"In the Pakarunga electorate this morning, it was pouring with rain," he famously told his colleagues. "We have the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign."

Australians hoping our marriage equality bill might have been handled with a similar degree of style, panache and, dare we say it, a sense of history, must be disillusioned and disappointed by the antics of the Senate on Tuesday and Wednesday.

There was no unity and certainly no sense that if there was ever a time to rise above the usual name calling, back biting and petty politicking this was it.

Instead Senate watchers were treated to an even more distasteful episode of "business as usual" with endless amendments, counter amendments, divisions, points of orders and threats of expulsion.

Wednesday morning's discussion over whether or not Senator Derryn Hinch needed to remove his rainbow scarf and, if he did, would Senator Sarah Hanson-Young have to remove her rainbow dress, must mark a new low for the body once described by Paul Keating as "unrepresentative swill".

The strangest thing is that in the wake of the vote, that saw the bill passed by 43 votes to 12, most of the major protagonists came out with statements suggesting they, and everybody else, had conducted themselves with an appropriately Churchillian sense of gravitas.

"This is the Senate's day," Liberal Senator, Dean Smith, who had moved the bill said.

Attorney General, Senator George Brandis agreed: "(I am) so proud of Australian democracy today, more proud than I have ever been".

And Senator Penny Wong, Labor's leader in the upper house, said it was all about acceptance: "It (the Senate vote) says to so many Australians: this Parliament, this country, accept you for who you are. Your love is not lesser and nor are you. It says you are one of us."

That was a strange observation given the two days of debate clearly showed there were many in the Senate who do not accept gay people as equal and are so threatened by marriage equality they can't bring themselves to speak about it coherently.

When Australia looks back on this moment in years to come it will remember those Senators who lacked the moral courage to vote either yes or no.

The abstainers, for the record, were Michaelia Cash, David Fawcett, James McGrath, Zed Seselja, Bridget McKenzie, Deb O'Neill, Pauline Hanson and Peter Georgiou.

They have denied the voters in their home states and territories the representation they recently pledged to give. For those who also pledged to respect the will of their electorates on the specific issue of same sex marriage following the recent postal survey, it will be interesting to hear how they defend their actions when challenged by voters who could have been forgiven for expecting more.