The empowerment of ''people of the rainbow'' need not represent Armageddon for ''people of the book''.

I dreaded the vision of a rabbi, cardinal and mufti standing shoulder to shoulder to block the prospective passage of same-sex marriage laws by our federal parliament.

I dreaded even more the abandonment of the Catholic voice left to fly the monotheistic flag alone.

Theologically, Jews, Christians and Muslims share a homogenous heterosexual definition of marriage, based on their sacred scriptures and their human interpretations.

In much of the heated online chats about this issue, I sensed a vindictive tone against Christians, blamed for centuries of homophobia, blamed for condemning fellow humans to a loveless life and lonely death, blamed for blaming fellow humans for their sexual orientation, blamed for playing judgmental god but neglecting godly compassion. The temperature is so high that Christians are better off praying rather than saying, otherwise they will be spat out like popcorn in boiling oil.

For those making most noise about this issue, it is a no-brainer. It has been successfully rebranded as a question of voting yes for equality and no to discrimination. It has been couched in a string of historic human rights struggles for minorities, be they black, indigenous or disabled. There are no logical counter-arguments, and anyone who dares will risk being rendered an endangered minority. 

The debate is not about what the religious institutions can and cannot do. Their status and sanctity of marriage remains sacred and untouched. They can ''value add'' to the marriage certificate that is issued by the state.

In churches, synagogues and mosques, marriage is far more than a civil union. It is a holy sacrament, with a divine blessing. It is not just a vow between two but three entities, including God. Anyone who has ever attended religious wedding ceremonies will be aware that it is steeped in rich layers of tradition, rituals, symbols, liturgy and songs. These sacred aspects may explain why ''people of the book'' are precious about the word marriage, and prefer that it be reserved and patented exclusively for religious ceremonies.

The religious value-adds do not render their marriages more fail-proof. Pre-marriage classes are increasingly compulsory to test the lifelong commitment ''until death do us part'' before it is made.

Standing in the path of these laws on religious grounds is neither courageous nor moral. It is foolish. For a start, most of those supporting law reform are heterosexual. For those who have dared to juxtapose the law of God against the proposed law of the land, their weak arguments and ''thou shalt not'' quotations have reinforced the black-and-white backwardness of ''people of the book'', rather than the universal and embracing love that emanates from the creator.

For example, Jesus literally embraced many marginalised minorities in his short life, such as prostitutes, tax collectors, Roman soldiers and lepers. How can we be so sure that he would not have embraced others of pure heart? When challenged by Pharisees about the law of Moses and ''it is written'', Jesus often redefined priorities and proclaimed new laws, such as love prevailing over the 10 commandments. How can we be so sure that he would have drawn the line in the sand about marriage?