If he is elected the Member for Hume he would introduce a Private Member’s Bill to the House of Representatives which takes the heat out of the gay marriage debate.

Mr Pilbrow believes the issue that needs to be focused on is not emotive ones of legal equality, sexual discrimination or the autonomy of religious establishments, but instead, the separation of church and state.

“The issue with the current Marriage Act is that the state has its fingers inside churches. So a Church Minister, a Jewish Rabbi, a Buddhist Monk, (the leader of) whatever religion, or even a celebrant doing a non-religious ceremony is doing that as an agent of the state… and it is mixing the religious aspect of it up with the legal aspect of recognising relationships,” he explained.

“If I was elected I’d like to bring in a private members bill that would say let’s have a third option rather than the two that are being offered, which is to deal with the issue of the separation between church and state in marriage.”

Mr Pilbrow, a Christian, believes there is scope within our society to both respect the right of religious freedom and people’s sexuality.

Under his plan, the state would have a register which legally recognises the relationships of both heterosexual and homosexual couples, granting them the exact same rights.

As far as a wedding or marriage ceremony was concerned, it would be up to the individual.

His plan would address two of the most fundamentally divisive issues in the gay marriage debate.

Firstly, the government would respect a church’s right not to marry any couple they chose; but secondly, and more importantly, it would allow civil celebrants and other religious institutions to issue their own marriage certificates to gay couples.

“I think that with my policy we would be able to keep all sides of the debate happy because anybody would be able to have a marriage because there would be so many players outside of the state who would be prepared to do some sort of sacred ceremony they call marriage but that would be taken outside of the state,” he said.

“And I think there would be a lot of churches and religious organisations that would be happy to marry a straight couple, and that should be outside the control of the state in the same way that the state doesn’t interfere in how a church does baptism or Christening or how a Jewish temple does a bar mitzvah and I don’t think the state should be involved in what religious organizations do… 

“I understand that this is a new thing that I am putting on the table and it is coming from the standpoint of a Christian. I am Christian and I believe in the separation of church and state because I think that it is in the best interests of both the church and the state.

“It is not coming from an anti-religious standpoint but it says to churches, ‘Do you realize by having things the way they are you are actually allowing the government to handle an element of your affairs?’” 

When it came to setting up the legal register he wasn’t sure how the language would be drafted ie if it would be labelled as ‘civil unions’ or ‘civil marriage’. He said he would consult widely on that before making a decision.

He recognised there would always be a debate over the word marriage but what he wanted to discuss was whether it belonged inside or out of the state.