I sat on the Human Rights Commission for 13 years up until the end of 1998. The legislation was always a work in progress — not as one would think, as this immutable gospel or the tablet on the Mount. The whole issue of what is a human right has its contours and nuances and, yes, flaws. There are even arguments that say there is no such thing as a human right but rather only the natural law of the universe, which some will claim as including, or explicitly, divine law.

One thing that is universal is the need to accept there are differences of opinion on what constitutes a human right and the need to develop the plurality to entertain the widest range of thought and belief without infringing on the peace and harmony of others.

Our human rights code says there should be no discrimination based on religion or belief. It sounds promising as it is, however, that is an assumption that is best entertained agnostically.

For example, sexual preference referred to as orientation is not a belief — at best they are tendencies. What contributes to the tendencies is another matter, but we know many have existed perhaps for as long as recorded history. There are some tendencies that are sexual that have had histories so long, and dating back so far, that we would call it biological history.

I had made the point many years ago that our human rights laws as written at present are totally inadequate and rather than continuously adding new caveats trying to keep pace with trends, we should take the lead and craft a simple format that allows freedoms without having to challenge beliefs.

Separate the legislature of the state from religious beliefs. Allow religions to practise freely by respecting their rights within their communities, however they may observe them, with a common public code between them setting out the areas where discrimination is allowed. Such as, for example, a Catholic church may require employing a Catholic priest. The state needs to get out of the business of marriage and simply recognise the contractual value of any relationship. If that is to be called a civil union or contract, so be it.

The greatest form of hypocrisy is having polygamy as a state crime with imprisonment for the offenders and the same state bragging about same-sex marriage or LGBTQ rights as being a human rights accomplishment. It does so on the “belief” that polygamy, which also involves consenting adults driven again by “sexual tendency” — orientation — is an unjust crime. The sad phenomenon is those who champion SSM celebrate criminalisation of polygamist who has a longer and deeper biological history

My argument is not in defence of polygamy, but to show the blurring of the lines where belief is attached to what we consider as the Human Rights act, which now has primacy over all legislation. We need our legislation itself to be beyond discrimination. The phrase “sexual orientation” needs to come out of our Human Rights Act because the term is highly selective, therefore biased, and favours only one form of sexual orientation. It was contrived politically not rationally. If the application were rational, it would have to include a wider range and accommodate more orientations.

The simplest way to achieve that status is to become similar to the United States Constitution with regard to freedom of religion. The paradox is by being a “non-religious state”, it accommodates a greater diversity of religious or non-religious beliefs than does a so-called religious state.

The old formula “less is more” is a useful remedy with regards to how we amend our Human Rights Act. Forcing a church to adopt what it does not believe is not advancing human rights; it is actually suppressing them.

The earth is wide open and affords space. We have to use a similar legislative stance that allows the space for people to live differently. I don’t believe persons want to discriminate against someone else’s choice; they just don’t want other people’s choices forced on them.

We need a new Human Rights Act that allows people the freedom to be who they think they are.