Visibility remains one of the greatest challenges in tackling the legacy of state-sanctioned discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

In the past 30 years we’ve made great strides in ensuring people are treated equally before the law and government simply because of who they are.

Led by John Gorton, the commonwealth parliament moved a motion to decriminalise homosexual acts in the mid-1970s.

Religious freedom could be seriously compromised if a referendum were held on whether same-sex couples were allowed to marry.

Following the events of the week numerous people have talked up a referendum, not a plebiscite, as the “public vote” on whether same-sex couples should be able to legally marry.

Referendums are for changing the Constitution, not testing public will.

A law can be designed to protect the rights of all and avoid a distracting and divisive debate on marriage for same-sex couples.

There are two fundamental human rights that could be affected by any change: equality before the law and religious freedom.

During the recent National Press Club debate senator Cory Bernardi argued “marriage is not a right”. He is partly correct.

Religious freedom isn’t sufficiently protected in any of the bills before the parliament to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Last week the leader of the government in the Senate, Eric Abetz, raised concern that those of faith might suffer legal consequences if they continue opposing marriage for same-sex couples following a change in the law.

There’s no need for that to be the case. The human right of religious freedom is equally important in this debate. There should be protections for it.