But there are also constitutional reasons why same-sex marriage should go to a referendum.
Earlier in the evening, Mr McClelland reminded webcast viewers that when he was Mr Rudd's Attorney-General in 2008 he removed all discrimination in Australian law against same-sex couples. This was supported by ACL.
He said same-sex marriage was not a legal but a definitional issue.
Advertisement
"I think the High Court will ultimately, if there is a change in the law, be required to determine what the constitutional founders meant when they included the marriage power in the constitution.
"I don't think that's a comfortable place for the High Court to be. I think if there is going to be any reform in this area, and I don't think there should be, but if there is it should be through the public debating it through the course of a referendum."
Mr Anderson agreed saying he was "deeply troubled by the lack of civility" in the debate.
"I think this debate puts politicians under unbelievable pressure because the community is so polarised.
"I actually think this now needs to go the people".
Mr Anderson was quick to say that despite his Scottish heritage a referendum should come with a "publicly funded, properly articulated yes and no case".
Advertisement
He said there should also be an honest acknowledgement of what changing the law on marriage would mean for freedom of belief and the right to express that belief.
He also said there was another vexed issue.
"Same-sex marriage does lead to same-sex parenting and there is a huge issue in my view of the state sanctioning the idea that a certain class of children will be denied access to one or other of their biological parents."
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
40 posts so far.