(Acknowledgments removed)
The rule of law is intrinsic to our democracy.
The law both empowers and it constrains: it empowers us to make the most of what it means to be a human being living in a society where the rule of law is enshrined in legislation; and it constrains the arbitrary limitation of individuals rights.
As citizens, we appreciate that the rule of law expresses an implicit bargain between the individual and the government.
As Professor Geoffrey Walker put it, the rule of law can be summed up in two points: the people, and the government, should be ruled by the law and obey it; and the law should be such that the people are willing and able to be guided by it.
Values, therefore, are enshrined in law, albeit at times imperfectly. And if values are enshrined in law, values must inform all dimensions of public policy.
Yet what a long road our community still has to travel to reach a point where its members enjoy the same rights as those who identify as other Australians.
But we really need to work hard to ensure that the journey forward is not as hard as the road we have already travelled.
The $122 million non-compulsory postal survey on marriage equality is a case in point. No one really wanted it except, of course, the very people who were obsessed with denying same sex couples and the LGBTIQ community generally the rights they have.
The survey has just about run its course. In it we have seen the best and worst of our country.
Our fears of the kind of hate and misinformation a public vote on equality would lead to have been shown to be well placed.
Our community has been forced to endure public pronouncements about why our relationships and families are lesser - and assaults of and self-harm by LGBTIQ Australians are reported to have spiked during this campaign.
So too have we seen an outpouring of support for our community such as Neil, who is taking a home-made Yes sign around the shearing sheds on the Liverpool plains because he says that gay people have suffered for too long.
Then there is that wonderful video of 104-year-old Alex telling us he voted YES because after being happily married for 45 years, he believes his grandson Paul should have the same right and privilege.
And Ben, who is voting Yes for his mums, reminds us that children in LGBTIQ families are here and they are loved.
So, we await the result, but all of us are hopeful that the wisdom, compassion and good sense weve seen in stories like these will prevail, and that the community recognises that it is well and truly time for marriage equality.
Love is something to be celebrated and fostered, not feared. By and large, the Australian community consists of decent people who understand that truth and who are appalled by those who try to impose their views on others.
What this suggests to me is that the Australian community at large just want the whole affair to be over.
And should we win, the overwhelming demand from the community will be for legislation without delay.
As a sign that it is not over, we already have the same group of nay-sayers manoeuvring to stall legislation to deliver marriage equality by advancing spurious claims of freedom of religion to discriminate further against the gay community.
The role of religion in this so-called debate has been curious.
Some groups claiming to speak on behalf of all churches have tried to constrain the civil rights of same sex couples. Yet they demand civil law protection for their ability to continue to advocate against same sex marriage.
These groups not only demand the right to discriminate against same sex couples in their churches but to roll back decades of anti-discrimination law to allow commercial services provided on the open market to be withheld from some Australians based on their gender or sexual identity.
So, this fight wont be over when the votes are counted.
The votes on the floor of the parliament will still be needed, and thats why as lawyers, it is critically important that you all maintain your enthusiasm, your energy and your endurance in pressing on with the fight against discrimination.
All Australians enjoy the benefits of living in a secular society, where the rule of law underpins our legal and political system, and where the basic freedoms, including the freedom to believe or not believe, are protected.
I, and many others, who support equality accept that there are those whose personal beliefs do not permit them to extend the marriage sacrament to same-sex couples. What we do not accept is that view being imposed on all, regardless of belief.
And I, and many fair-minded Australians, find it hard to understand why defending discrimination in marriage appears, for some religious organisations, to have become a higher priority than alleviating poverty, addressing homelessness, or the wellbeing of all children.
The decision by the Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney to spend $1 million on the No campaign rather than on the services provided by Anglicare remains mystifying to many.
I agree with Anglicare South Australias Peter Sandeman who says where there is money to be spent the focus should be on ensuring those who are most vulnerable have the care, support and voice they need to build a better life. We follow the example of Jesus; Matthew chapter 25 verses 31 to 46.
As I pointed out to the NSW Association of Labor Lawyers in May this year, rights in a secular society give expression to the fundamental values of freedom, equality, compassion, care, kindness and respect that are central to our common humanity.
That is why it is so important that we reframe and refurbish the idea of the secular society as one that is not anti-religious, any more than it is anti-government or anti-political.
A secular society accommodates everyone, and discriminates against no one.
A secular society is one that is characterised by the fact that religion is not established, and that religious beliefs do not provide the foundation of our law.
Rather it is one that is characterised by the personal freedom of its members to hold religion in whatever regard they wish.
A secular society is the creation of its own freedom, which is itself a consequence of the basic equality of human beings.
I dont know how many of you might have watched Q&A last week.
But the Jesuit lawyer and ethicist Father Frank Brennan put it well when he pointed out that the churchs view of a sacramental marriage was quite separate from the question of marriage under the civil law.
And he went on to say that, as a Christian living in a pluralist democratic society, he thought the world a better place when the law accords respect to all relationships and not just to some.
In February last year, I published an essay in The Monthly on marriage equality.
I called my essay Its Time, not just to channel Gough Whitlams campaign slogan in 1972, but to advocate the right of same sex couples to enjoy the same right to marry as heterosexual couples have.
We have just seen the No campaign run itself into the sands of bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. It sure is time that all this nonsense ended, and that marriage equality appeared on our statute books.