We know a moral viewpoint has hardened and slipped its moorings when it will brook no public dissent. The pro-same sex marriage viewpoint has reached that stage. Those who do not believe in same-sex marriage are to be treated by society as the moral equivalent of racists and under certain circumstances to be prosecuted by the law.

We see this happening right now in Indiana. Indiana has introduced a moderate religious freedom protection law that may or may not protect a business such as a florist that does not want to facilitate a same-sex wedding on conscience grounds.

The state has been targeted by same-sex marriage proponents as though it is being run by ISIS. A Christian-run pizzeria has been forced to close because of death threats it received after it said that it could not in conscience provide the catering for a same-sex wedding reception.

An opinion piece in The Irish Times yesterday by Jennifer O’Connell declared that there is no right to be “intolerant” and therefore no conscience clause for those who do not believe in same-sex marriage can be countenanced. (The Church of Ireland, not exactly known for its militancy, has previously sought a conscience clause by the way).

Nonetheless, O’Connell correctly stated the basic positions of both sides in the marriage debate. Those who believe in same-sex marriage say marriage is all about love. Those of us who believe marriage should stay as it is also believe marriage has do with gender and cannot be made gender-neutral.

The trouble is that O’Connell simply does not allow that this later position can be rational. That is the only way she can possibly assert that to hold this position is “intolerance” pure and simple.

Once a position is declared to be “intolerant”, then it must be crushed. That’s all there is to it.

This is the ‘liberal’ variation on the Catholic Church’s old belief that “error has no rights”. Even if that’s true, of course, those in error DO have rights.

Proponents of same-sex marriage don’t seem to believe this, however. Those who don’t believe in same-sex marriage forfeit their rights under certain circumstances because they are “intolerant”.

What would be more truly liberal would, of course, be to allow for the possibility that believing marriage can only be between a man and a woman is rational and not simply a form of prejudice and make proper allowance for this in law, including for those who do not wish to facilitate a form of marriage they don’t believe in.

However, if this referendum passes, no such allowance is to be made. This will bear down especially hard on Christians and other religious believers who will not give up on what they believe marriage to be.

We can’t say we haven’t been warned. The new face of ‘tolerance’ is currently on display in the reaction to Indiana’s law and that face is not at all pretty.

P.S. O’Connell said that Ireland will be the first country in the world to hold a vote on same-sex marriage. That is not true. Slovenia, Croatia and Slovakia have also had votes, and so have many American states. However, if we pass it we will be the first to do so by popular vote.