A wave of protests for marriage equality swept the country over the last fortnight, highlighting the growing frustration and anger at Tony Abbott’s obdurate hostility to LGBTI rights.

Melbourne had the largest turnout in years, just days after the Coalition party room meeting at which the prime minister condemned the upcoming marriage equality bill to failure by manoeuvring to deny a conscience vote to Coalition MPs.

Abbott’s intransigence reflects the position of the powerful right wing of the Liberal Party. These are the kind of people who haven’t given up on the dream of stamping out the vice of dancing and who generally make Donald Trump seem like a beatnik radical.

So determined are they to maintain homophobic discrimination that they will employ any dirty trick and even risk opening up splits in their own party to achieve it.

One of these tricks involved a proposal for a plebiscite instead of a parliamentary vote on the issue. Given the growing support in the parliament for marriage equality, and the near consensus on the part of the public, Abbott and his supporters likely see a plebiscite as the only means to hold back the tide.

A plebiscite both delays a free vote and leaves open the possibility of preserving the status quo, however slight.

In recognition of this, the main demand at the rallies was for the bill to be put, and for every politician who supports it to vote in favour, even if this means crossing the floor. Marriage equality could be won on this basis, at least in theory.

In reality, the politicians would prioritise Abbott’s leadership and their own political careers over ending discrimination. Such is the logic of dirty parliamentary politics.

It is important that Abbott not be allowed to realise his goal of deferring the question. If the issue is to be resolved by plebiscite, it must be done immediately or at the next election.

The right might see a plebiscite (or the much harder to win referendum that bible-bashing Morrison has cunningly advocated) as a lifeline to stave off reform, but all the indications are that such a course of action would result in a popular vote in favour of equal rights.

Equality advocates should have no fear of a popular vote. In fact, reform won on this basis would be more meaningful and symbolic than a vote by a bunch of stuffy politicians who have been dragged kicking and screaming towards supporting equality.

Such a course of action would have the added advantage of causing disarray within the Abbott government, which has proved to be more divided over this issue than any other. Government ministers would find themselves advocating conflicting positions, which would enrage the right of the Liberal Party, add to the general sense of chaos within the government and elevate marriage equality to an issue of national significance.

This would be a good thing for equality activists and those interested in generating public discussion of the need to challenge homophobia.

The unfolding circus highlights clearly that the self-serving second rate chumps who claim to represent us, from both sides of politics, are there for the corporate lunches and plentiful helicopter rides more than to improve the lot of ordinary people.

We would be much better off if the tens of thousands who took to the streets around the country to demand basic civil rights without further delay had the chance to make decisions of national importance. And not just in relation to marriage, but the budget, health and education funding, climate change policy and the rest.