"You're conflating" - you asked about trans kids, so I gave a reference that links them.
"just marriage, not safe schools"
Are you just claiming a comfortable position to hold in one's mind, regardless of what actual events show?
I've given references that:
-Homosexual activists state that SSM and radical sexualisation of schoolkids (recruiting) are part of their demands
-Legal precedence that SSM has been used to justify SSC-style programs (which no doubt may be used as reference in subsequent cases)
Ontario is also a good case where SSM is just one part of activist/deconstructionist-driven series of events that result in change to traditional family structure and to sexualise children.
So yes, you can just view SSM as something completely isolated, but evidence shows association and motivation in common.
"how did this lead to religious persecution"
Parents do want their children sexualised. So parents want opt-out. In the MA case, the judge said no, but instead "take your children to a private school". If they go to a private school, they want that school to have a policy of not employing anyone who supports homosexuality. So the school wants reassurance they will not be taken through anti-discrimination process or action. The school usually has a religious name and espouses traditional Christian ethics. It is a matter of joining the dots.
The call for 'religious' protections appears to be a misnomer - it is easily fobbed off as just pertaining to ministers of religion - but it is really conscientious exemptions across society.
"have not exploded due to SSM" - SSM is an enabler. Looking at it the other way, if AU had voted no, then it would be harder for activists to prosecute their agenda (of which SSM is part of anyway).
"valid legal religious persecution post SSM" - not sure what you mean by 'valid', in this context, but I here is what I posted earlier:
Illinois: Christian bed and breakfast owners are being sued by homosexuals for not allowing the use of their facilities for a gay "civil union" ceremony.
Aus: Two Christian charities have been granted official permission to keep their board members’ names secret on the grounds of “public safety”, after abuse and threats from gay activists forced an IBM executive to sever his links with a Christian education group. At least a correctly worded Act would make such harrassment obviously illegal.
Chile: Printer of Christian faith sued 3 times for refusing to print SS wedding invitations.
UK: Religious schools teaching that same-sex relationships (etc) are against religious doctrine are deemed to be breaking the law (Jewish school not teaching about sexual orientation to children as young as 3)
And we've already had a Catholic Archbishop in Tas suffer the beginning of legal proceedings over distributing their doctrine on marriage to their own members. This will just get worse without appropriate religious protections.
Section 37 of the existing law grants specific exemptions from sections protecting LGBT people to “religious, educational or medical institutions” – permitting them to discriminate “in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution”.
However, the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill – which passed through its final stages in the Dáil late last night without opposition – strips the exemptions from the law.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/03/ir ... ality-law/
The Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus, in Port Coquitlam, BC, was required to pay a fine for causing “hurt feelings” when it denied the use of the organization’s hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their “wedding”. A Mennonite-owned summer camp in Manitoba was found guilty of discrimination by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission because it refused to rent its premises to a homosexual choir.
Religion based social services, such as counselling and adoption services, are now required to conform to the same-sex marriage law.
Within school boards, teachers and other individuals are being forced to deny their religious beliefs and freedom of speech by being required to promote same-sex marriage, and publicly refraining from expressing any opposition to it. A teacher and school counselor in British Columbia, Dr. Chris Kempling published a letter in his local newspaper objecting to homosexuality. This resulted in his suspension for one month without pay by the BC College of Teachers, which alleged that Mr. Kempling’s letters “poisoned the school environment.” There was no evidence to support this, nor was there any complaint made against him by any student, parent or supervisor. Subsequently, Dr. Kempling was a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party in the 2006 federal election, and, in that capacity, published a letter in his local newspaper opposing same-sex marriage. He received a further suspension of three months without pay.
http://www.realwomenofcanada.ca/same-se ... ed-canada/
The Canada example is huge.