We are in the midst of a somewhat acrimonious debate and postal plebiscite on marriage equality. I will leave to one side the abject failure of the National Parliament to legislate on this matter (which they empowered and tasked to do) but rather focus on what arguments might be found against giving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Do I hear crickets in the night? It's true that there are not many arguments outside of sheer prejudice that really carry any weight. The No campaign has focused on non-sequiturs, citing religious freedom and Safe Schools Education as cogent, though completely unexplained, arguments. I hear tell of the effect but fail to see the causal link, nor has any link been presented. This is very feeble indeed.

Religious conservatives have a better argument, at least from their point of view. There is a case to be made by such a person who might argue that their faith has a long tradition of heterosexual marriage and that their opposition is grounded upon this point. I can understand that and while we live in a secular society, they have every right to make it. It is a particular, albeit sacred view of marriage, based on tradition, that really only carries weight with people of faith. But at least it is coherent.

Frankly, I am surprised that conservatives don't actually take up the cudgel for marriage equality. Marriage, by common assent, is a very conservative institution that is often portrayed as fundamental to a healthy society. You can argue the toss about the legitimacy of that view but nevertheless, I would have thought that including more and more people in such an institution is the hallmark of a conservative argument. But what would I know?

Everything is resolved soon, though if the Yes vote fails at the last, it will be years before marriage equality becomes a reality. So I hope for a smooth passage.