to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

It will include the multitude of categories listed above — most of which I’ve got no idea what they are talking about. I mean, what does the legalisation of polyamorous, skoliosexual and twospirit marriage involve?

Why is the postal vote question asking about same-sex (the LGB component) but not the other 247 types of marriage being promoted by the left?

And why won’t the government release the amended Marriage Act it has in mind so we can understand what a YES vote will mean in practice?

A big part of the problem has been the left’s strategy of mission creep: using this debate to constantly broaden the definition of marriage.

Fifteen years ago, they advocated “gay marriage”. Then the mantra became “same-sex marriage” and finally, “marriage equality”.

Most of us thought this was a marketing ploy, an exercise in semantics.

Piers Akerman: The Thought Police work overtime on the same sex marriage debate

But it actually had a serious intent. Marriage equality is not just for gay couples. It involves a sweeping redefinition of marriage, extending to the other 247 gender/sexual categories.

My advice to people would be: if you don’t understand the proposal, don’t vote for it.

I won’t be.

I’m also worried about the way in which marriage between any “two people” legitimises the notion of gender fluidity.

Through neo-Marxist programs like Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, radicals have infiltrated our education system.

They are trying to convince young people of the possibilities of gender fluidity: that at any time, boys can be girls and girls can be boys.

Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Marxists tried to create political anxiety and rebellion through the economic system. Now they are trying to manipulate the identity and feelings of school students, to convince them nothing is fixed in this world, such as biological science.

They want young Australians to believe that “capitalist hegemony” is suppressing their true gender and sexuality — a new source of social unrest. We must resist this propaganda at any cost.

With a majority of parents saying they don’t want radical queer theory in the school curriculum via Safe Schools, why would we want it in the Marriage Act?

Marriage equality has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

What does this mean for Parliament post-November 15?

If the public votes Yes, conservative MPs in the Coalition party room will be entitled to limit the scope of any new marriage statute to the mandate of the people.

This means writing into law a specific provision for marriage between same-sex couples.

But no more than that.

The postal vote process has made no mention of the other 247 categories.

If the public hasn’t approved marriage beyond heterosexual and homosexual couples, how can the Parliament proceed with a broad, “two people” definition?

Malcolm Turnbull’s political nightmare with gay marriage is a long way from ending.