Social progressives regularly accuse their opponents of being ‘on the wrong side of history’. Standing up for basic freedoms will be the right side of history, and nowhere is this more pressing than in Australia now.

As the High Court waves through the postal plebiscite, triggering weeks of more fervent campaigning, a defining issue in this debate is the need to guard our basic freedoms - speech, religion and parental choice.

Most of us are fiercely protective of our right to think, say and do as we wish so long as we avoid real harm to others. Esoteric discussions about freedoms don’t feature in pubs around my electorate. But unreasonable constraints on individual beliefs or behaviour get a swift negative reaction. The traditional Aussie spirit is fiercely independent and sceptical of authority.

Until now, it’s understandable that religious freedom has attracted little attention in Australia. Our success has been built on social cohesion alongside a rich and diverse immigrant history. This cohesion was aided by the dominance of Christianity.

The recent census highlights how much this is changing. The Christian proportion of the population has fallen from almost 90% in the late 1960s to just over 50% now. Atheism is rising rapidly, as are non-Christian religions. The natural protections of religious homogeneity are no longer enough.

In Australia, we should be alive to these concerns because we have fewer protections than other common law countries.

Australia doesn’t have a bill of rights, legislated or constitutional, despite our commitment to basic freedoms in international treaties. This is essentially a good thing – a bill of rights would simply provide a financial windfall for constitutional lawyers, and endless uncertainty in our legal system. But it means we have far fewer protections than the UK, US, Canada and NZ.

Freedom of religion cases, following amendments to marriage laws, are now being heard by the highest courts in the UK and US. In both countries, activists are challenging Christian cake sellers not wanting to endorse same sex marriage. We don’t yet know the outcome of these cases, but the retailers are relying on protections which we lack.

It’s true that section 116 of our constitution prevents the Commonwealth from legislating to prohibit the free exercise of religion. But s116 has no application to state legislation and has been interpreted narrowly by the High Court.

Nor do we have comprehensive protections built into any Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. Protection under the Sex Discrimination Act is limited to only a narrow range of circumstances and groups. 

We lack broad-ranging free speech protections as we have recently seen in a series of cases under the Race Discrimination Act, and in State based sex discrimination cases. Last year the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart was alleged to have breached Tasmania's anti-discrimination laws for distributing a brochure saying marriage was between a man and a woman. A Tasmanian bill intended to address this was recently blocked by Labor and the Greens.

The proposed amendments to the Marriage Act offer no protections beyond priests, celebrants and organisations with direct religious connections, offering little more than the current protections in section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act.

If we are to protect these freedoms in Australia, we need comprehensive Commonwealth legislation.

The response to this from the most vocal same sex marriage advocates has been unequivocal, claiming that changing the definition of marriage has no consequences, or none that require legislated protection. They are wrong. Any credible expert in reform, legal or otherwise, will tell you that good reform requires a deep understanding of the consequences, direct and indirect. 

A number of relevant cases in other countries have stemmed directly from legalisation of same sex marriage. The owner of Masterpiece Cakes, a Colorado baker, was dragged through the courts and lost his business for declining to bake a cake based on his religious beliefs. The cake was for a wedding of two men living over three thousand kilometres away.

Some of the connections between same sex marriage reforms and loss of freedoms are indirect. Parents and schools have been prohibited from controlling their children’s sex education in schools in London (the Vishnitz Orthodox Jewish school) and in Ontario (Dr Steve Tourloukis). Faith based adoption agencies have fallen foul of the change in laws. Employees of public and private organisations have come under attack for expressing their views or conscientious objection (e.g. The former CEO of Netscape).

It’s true some of these cases did not depend on the legalisation of same sex marriage. That simply means the need for strengthened freedoms pre-dates the current debate.

The rapid pace of change in a foundational social institution is underscoring the importance of deeper interrogation of consequences. Only a few short years ago most political leaders - including Bill Shorten, Penny Wong and Julia Gillard - opposed change to the definition of marriage. Now they don’t. Just as new technologies build momentum at increasing rates, so too does pressure for social change. But social institutions have far deeper roots and cultural attachments.

The most vocal and influential proponents of same sex marriage claim that the reform is simply about love. If it is that simple, they should accept legislated protections for those who object to redefining marriage. 

If we are to have same sex marriage, these basic freedoms - religion, speech and parental choice - should be embedded in legislation. In the absence of a clear agreement to this, it's understandable that many mainstream Australians will choose to vote no.

Angus Taylor

Angus Taylor is the Member for Hume.