Rather, the principle of equality under the ICCPR is considered by the UN Human Rights Committee to neither prevent recognition of same sex marriage nor to impose a positive obligation on states to do so. The Committee notes that article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant expressly addresses the issue of the right to marry. In fact, the amendments the right seeks are largely attempts to water down existing anti-discrimination provisions. A recent example of the failure of Parliament to protect fundamental rights is the decision to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality. It conveys the assertion that not permitting same-sex couples to access the institution of marriage is a breach of their human rights. Before the poll several MPs said they would follow the vote of their electorate. At its core, it is a social institution designed to facilitate the care of children who are born of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and to encourage both to be committed to the children and to each other. In the fortnight between the announcement of the poll result and the Senate vote we saw both the forcible removal of men on Manus Island from one makeshift camp to another, and a long parliamentary process establish limited right to die laws in Victoria. These are measures Australia has already enacted. Indeed, international human rights law recognises that to maintain a traditional view of marriage, as a definitional construct, does not detract from the equality of same-sex persons, including in circumstances where such life-long loving committed relationships are provided state recognition and protection. Although the ruling was retracted under criticism, it was a reminder that the coalition around marriage was often born of immediate self-interest. There is no such human right. David Cameron speaks in support of same-sex marriage legalisation. It also introduced certain dilemmas for MPs, who were asked to cast a conscience vote while acknowledging the wishes of their constituents. What is marriage for? Why do we hold an expensive, potentially divisive compulsory but non—binding national vote on the right to equality before the law.. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have held that there is no inequality where a state retains the traditional definition of marriage.