opinions on equality: It’s not a case of being shitty about ‘those who feel differently from you’, as if we are hypocritically pitchforking views we disagree with.

It is that even before someone has ticked ‘yes’ or ‘no’, there is an implication that we are meant to accept the premise that people should have a say on other people’s natural rights to legal recognition.

But if society has accepted that same-sex relationships are legal and normal (and we have - as a society), then the idea of a vote - to those of us with a real commitment to equality and human rights - is utterly preposterous. The only logically defensible outcome is for society to give equal legal recognition to those relationships.

I have no qualms with people expressing views, no matter how distasteful or ignorant, but I absolutely reserve the right to call out those views for what they are (but of course without the vitriol and shaming that a small group will always engage in on either side of any debate).

So we call out the views of those lobbying for ‘no’ just as we would if there was a postal vote in front of us as to whether women or minorities should, for instance, have the right to vote.

You can bet a minority of people would want to vote ‘no’ on those kinds of imagined postal votes too, and the situation would be no less absurd: one group of people thinking it’s entirely reasonable to vote on limiting the rights of another group, so as to create ‘favoured’ and ‘marginalised’ groups.

So the vote is really a proxy vote on what society we want: one with true equality (‘yes’) or one where some are ‘more equal than others’ (‘no’).