Why is the government debating whether to fund hate speech?

Here's a question that, on the face of it, seems refreshingly simple to answer: should public money be used to promote hate speech?

And at first glance the answer would appear to be "no, obviously". But when you think about it a little bit more deeply, the answer becomes: "Seriously? Still no, for all sorts of legal and moral reasons. Why are you even asking this? Do you need a hug and some quiet time?"

However, it's the question which the Coalition party room is going to be inexplicably struggling with this week as it decides whether or not the $160 million plebiscite on whether or not to legalise same sex marriage should be even more expensive by using even more public money to fund publicity campaigns for the Yes and the No cases.

The problem that the No case, and by extension the federal government, have with funding such a campaign is that it would encourage activity which is arguably illegal.

In 2013 the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 was passed, meaning that it is illegal to discriminate "on the basis of sex, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding, family responsibilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status." 

This little problem, incidentally, is why there was a push to suspend our anti-discrimination laws for the duration of the plebiscite - an option which was immediately ruled out by Attorney-General George Brandis in February, who pointed out that "There are very obvious practical problems with that, among them... that most anti-discrimination laws in this country are laws of the states, not the Commonwealth." 

The fact that a No campaign would appear to be arguing for something which is prima facie illegal is just one more problem for those seeking to prevent same sex marriage being recognised in Australia, along with the enduring problem that there's no sane reason to deny Australian citizens equal rights because of their sexuality, and the fact that those most strongly advocating the No case are not exactly the most charming, persuasive and charismatic people the country has to offer.

Speaking of which, dumped minister Kevin Andrews was predictably one of the first to start complaining that Malcolm Turnbull had supposedly promised sweet, sweet cash to advocates of the No camp, including the Australian Christian Lobby - which the PM denies, since he'd have been insane to do so.

Andrews, however, reckons otherwise. "The Prime Minister's statements were clear that there would be a quantum of public funding for a yes and no campaign similar to a referendum," he said, with trademark elan. And then the usual chorus of conservative sabre-rattlers joined in. 

South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi is worried that the poor, struggling anti-gay institutions will be overwhelmed by "money-wealthy individuals overseas" for some reason, while Senate-leader-turned-backbencher Eric Abetz was in typically florid form, insisting that "with a change as fundamental as changing society's basic foundational institution, there is an imperative that the arguments be able to be put. That requires funding."

And sure, many have accurately pointed out that the last time the Marriage Act was changed - in 2004, to explicitly exclude same sex couples - it didn't require a massive public vote or any imperative that the arguments for and against were able to be put to the electorate, but was passed by a parliamentary vote like all other legislation.

But let's take Abetz and his fun-lovin' bunch of pals at their word and think back to a time where there was a change to society's supposed basic foundational institution. Like, for example, the passage of the Family Law Act in 1975, which enshrined no-fault divorce.

Was there a public campaign to determine whether or not ending a marriage - the very thing which Ezza claims is the basicest, foundationalest institution for society - needed to endure a mighty campaign of arguments in favour of and in opposition? Here's a clue: no, there wasn't.

And legalising divorce is a pretty decent comparison, since all it did was take a situation that already existed - married people breaking up - and made the process less complicated, less damaging, less stigmatised, and far more equitable. 

Similarly, marriage equality just recognises reality. Gay couples already exist. Gay families already exist. Legalising marriage just makes everything more straightforward. It's also a step forward for human joy, which is a pretty great reason in itself.

And, like same sex marriage, there are people who vehemently hate divorce and think that those that seek it deserve to be punished - and we, as a society, are perfectly happy to ignore those cranks because they're just being provocatively ridiculous. We really should be able to do the same with opponents of marriage equality, yet here we are.

To be fair, though, this was the entire point of the plebiscite when then-PM Tony Abbott announced it was the government's new policy: to be difficult, unpopular and divisive and to cynically transform what should really have been a simple process into a symbolic conservative battle for the supposed soul of the nation. 

And by that standard, everything's going exactly to plan.