The reptiles do saucy doubts and fears the way others do I do ...

The pond has long been an admirer of the reptiles' skill at dissembling, as a way of raising saucy doubts and fears ...

Let us also admire the jingoism of its orange-flavoured editorials ...

It's what might be called the Tony Abbott gambit ...

(Shovel it here)

But back to the saucy doubts and fears strategy.

It always runs this way.

The reptiles have no problems with in principle support of ... climate science, doing something about it, gay marriage, income equality, you name it ...

The support is often cunningly framed in the negative. You know ... As a supporter of individual choice, The Australian does not oppose climate science/a fair go/same-sex marriage, or even yadda yadda.

It's such a mealy-mouthed, half-arsed line, that negative routine. It would stick in the reptiles' craw - do reptiles have craws for the sticking? - to say something positive, such as "As a supporter of gay rights, The Australian supports the equal rights of gays, and if they so desire, the right to get married and live in a relationship that's equal in every way to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law."

But that would leave no room for the fine print, and there's plenty of fine print allowed when it's "does not oppose."

That's why the reptiles offer up that libertarian line "as a supporter of individual choice", which equally might support the right for the nation to roam around fully armed, or indulge in any kind of drug, or drive on the right side of the road, or any of the other routines favoured by David Leyonhjelm.

And along with choice, and not opposing, and the right of all to be bigots comes what might be called the gay wedding cake syndrome ...

.... or in this case, the right of the clergy to ongoing bigotry and the damning of sinners to a lifetime in hell .... even if said sinners might well end up sharing eternity with all those who looked the other way while the child molestation factories made victims freely available ...

Well there's the prejudicial judgement; now it's time for the gobbet:

It is, in its own humble and small way, a perfect example of how to proceed, and in a way that has done much disservice to climate science and other pressing matters.

Allege that the Catholic booklet is moderate and respectful in tone. Because that makes bigotry acceptable. Pity the Christians for their eternal suffering and persecution. Worry about the freedom of religion and conscience to maintain a bigotry that has survived for well over a couple of thousand years ...

Don't worry how this might work with the anti-semitic streak that ran through the Catholic church for nigh on a couple of thousand years. Remember, everyone has the right to be bigoted and prejudiced.

Ask a lot of unnerving questions. Build a mountain out of a mole hill? Raise the spectre that bigotry might be disallowed. Ponder the pitfalls of church bodies losing tax breaks, because it seems, Caesar's cash must be given unto church in paw.

Note the questions have been overlooked. Ponder at how potential pitfalls have been shown. Challenge the legislators ... and so on and so forth ...

It is, in its own way, a splendid warm up for the sort of campaign that will be conducted during the plebiscite.

Malware has optimistically talked of the capacity of Australians for an intelligent conversation, and for a caring and compassionate vote.

He reckoned without the relentless hostility of the Catholic hierarchy, and the faithful reptiles of Oz ...

This sniping and dissembling and questioning - the uncertainty principle leading to a cauldron of bubbling fear and prejudice - will continue up to the day of the vote ...

And so to an old Pope salute to the libertarian ethos, and more Pope here ...