From eradicating the sin to imminent human extinction – these are just some of the conversations I’ve had with my parents these past few weeks.

The University of Tasmania (UTas) has repeatedly claimed to hold a position of neutrality in the Marriage Equality debate by way of advocating for ‘freedom of expression.’ But its actions in the past two months have undermined its claims to neutrality in this debate. It has undermined the value of freedom of expression for all, it has implicitly endorsed the ‘no’ campaign, and it has ignored the marginalised position of people and students in the LGBTIQ community.

‘Don’t’ and ‘Panic’. Those two words should feature heavily in any response to the softening opinion polls about equal marriage. Newspoll puts the percentage of voters supporting same-sex marriage at 57%, down from 63% in August and 62% in September 2016. That might be a fall but the margin for ‘yes’ remains huge, particularly given how many people have already voted.

The argument that is made with the most passion is the one that says that the rights of minorities should not be the subject of a popular vote. This seems reasonable, but it rather misunderstands the nature of rights in a society like Australia. Here, rights are not to be found in the Constitution. They are not inherent in the human being; nor are they bestowed by the gods. Rather, rights are accumulated over time. At particular moment in history some section of the population will decide that, for example, women should have the right to vote, or own property.

As we brace ourselves for the endurance test of what is set to be another shocking chapter for the LGBTQI community, we need people of influence to stand with us in solidarity, unflinchingly. We need the support, love and bravery of allies, not through tokenistic messages and throwaway hash tags (#lovers), but through heartfelt compassionate declarations and grandiose gestures.

While the right’s response to the postal survey has been somewhat predictable, what has also been hard to watch is the response of some in the ‘yes’ campaign. Despite the unfolding homophobia and transphobia around the postal survey, it is clear that groups like Australian Marriage Equality and GetUp have decided to steer away from these topics. These groups have rolled out doctors and heterosexual families to provide reassurance that marriage equality does not involve a gay agenda of radical ‘gender theory’.

By liberating marriage from the oppressive character of its tradition, marriage equality allows for a less rigid understanding of roles within heterosexual marriage as well.

I confess via text to a friend that I am going to the rally. I tell her it’s mostly for ethnographic purposes. She could not bring herself to attend. I understand. Equal love has suppressed the counter-cultural spirit of sexual liberation in its quest for inclusion. I quote Marx to her: ‘men (ha ha) make their own history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing.’ The campaign leading to the postal survey is the circumstance. We are yet to see what kind of history we can make of this.

How can it be that a person of sixteen or seventeen – old enough to determine their own sexual identity, to marry (at times), to decide on a career, even to serve in the military or possibly be tried as an adult in criminal court – can find themselves without a voice in a national debate?

We need to remember the history of marriage even in the midst of making the argument for equal access. Otherwise we risk becoming inadvertently ahistorical and conservative, both in argument and politically. Looking to the history of marriage and to the history of queer liberation also helps to remind us that there are many ways to conceive of what constitutes a relationship, and many ways to express love outside of marriage, even outside of ‘relationship status’. And critically, this history helps us to imagine the vast possibilities for difference in the present and in the future.

So far the conservatives have out-manoeuvred the marriage equality movement. Defeating them in the so-called plebiscite will finally end years of shadow boxing over what should be a simple decision, namely to amend the Marriage Act to remove the requirement that marriage be solely between a man and a woman.

For me, marriage equality has always been more of a political than personal issue. This, despite the fact I have several close friends in non-heterosexual relationships. But perhaps this was the root of the problem: I’d approached the inequality intellectually and whenever I needed to personalise it, I always did so by way of my discriminated-against friends. I was that self-righteous heterosexual: I care because I have gay friends.

‘Wait – why are we giving $7.5 million to bigots when they spew hate for free?’ On recent ‘balanced debate’ around the plebiscite and equal marriage.

But now this long campaign for equality has taken what I think is a self-defeating turn by making its main focus stopping the proposed plebiscite. And with Bill Shorten’s apparent decision to oppose a popular vote no matter what, that approach may kill not only the plebiscite, but with it any chance of marriage equality being legislated in this term of parliament.