[ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OMITTED] Civil celebrants mark major milestones in the lives of many Australians. Youre there when we celebrate the naming of our children. Youre there to recognise the love between two people joining in marriage. And youre there when we mourn the passing of our loved ones. While we no longer think twice about the role of civil celebrants in these events, empowering a secular celebrant to oversee these ceremonies was once seen as radical. Notwithstanding the fact our Constitution entrenches the separation of church and state, the ability to conduct a legal marriage was largely restricted to men of religion until the 1970s. A couple of weeks ago I delivered the 28th Annual Lionel Murphy Memorial Lecture in Canberra. Murphy was the sixth son of an Irish-born publican from Paddington, who rose to become Labors Leader in the Senate, Australias Attorney-General and a justice of the High Court of Australia. He was a tenacious advocate for equality, justice, progress and the rights of the disadvantaged and dispossessed. He championed those causes as a lawyer, as a politician, as a Parliamentarian, and as a judge, often at considerable personal cost. He was not intimidated by vested interests, entrenched attitudes or conventional wisdom and he did not shy away from controversy. It was Lionel Murphy who championed the role of civil celebrants in our legal ceremonies. Murphy was asked by a friend to act as a witness at a civil marriage ceremony in the Sydney Registry Office. In those days, the only option for couples wanting a non-religious marriage was to attend a State Registry Office. There, couples were forced to wait on wooden benches, before being herded through like cattle, to be married, and quickly moved on to make way for the next couple. After witnessing the treatment of his friends at that ceremony, Murphy acted to extend the dignity afforded to religious weddings to their secular counterparts. The Marriage Act provided for the Attorney-General to appoint marriage celebrants. For Murphy, this power was an opportunity to provide couples who wanted a civil ceremony a way to avoid the degrading environment of state registry offices.[1] Murphy floated his plan with his staff, public servants, and his colleagues and met great opposition. Their view was that the Government, which already had its controversies, could not afford to take on another fight, particularly one against the clergy. But Murphy, as I said, was tenacious in his pursuits. And so, alone in his office on the night of 19 July 1973, Murphy personally typed the first appointment making Lois DArcy Australias first civil celebrant.[2] He found a stamp, and posted the appointment on his way home from the office. Murphy acted because he recognised that all couples wanting to marry were entitled to a dignified ceremony. And Murphys act reflected changing community demographics and values. There was an increasing non-Christian population in Australia, a greater number of divorced men and women looking to re-marry, and a rising number of people seeking non-religious marriages. The number of couples preferring civil marriages to religious marriages has grown exponentially since the 1970s. In 1999, the number of civil marriages surpassed religious marriages for the first time. By 2009, two thirds of marriages were performed by civil celebrants. The change demonstrates a shift in the way that Australians view marriage and is another example of the evolution marriage is undergoing. But, there is one evolution to the institution of marriage that our national parliament has blocked. Gay and lesbian Australians cannot marry the man or woman they love. Marriage equality remains the one serious roadblock to legal equality. Australia once led the world on social reform. Today on marriage equality we are laggards. Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, England, Scotland, the United States and Ireland, among others, recognise marriage between same-sex partners. The immutability of marriage is a favourite argument of advocates for discrimination. But as we know, while marriage has been around a long time, it is constantly evolving. Property, inheritance, social position and family alliances used to be dominant considerations in the selection of marriage partners. Not so today. Marriage laws have also changed over time. Different classes of people have been excluded from the institution of marriage based on their social or legal status. Slaves. Prisoners. Women and men of different races. In Australia, many Aboriginal people were not allowed to marry without permission from the state, a policy which persisted into the 1950s in some States and Territories.[3] Today, gay and lesbian Australians are excluded from the institution. Marriage is an enduring institution, but it has never been frozen in time. Earlier generations sought greater equality, and with each change came warnings that the institution would be irreparably damaged and the fabric of society would unravel. The dire warnings were unfounded. Marriage has endured because it has evolved, adapted and embraced change. Opposition to marriage equality is often expressed using the language of religion. I respect people of faith, but I dont support the proposition that the state should be used to impose the theology embraced by some on the whole populace. In any event, the argument that all people of faith dont or cant support marriage equality doesnt reflect my experience. Speaking personally, I dont think the God I know would be affronted by my sexuality, or my relationship, or my family. On marriage equality, most Australians no longer ask: Why? They ask: Why not? Most people recognise what our marriage laws dont 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. The sick kids my partner and I looked after this last week were no different from the kids of opposite sex partners. The joy we feel as our children discover the world around them is no different from the joy felt by opposite sex partners. Our relationship isnt different from the relationships of opposite sex partners. But our legal status is not the same. We cant get married in Australia no matter how much we love each other. No matter how committed we are to one another. Thankfully, most Australians recognise that the indignities visited on same sex couples by bad laws should be addressed. In Australia, we can achieve marriage equality by rewriting a few dozen words in the Marriage Act. We dont need a referendum, a plebiscite or a contest in our highest court what we need is political leadership. Around two-thirds of Australians support marriage equality.[4] Many opposite sex couples express their support for marriage equality at their own weddings, notwithstanding the required reading of the discriminatory section of the Marriage Act. Not only is support for marriage equality not an act of political courage its not even an act of partisanship. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and a majority of elected representatives in the national parliament support marriage equality. Parliament can and should amend the Marriage Act to remove discrimination against same sex couples who want to devote their lives to each other. It should not be forgotten that the proposed national non-binding plebiscite was not proposed by supporters of marriage equality it was proposed by its opponents. Australia did not hold a plebiscites on the abolition of the death penalty, ending the White Australia policy or creating the statutory native title regime. The Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act were enacted without a plebiscite. State and Federal Parliaments have legislated on abortion, voluntary euthanasia and stem cell research without conducting plebiscites. In his defence of a plebiscite Mr. Turnbull has repudiated the position he has previously put to the party room and the public. He tells us that a plebiscite campaign will be conducted respectfully. But weve just experienced the longest election campaign in living memory. During that campaign, gay and lesbian Australians were exposed to some of the tactics that those who oppose equality will employ in a plebiscite campaign. A Liberal campaigner in Chisholm has been credited as masterminding an anti-Labor smear campaign focused on the anti-bulling Safe Schools Coalition and marriage equality. A flyer circulated in Sydneys Eastwood warned voters that homosexuality is a death curse to families. The flyer also warned that a Labor victory would see the removal of female and male toilets giving criminals and rapists free access to cubicles. And flyers authorised by a past candidate for Liberal preselection and circulated in marginal seats warned that a vote for Labor was a vote for radical gay sex education. These examples confirm what I know a plebiscite designed to deny me and many other Australians a marriage certificate will instead license hate speech for those who need little encouragement. For gay and lesbian Australians hate speech is not abstract. Its real. Its part of our daily life. Opponents of marriage equality already use words that hurt. And words arent the only weapons wielded by some of those who harbour animosity towards gay and lesbian people. Assaults and worse are not unknown in Australia, even today. Many gay and lesbian people dont hold hands on the street because they dont know what reaction theyll get. Some hide who they are for fear of the consequences at home, at work and at school. Despite an often-made claim, I dont oppose a plebiscite because I doubt the good sense of the Australian people. Rather I doubt the integrity of the opposing campaign. I doubt the principles of those who have already demonstrated a willingness to stoop to hate speech, misinformation and falsehoods in their desire to avert equality. I oppose a plebiscite because I dont want my relationship my family to be the target of discussion, disrespect and derision. I dont want other relationships, and 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 remove discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians in the Marriage Act. To do what Lionel Murphy did reflect community wishes and act in the national interest. The theme of this conference is Youre the voice, the voice of celebrancy. You are part of an organisation committed to Marriage Equality. One that keenly awaits...the end of discrimination for couples not currently legally afforded the right to be married. Like your organisation, I too keenly await the end of marriage discrimination. Im tired of waiting. Australians are tired of waiting. Today I renew my call for the Parliament to act. No more delays. No more distractions. No more obstacles. Australians want marriage equality. Lets make it happen.