The Sex Party’s Andrew Patterson today hit back at Federal NSW Senator Ursula Stephens, who expressed her staunch opposition to same-sex marriage on the eve of Mardis Gras.

Mr Patterson, who is contesting the seat of Sydney at the NSW election as an Independent endorsed by the Sex Party, said, “Stephens’ view is based on what the Pope believes, not the High Court.  She’s picking and choosing various judgments to support that,” said Mr Patterson.  “No High Court decision has defined ‘marriage’ under the Constitution; it remains open to Parliamentary interpretation.  The High Court, on which her argument relies, has been equivocal at best with the earliest judgment in 1908 finding that Parliament can in fact decide which unions can be considered ‘marriages’.”

When questioned about the potential impact of a High Court challenge to an act permitting same-sex marriage, Mr Patterson said, “Ironically, in the extremely unlikely event that the High Court came out and defined the meaning of marriage under the Constitution to mean ‘one-man-one-woman’, that would settle discussion about whether States should exercise their power to resolve the issue.

“If elected, I will immediately introduce a bill to legalise same-sex marriage in New South Wales.”