 When I was first elected to the Parliament it wasn't legal to discriminate on the basis of race or gender in Australia. The Racial Discrimination Act, based on legislation first introduced to the Parliament by Lionel Murphy, had been enacted before my childhood migration from Malaysia. Discrimination on the basis of gender had been rendered unlawful by the Sex Discrimination Act passed while I was still at school. It was, however, legal to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. And it remains so today. Gay and lesbian Australians cannot marry the man or woman they love. Now the path to equal treatment for gay and lesbian Australians has been long and it has been arduous, and each step has been important. The more than two decade fight to decriminalise male homosexuality in state and territory laws. And earlier this year I wrote in the monthly that it isn't just LGBTI Australians who can't understand why our marriage laws entrench discrimination. On marriage equality most Australians don't ask why, they ask why not. Most people recognise what our marriage laws don't. The gay and lesbian Australians are just like everybody else. Our relationships are like other relationships. Our desire to make a commitment to our life partner is no different either. The parenting challenges we face are like other parenting challenges. Gay and lesbian Australians make good and not so good partners like everybody else. Many of our relationships endure and some don't. Many of our marriages will endure, some won't. Our relationships aren't so different. So why should they be treated differently? Most Australians recognise that the indignities visited on people by bad laws should be addressed. Some four decades ago Lionel Murphy moved to change laws relating to the dissolution of marriage because he recognised that the law did not accord with current social standards and presented indignities to the parties. Those same considerations of which Murphy spoke apply to the definition of marriage today. The Discrimination at the Heart of the Marriage Act does not accord with community standards and it visits indignity on every same-sex couple that wishes to marry. What we don't have today is an Attorney-General prepared to make the case for change and to act. Instead we have an Attorney-General and a Prime Minister who are cowed by conservative elements inside their party room. Not prepared to take a stand for equality, just clinging to the fig leaf of the plebiscite. One picked from the fig tree and presented to the party room by Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton and Cory Bernardi. Last year the United States Supreme Court held. The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person and under the due process and equal protection causes of the 14th Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Well Australians don't have a Bill of Rights but we should insist on the recognition of our inherent rights. Not gay and lesbian rights but human rights. The United States Supreme Court also held that the enduring bond of marriage enables two people to find other freedoms such as expression, intimacy and spirituality. It isn't just couples in same-sex relationships that would benefit from law reform and research by my parliamentary colleague Andrew Lee, a former professor of economics at this university who has shown that family structure, stable relationships and parenting styles are important ingredients in redressing social disadvantage. Passage of the marriage equality laws would also send a profoundly important message, a normative message throughout the Australian community and particularly to LGBTI Australians that we are accepting. None of the arguments against marriage equality can compete with those in its favour. The immutability of marriage is a favourite argument of advocates for discrimination. Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi put it succinctly when he said, marriage simply is. It was in the National Press Club debate and I have to say I wasn't quite sure where to start in my response. Well we know property inheritance, social position and family alliances used to be dominant considerations in the selection of marriage partners, not so today. The fact is marriage has been around for a long time but it is not immutable. And as the Reverend Dr Margaret Mayman said, all over the Western world the movement to transform marriage is underway. However it is not going lesbian people who have been transforming marriage, it is heterosexuals. It is precisely because heterosexuals have changed marriage from an economic arrangement to a relationship of love and support that gay and lesbian people are seeking to join it. So what I would say to you is this, that marriage is an enduring institution but it has never been frozen in time. Earlier generations sought greater equality and with each change including Lionel Murphy's introduction of no fault divorce in Australia came warnings that the institution would be irreparably damaged and the fabric of society would unravel. Well, self-evidently these dire warnings were unfounded. Marriage has endured because it has evolved, adapted and embraced change. John Locke made out the argument for the separation of church and state in the 17th century and Australia of course has never had an official state religion. Our constitution at section 116 provides that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion or impose any religious observance. Professor Carol Johnson of the University of Adelaide observed that separation was actually seen as an important guarantee of religious freedom. Religious freedom means being free to worship and to follow your faith without suffering persecution or discrimination for your beliefs. It does not mean imposing your beliefs on everyone else. The separation of church and state cuts both ways. Changes to the Marriage Act should not compel people of faith and religious institutions that do not recognise the validity of same-sex relationships to change their practices. As a legislator I recognise the rights of the clergy. I ask the clergy to recognise mine, as a legislator, as a member of a couple and as a parent of two children. In Australia we can achieve marriage equality by rewriting a few dozen words in the Marriage Act. We don't need a referendum. We don't need a plebiscite. We don't need a contest in our highest court. What we need is political leadership. The sword of political leadership, Lionel Murphy, was prepared to show on law reform when it mattered. In fact, support for marriage equality is no longer an act of political courage. Polls show around two-thirds of Australians support marriage equality and support for marriage equality is not an act of partisanship. Supporters from a range of political traditions support marriage equality. Social Democrats and Progressives who support government action to enhance equality and to protect the rights of minorities. Liberals. These are real Liberals. Who champion the primacy of the individual and freedom of choice. Conservatives who promote the role of the family and want to maintain the strength of institutions and libertarians who seek to maximise individual liberty and minimise state intrusion into people's personal lives. Parliamentarians representing each of these traditions in our national parliament support marriage equality. Yet our parliament has not been prepared to act. The proposed national non-binding plebiscite is just the latest in a series of obstacles erected by opponents of marriage equality. This country has not had plebiscites on other fundamental issues of justice and human rights, such as abolishing the death penalty, ending the white Australia policy or enacting the native title regime. The Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act were enacted without a plebiscite. State and federal parliaments have legislated on sensitive and difficult matters such as abortion, voluntary euthanasia and sem-cell research or without holding plebiscites. And in a clear statement the High Court has said, under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, where the same-sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal parliament. Let's be honest about this. Let's remember where this idea came from. Tony Abbott proposed a plebiscite because he had exhausted other avenues to stymie the demand for a free vote in the Liberal Party room. Look, Mr Abbott embraced a plebiscite proposal supported by Corey Bernardi, Scott Morrison and the Australian Christian Lobby organisation is no real surprise. But what has surprised me and many others is the decision of Mr Turnbull to support the proposal for a plebiscite. He obviously needed some votes from marriage equality opponents inside the party room. Because in supporting the plebiscite he has repudiated the position he previously put to his own party room and in the public domain. We are now told by Malcolm Turnbull and by others that a plebiscite campaign will be conducted respectfully. Well, these are the hollowest of hollow words. I know that a plebiscite designed to deny me and many other Australians a marriage certificate will incend license hate speech to those who need little encouragement. Mr Turnbull and many commentators on this subject don't understand that for gay and lesbian Australians hate speech is not abstract. It's real. It's part of our everyday life. My Twitter feed already foretells the inevitable nature of an anti-equality campaign and it does it in 140 characters or less. I would make the point here that one of the consistent themes is bad spelling and repetition. Well, as a public figure I'm pretty familiar with the slings and arrows of political debate but I'm not immune from the hate thrown my way. Nevertheless, I am resilient enough to withstand it but many are not. Many in our society are not. Opponents of marriage equality already use words that hurt and words are not the only weapons wielded by some of those who harbour animosity towards LGBTI Australians. Assaults and worse are not unknown in this country even today. Many same-sex couples don't hold hands in the street because they don't know what reaction they'll get. Some hide who they are for fear of the consequences at home, at work, at school. Not one straight politician advocating a plebiscite on marriage equality knows what that is like. What it is like to live with the casual and deliberate prejudice that sums till harbour. I do not oppose a plebiscite because I doubt the good sense of the Australian people. I oppose a plebiscite because I do not want my relationship, my family, to be the subject of enquiry, of censure, of condemnation by others. And I do not want other relationships, other families to be targeted either. I want the Australian Parliament to fulfil the function laid down in the Constitution, to legislate on the matter of marriage and to remove discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians in the Marriage Act.