This interesting article points out a basic principle of democracy - the role of an elected representative to make and enact policy of behalf of the electors. For that is what a member of parliament is - a representative.
Representing what?
Representing the wide group of people who have charged that person with speaking for them.
Not instead of them; for them.
That is a strong reason why politicians must be sensitive to public opinion. They are there to represent a vast number of attitudes in a manageable averaging smaller quantity, but never to dominate or influence them.
This is where the ability to sense overall opinion and wishes marks a good politician, not necessarily the ability to cajole electors into accepting a party's policy planning.

Sorry, but this has been made into such a divisive issue by those fighting a rearguard action against the end of the last vestiges of discrimination; that it can only be addressed by a binding plebiscite.

Which is the only way those against will actually accept as the expressed will of the people, given they seriously believe their view is the majority one, and if not defended to the last breath, will lead to beastiality and poligamy, and indeed child abandonment and abuse?

Not that these things happen today or are the principal provence of some of the most vociferous and oft hypocritical opponents of same sex marriage?

My skin fairly crawls at the sight of two men in a passionate embrace, yet when asked to vote my answer will be yes.

Some of my best mates are homosexuals.
I've played some extremely rugged footy with some, served in the military with others, and shared a quiet beer with all the above, none of whom came on to me, given I am and always have been straight.

They bleed just like anyone else and even die in service, if their wounds are severe.

To reiterate I will vote yes, as indeed so will the great silent fair minded majority, the religious right always tries to speak for or otherwise use!?
Rhrosty.

Has the recent hiding the homosexual lobby got in referendum in Slovenia got the lobby here nervous? I mean for years they have been distorting support for 'gay'marriage at 70% plus.

btw I wonder why the balanced abc made such a big deal about an island of about 50 people supporting perverting the definition of marriage and were completely silent on Slovenia. Oh well that is journalism today and Max shows how academia has even perverted what democracy means.

Max - your argument relies on it being definitely the case that elected members can somehow accurately discern what is in the "the best interests of the community".

How do you know that is true?

What is it about being elected to public office that suddenly enables a person to become an accurate arbiter of the community's best interest?

Who really knows what the best interests of the community are anyway and how can it possibly be established that they have been discerned?

Unless you can give meaningful answers to these questions then you are expressing nothing but wishful thinking. Well, you are also demonstrating that while demacracy may be the least worst form of government, it is also fatally flawed.

This argument is largely irrelevant and hypothetical unless a situation arises whereby there seems a need for a people’s vote. It is a waste of time debating it again until such time as it needs to be debated and now is not one of those times.

The pre-supposition is that same-sex marriage is an issue which should be of concern to the government. Just because the government maintains legislation concerning marriage does not mean that it should do so. There are no good reasons why the government needs to have a marriage act nor why it should officially endorse a couple’s relationship as a marriage.

Governments do not need to facilitate or endorse marriages and same-sex couples do not need their relationship facilitated or endorsed by the government. Both groups should be held accountable for any waste of tax-payers money because there is no need for this complete circus to go on.

Whether the politicians or the people decide does not matter. What matters is whether or not the question should even be considered. Any politician or any voter who gets involved in this particular debacle of democracy should hang their head in shame. They have failed to analyse the whole issue and let themselves be manipulated by a minority group with a personal agenda and they have failed to demand rational thinking of their politicians.

This is a genuinely delicate issue for both labor and liberal MPs. A plebiscite allows people to have their say and takes it out of the hands of career politicians.