A good decision by the High Court and a well-deserved slap in the face for the Left, queer bullies. Good, also, to know that academics, including this one, had their predictions proved wrong again. They, and the Left media, need to trade in their crystal balls for something better.

However, the postal survey is a poor thing; no substitute for the promised plebiscite that Turnbull should have stuck with – but of course, Turnbull is a coward who is actively promoting homosexual 'marriage'. The creature seems to think repeating “Lucy and I will be voting yes” will see the rest of us following him. But, there is a huge gap between tolerance, which homosexuals have had for many years (along with family financial benefits) and actively endorsing homosexuality like so many of our elected representatives are now doing. Several of these totalitarians have pledged to keep pushing for SSM no matter what the result of any ballot.

What we all should be thinking about is the fact that we do not have a clue what legislation will be presented to parliament if there is a 'yes' vote. All the survey will ask is whether or not we approve of SSM – nothing else.

Unless provisions for freedom of speech and expression; rights for children and all the other consequences of a yes vote are revealed, a NO vote is the only way to go.

It should be noted that in Ireland, the rights that were to be available to objectors have been removed.

An envelope carries .02amps at several volts with little resistance from Canberra to millions of ohms. The alternate flow back to power brokers even with grid lock will transform the fossils.

There is a welcome note of caution in this article which was not present when the ABC interviewed 3 other constitutional scholars on Friday. Each of them treated the decision as some sort of threat to parliamentary control of the executive. Until we see the reasons for judgment, this is sheer speculation.

Otherwise, Lorraine's article suggests some support for the recent trend of High Court decisions beginning with Pape in 2009, and culminating in the egregious Williams v The Commonwealth in 2012. I have no sympathy for this approach and hope it will be reversed.

The Government can only spend money if authorised by Parliament to do so: Constitution s.83. That is done through Appropriation Acts. By definition, a bill only becomes an Act by being passed by both Houses. So it is completely false, as so many claimed, to say that the expenditure restrained in the Williams case, had not been authorised by Parliament. For the court to conclude otherwise required them to reinterpret the meaning of 'appropriation' and impose on it a meaning contrary to that accepted by all political players for the previous 112 years. [Those airheads who think a mere solicitor is not capable of making such judgments may read my more detailed explanation at http://www.advancingdemocracy.info/cmspage.php?pgid=142&pid=8; particularly points 62A.4 to 62A.15]

Somehow, we let the High Court get away with this. Judges make massive changes to our legal system and are not accountable. Why not? Recently the changes have simply made it harder to govern; which the Senate already makes extremely difficult.

I see no constitutional issue in the same sex marriage funding case. Money was appropriated. The question was whether as a matter of fact the appropriation did authorise the activities foreshadowed. This is simply a question of statutory interpretation. I am surprised it's been resolved in the Government's favour, but the 'solution' would simply be for Parliament to be more specific when it drafts the legislation. If it chooses not to be, it is not for unelected judges who have never run anything in their lives to tell them to do it differently.

Compared to the one billion dollars of tax payers money about to be poured into Liddell power station , this is chicken feed.

Cory Bernardi, Australian Conservatives, points to the 'blank cheque' being requested by the SSM activists.

He says: “"The same-sex marriage advocates are asking the Australian people to write them the equivalent of a blank cheque.” “Given their track record of bullying, intimidation and the shutting down of debate and religious tolerance, no one should consider that a wise thing to do."

Malcolm must be psychic? Because he knew weeks ago, which way the high court would jump on this one? This is a non compulsory postal survey, whose conclusions will not be binding on the government?

And a distraction on genuine fundamental issues, like affordable power and affordable housing? Both of which are areas, where the taxpayer/consumer has to pay, while the taxpayer/consumer has no say!

And only necessary, because for some folks, pedantic absolutism (pavlov dog conditioning) has replaced critical thinking, along with science based evidence, except where it agrees with their (brainwashed from birth) confirmation bias!?

I used to be in Tony's camp, but was forced by circumstance, to actually look at the evidence! And the Medical science evidence, that there's a gay gene, forced me to change my mind!

Back to real confronting issues, we see some commentators (Landlords) deciding for us that the dream of homeownership is over, and we must settle for being renters all of our days!

At least until retirement, when that option will likely no longer be available? Except perhaps as a result of our, winter discount tents?

In any event SSM, will still need to be decided, by a conscience vote in parliament and if necessary, after the next election?

Which for me will be yes and why not!?
Alan B.