Tony Abbott's conscience and the rainbow sails in the sunset

As Shakespeare helpfully intoned, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

There's no use in lamenting social changes which have already occurred.

Not only do claims of "no-discrimination" ring hollow, they contradict the other objections to same-sex marriage.

"What about the children?" Since same-sex de facto couples can legally parent children, the question is moot.

"Marriage should be between a man and a woman." Acknowledging that de-facto same-sex couples can do all the same things as married couples spotlights the contradiction. Logically, if marriage "should" exclude same-sex couples, then "marriage-like" de-facto relationships should too – but alas, look at the rainbow sails in the sunset.

Since this boat has sailed the focus shifts to spurious semantics.

Of course, they're saying "what are the gay people complaining about?" A nice response from Alan Jones:

My view is that when people find love, they should be able to celebrate it. And they shouldn't be discriminated against according to the nature of that love.

To deny people the recognition for a relationship which is based on love is to deny, in my opinion, one of humankind's most basic, elusive qualities.

We shouldn't be frightened about celebrating the love of one person for another.

It's about acknowledging and recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples.

The arguments against equality are confusing and contradictory largely because they arise out of unstated religious advocacy against the rights and acceptance of gays. Whilst no doubt most Christians, the majorityof whom support same-sex marriage, have no issue with gay rights, the clamorous Christian lobby protests on the basis of the roles set out for men and women in the Bible. But relying on shibboleths so far removed from contemporary values would be counterproductive. So by stealth they're reframed, vaulting the word "marriage" above all others so it stands alone in the English language as the only word which cannot change, ignoring how it has changed again and again over the years.

We must have our principles, but at what cost? Reason will eventually prevail in this debate. If Tony Abbott remains a captive of his conscience, and fails to provide certainty on this issue, then the road ahead will be paved over same-sex land mines. The promise of an interminable debate on a social issue already decided in all but name is the unwelcome, divisive result. Barring a free parliamentary vote or a plebiscite, the next election may well become a de-facto referendum on the topic. And according to the polling, the conscience of the electorate won't be kind to Abbott.

It's quite possible Australian voters have more love and empathy for same-sex couples than they do for either major political party. Same-sex marriage will happen, and very soon after we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.