The world is a confusing place: Ireland has voted in favour of marriage equality by popular vote, the US Supreme Court held that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and now radical hippies like Warren Entsch plan to co-sponsor a bill calling for change to the Marriage Act.

Amid all this insanity, Senator Abetz wrote an opinion piece for Fairfax and was interviewed on ABC radio and Sky News about how the media has an agenda to silence critical voices on this issue.

(FYI newspapers, radio stations and TV networks are generally considered to be part of the media.)

He decries the fourth estate's focus on the Supreme Court decision (an important, newsworthy event with global implications that marked the end of a decades-long struggle) and its failure to report the marriage equality movement's setbacks in places like Austria and Italy.

It seems Senator Abetz has been in politics for more than 20 years but still doesn't seem to have a nose for a good story. What sort of headlines is he keen to see?

"Roman Catholics Not Crazy About Change"?

That'd be as much a non-story as something like "Eric Abetz Wears Half-Glasses On The End Of His Nose, Reminiscent of Albus Dumbledore If He Worked At The ATO".

But a tiny island in the Pacific with a population of just 48 (most of them Seventh-day Adventist) passing gay marriage legislation? That's a story.

The deeply conservative southern state of Alabama having marriage equality before us? That's a story.

"Eric Abetz Smiles Convincingly"? That would be a story.

The Senator's confusion doesn't end here. He thinks same-sex marriage is a fundamentally negative transformation of society that will "open Pandora's Box" and DAMAGE CHILDREN … but it's not really a high priority.

He believes there to be hypocrisy afoot: we're supposed to be living in "the Asian Century", he says, but "how many Asian countries have redefined marriage?"

I assume that after making this point, the senator hung up the phone and got back to work, furiously drafting new laws to reintroduce the death penalty and mandate the use of bidets in all public toilets.

Citing the US developments, Abetz argues decisions that could "drastically transform society" should be determined "by the people, not by…an activist judiciary".

But he doesn't seem too fussed by the fact that some 72 per cent of The People in his own country seem to be bloody well bang up for some homo-matrimony.

So the people should decide – except when they're wrong.

When you have 53 per cent of Australian Christians in favour of change and even 76 per cent  of Coalition supporters calling for the Prime Minister to allow a conscience vote on the issue, one might be tempted to throw in the towel, but According to Eric (title for a new sitcom?), the marriage debate here "isn't over".

In an effort to further said debate, he wheels out weak arguments we've heard a million times before:

• Marriage has "always existed just for one man and one woman"!

…except for, you know, when it was polygamous. Also it has changed a tad over the years: there's far fewer child brides these days, interracial couples can get married and it's fair to say we've come a long way on divorce. 

• In places like Canada, "people's rights are completely restricted…if you are opposed to gay marriage, then all of a sudden you are brought before the courts"!

Firstly, 67 per cent of Australian marriages conducted in 2009 were civil ones, so now you're in the minority. But that doesn't mean you don't have rights (see how it works?). Churches will still be totally free to carry on conducting religious marriage ceremonies as they see fit and all the current anti-discrimination legislation pertaining to same-sex de facto couples will apply to married ones.

If you run a business that unnecessarily discriminates against people because of their marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity because your faith tells you so, then yes, you may well have to go to court because you may very well have broken the law.

I can guarantee you will be found to be an arsehole in the Court of Me (the highest court in the land).

• Think of the children! "Study after study, time and time again, shows that children benefit from having a father and mother."

It'd be tremendous if Eric could actually point us to some of these studies, because all I could find was organisations like the Australian Psychological Society, the American Psychological Association and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy all saying that there is no evidence that same-sex couples aren't capable of raising happy and healthy children.

Oops! Also I just tripped and accidentally found this story about how some research suggests that children of queer parents could even be better off!

• The Coalition is here to protect the institution of marriage, "just as we did at the last election"!

Guess what, bro? You can change your mind. Your government seemed very happy to do so when it came to cuts to public broadcasters and the healthcare system.

You see, in 21st century secular Australia, rich, white, straight men don't get to call all of the shots all of the time, and this can make them very confused.

Senator Abetz's media tour might have been designed to convince us that there's still a fight here to be had, but his desperate grasping of the last few straws suggests otherwise.

Tom Ballard is a comedian and host of weekly podcast Like I'm A Six-Year-Old.