They weren’t extolling name-calling, rather the Australian belief we’re all equal in class and expression, kept alive through the Aussie pastime and human rights to protest and speak your mind, lest your freedom be stolen from you.

Whatever your view on the same-sex marriage laws, I think the process has shown free speech is in jeopardy and challenged that slogan “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” When the marriage postal survey results went public, many in politics, entertainment and the media referred to the 61.6 per cent “Yes” win as a victory that was “overwhelming”, even called a “landslide”.

Unless you’re a Trappist monk living in a cave, you would have noticed that far more than 61.6 per cent of our politicians, entertainers and media were passionately in favour of voting “Yes” displaying they do not proportionately represent the wider population. If the postal vote had have been an exam in most Australian universities, contrary to all appearances, the “Yes” vote would not have exactly scored a “High-Distinction”, nay, not even a “Credit”, but been awarded merely a “Pass”.

Under the new laws, we “ministers of religion” will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages, but other celebrants will, regardless of any objection in their conscience. Is this freedom? Last year’s Census showed the majority of Australians are Christians (52.1 per cent). Now it would be untenable in the minds of non-Christians and Christians alike that those who do not believe in Christianity should be forced to believe in Christianity, just because the majority hold this belief. 

I know the debate is over and the law was passed December 8, 2017. But look at how we got to that day and you’ll see the path was anything but immaculate. Labor and the Greens block a plebiscite in the Senate so that they could decide the issue, not the public. So we have a postal survey instead, which some politicians proclaimed they would ignore if the “No” vote won. 

Words create emotions. The wording of the postal survey had those not wanting to accept the current definition of marriage appearing as the positive “Yes” team, and those happy with the definition of marriage as it is, appearing as the negative “No” team, when the wording should have been presented the other way around. 

In a debate that used “equality” to justify its purpose, we saw the “Yes” vote receive an unequal share of funding and even 100 per cent of the funding as gave the Lord Mayor of Sydney, and after “Yes” team members were disgraced at $122 million being set aside for the debate, of which only $80.5 million was actually used.   

We heard Attorney-General George Brandis claim this new law ended centuries of prejudice and ridicule. Strange given 10 years ago many same-sex couples and the Mardi Gras were the ones ridiculing marriage as being archaic, slavery, chauvinistic and “just a piece of paper”.

You may disagree with the above, but with any major social change the loss of human rights is always a possibility, in spite of our best intentions. The right to freedom is a human right. If we cannot speak our beliefs, we are no longer free.