The passing of the Irish referendum on same-sex marriage has triggered a round of Australian advocates announcing that it is now "our turn".
It is the meaning of marriage that emerges from all human cultures as they reflect on and experience what it is to be male and female. When I ask them about marriage, they almost always indicate that it is for them the beginning of a new family unit open to welcoming children.
It is only in the last 15 years that anyone has seriously thought differently. A child is a tangible expression of our sexed twoness.
It is crucial to notice that the proposed revision of marriage laws involves exactly that: a revision of marriage.
In order to offer the status of marriage to couples of the same sex, the very meaning of marriage has to be changed.
He has said: It's time for our laws to reflect the values of modern Australia and to include everyone as equals ... And these same terms make opposing a redefinition of marriage sound primitive and even barbaric.
There are those in favour of change, we are told, and then there are the bigots.
But simply saying "it's time" doesn't make an argument.
Neither does the need to keep up with the O'Haras, the Smiths, and the Pedersens.
Could it be that if you haven't heard the case opposing a change to the marriage law, it is because the language of those advocating it has been so emotive that the contrary case can't be heard above the noise?