The debate over same-sex marriage is, as expected, drawing a torrent of “no” advocacy from the right. The interesting thing is that the loudest conservative voices are not actually choosing to debate the question on its merits.

Rather than directly disputing the idea that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, they are highlighting the left’s allegedly intemperate rhetoric and dirty tricks. Rather than asking whether it’s anyone’s business who marries whom, they are trying desperately to make it into a question about something else.

John Howard says religious freedom should be protected before marriage equality survey Read more

Some isolated voices are raising fair questions about implementation of any resulting laws. And a minority of moderates are offering support to the yes campaign.

But far from being a civil debate, until now, it’s hardly a debate at all.

Publication: The Bolt Report (Sky News)

Author: Andrew Bolt

Why you should listen: In the face of enlightened social change which he opposes, Bolt retreats to his most reliable and durable rhetorical strategy: playing the victim. Support from Clover Moore and Andrew Barr for the yes campaign, according to Bolt, reveals an “authoritarian mindset” that runs across the left (unlike, presumably, the right’s campaign to limit the rights of LGBTI Australians). In order to accept this account of where the “hate” is coming from, you’d have to ignore the fearmongering from the no campaign, which tries to link the marriage plebiscite to a caricature of the Safe Schools campaign.

Extract The first three minutes should give you the drift. Do try to avoid the comments.

Publication: Quadrant

Author: Greg Walsh

Why you should read: Walsh is conservative, but no dummy, and has considerable academic expertise in human rights law. He’s fingered an issue that will become problematic unless it is specifically legislated for. In the US, retailers and bankers who have objected to same-sex marriage on religious grounds have refused couples services, and litigation has followed. Legislation will either need to provide for the right to withhold services in the case of conscientious objection, or compel the baking of cakes. Beyond this, though, notice that one of the less bellicose conservatives seems to be implicitly conceding that changes to the Marriage Act are coming and is far more focused on the aftermath.

Extract: “The importance of providing such protections should be apparent to everyone especially parliamentarians committed to introducing same-sex marriage in a manner that is respectful to all members of the community. Unfortunately, the same-sex marriage bills that have so far been introduced have failed to demonstrate adequate respect for conscientious objectors. It is particularly disappointing that most (but not all) Liberal politicians have failed to show leadership in this area especially considering that the Liberal party’s constitution claims the party believes in ‘those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy – the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association’.”

Publication: The Daily Telegraph

Author: Miranda Devine

Why you should read: Miranda Devine is also clambering on to the victimhood bandwagon. From Channel Ten’s apparent fudging of a news graphic (unprecedented I’m sure), Devine deduces the rise of an overbearing “McCarthyism” in which anyone who voices an opposing view on same-sex marriage is smeared and vilified. Apart from the dubious factual basis for this, it’s pretty rich coming from someone who participated in the Yassmin Abdel-Magied pile-on. After Abdel-Magied expressed her own unpopular opinion, the rightwing blowback was so intense she lost her job and chose to leave the country. That sounds a lot closer to McCarthyism than some creative photoshopping on commercial television.

Extract: “This is the new rainbow McCarthyism, which is being practised in newsrooms, workplaces, and organisations across the country.

“If you are against changing marriage you will be defined as a hateful bigot who deserves to be shunned, black-listed, stripped of your livelihood and your social status.”

Publication: Alan Jones Show (2GB)

Author: Alan Jones/Mark Latham

Why you should listen: Two of Australia’s grumpiest old men have taken to nattering on a weekly basis since Latham came out as “alt light”.

Towards the end of a ramble through a range of the right’s hot-button issues (electricity prices, statues, Australia Day), Jones and Latham attempt to muddy the waters on same-sex marriage. Jones allows Latham to amplify his own favourite talking point: Shorten’s private member’s bill on same-sex marriage was more inclusive than the question the ABS is giving to the electorate. In his columns, and on Australia’s worst Twitter account, Latham has been running a scare campaign on the basis that changes will allow “up to 250 gender and sexual categories” to get hitched.

Like the already infamous ad run by the no campaign, Latham is attempting to conflate same-sex marriage with a broader discussion about gender and sexuality in the minds of wavering voters. But why shouldn’t any citizen be allowed to marry any other? Naturally, Latham never canvases the question in these terms.

The maths of marriage equality: how the yes campaign plans to win 5.5m votes Read more

It’s sobering to think that this posturing troll could have been the prime minister.

Extract: Listen to the video from 5:55 for a jolt of pure obfuscation.

Publication: The Australian

Author: Nick Greiner

Why you should read: Former NSW Liberal premier Nick Greiner delivers the conservative case for the yes vote, which is similar in outline to previous sallies by pro-SSM conservatives like Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Marriage, Greiner argues, is a stabilising, bedrock institution that all should be able to share in, and it will be renewed and strengthened by allowing more people to participate in it. He urges us not to be distracted by “red herrings” – will his fellow conservatives stop throwing them out?

Extract: “As the home of liberals and conservatives, there is a very strong case for Liberals to back same-sex marriage. It is a conservative and liberal issue at its heart, which is why I am happy to be patron of Liberals and Nationals for Yes. This is far from a radical position, as the Yes case is supported by the Prime Minister and a clear majority of state and territory Liberal leaders.

“Widening marriage will deliver stronger families and communities. More commitment and responsibility in our society will be the dividend of a Yes vote.”