The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > SSM- so what happens now?

SSM- so what happens now?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. 33
  10. All
The SSM results are in, from the ABS site: 61.6% Yes, 38.4 No with participation rate of 79.5%.

This now leaves us in an interesting situation because while the majority of participants voted yes it is incorrect to say that the majority of egilible Australian voters said yes since 61.6%*79.5% is 48.972%. ie: The overall majority did not show their support in the survey.

So what happens now?
Posted by thinkabit, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 9:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what happens now? SSM will be legalized before Christmas. Oh no! apply some distorted mathematics and you come up with 49% minority yes vote. If only 49& said yes, therefore 51% must be saying no. For those who didn't cast a vote. well tough.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:21:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a much sought after boon to the legal profession.... and a guaranteed overload to the court calendar
Let us all rejoice in clarifying.....?...oh yeah...equality
Posted by ilmessaggio, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:40:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What now? A bill will be introduced and will likely pass both houses. It is simply unthinkable that the ‘No’ campaign could have achieved a narrow victory had everyone voted. No polling since 2004 has suggested anything of the sort, and the results of this survey are in line with all other polling.

I don't think there is an “interesting situation” at all.

So convinced that they were a majority, the marriage equality opponents wanted a vote - wrongly claiming that anything else would be anti-democratic - they got that vote and it's blown up in their faces. The excuses as to why things turned out the way they did have been amusing. I look forward to hearing more.

If anything, I think the ‘Yes’ campaign would have benefited from more votes, there could have been a lot of apathy from ‘Yes’ voters who assumed they had it in the bag, and the age group most likely to vote ‘yes’ were the least inclined to use the postal system. (Is it any wonder the survey wasn't conducted online?)
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 12:54:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What happens now?

Well today people are celebrating,
tomorrow the government will be legislating.

Australians have made their feelings clear.

Tony Abbott's electorate of Warringah - 75% voted Yes.

Malcolm Turnbull's electorate of Wentworth - 80.8% voted Yes.

Melbourne and Sydney had an 87% Yes Vote.

Most No voting seats were Labor held and located in
Western Sydney.

Interesting to see the way the voting went state by state
and electorate by electorate. Some surprising outcomes.
Tony Abbott seems to be "Dead man walking!"
It's now up to the Senate to make a start this afternoon
with the passing of the Bill to get
legislation under way by Christmas.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 1:04:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The simplest way forward now is to reverse the 2004 alterations of the Marriage Act.

Change it back to "persons" and start getting married in accordance with the same law that millions of others were previously. Objectors *could* challenge in court at their own expense, and I think be met with some highly precedential decisions or even throwings-out.

If our legislators were to be bold, they could take out the "two" so that that component too can evolve. In addition, the unpoliced and unenforceable requirement for fidelity could also go, as it is more likely to embarrass those who like it than those who ignore it.

All should be done by the current government who should expect no great kudos for doing so as they are simply cleaning up a mess they made for themselves, and ought to do so before leaving.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 1:22:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. 33
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy