Tony,

Don't confuse people by using the term 'plebiscite', most people use the incorrect term 'referendum' for all occasions when a question is put to the people; the cost is not much when held in conjunction with an election.
There is extra ink and cheap paper and a stroke or two of pencil lead but the staff and all the necessary gear are in place and the premises have been arranged.
So no big problem in terms of expense at all.

A vote by the people is real democracy at work and this question could be easily solved by such a vote.

What's to fear?

What's to fear?
is Mise.
what's to fear ? A hell of a lot of hangers-on jobs, that's what !

Rhian states that those who purport to speak in the name of Christianity do not represent all Christians. I’d agree and argue that many - including entire cults - who purport to speak in the name of Christianity do not represent ANY Christians. That includes Dr van Gend, and that freak who disgraced himself at the Q&A session, and Tony Abbott and his mentor George Pell. From the fourth century day that Christians agreed to pin a tyrannical tail on themselves they severed their link with Christianity and started to wag. Only those who jumped organisational/ideological ship were able to escape the wagging of the ancient authoritarian tail and rediscover the road to Christianity. Those that didn’t are still wagging.

As for “gay marriage” it is up to the nation, not this or that superstitious cult, to decide whether to include under the embrace of the term “marriage” personal unions that are not linked to sexual reproduction. Already, provided the partners are of different gender their commitment to one another can be registered as marriage whether it is able to be procreative or not. The “different gender” proviso doesn’t make real sense, many couples are hurt by it and it might as well be abandoned. Another decade or so and it will be gone and heterosexual married couples who are dinkum about their mutual commitment will have lost nothing. Those who feel threatened by it are phoneys

...Gay-rights are a total distraction from the real and “meaningful” left-wing issue of women work and family. Marriage equality preached from the gay lobby over recent years has effectively quashed the broader and urgent issue of equality of women in our society.

...The gay-rights movement has irreprebably damaged the credibility of the ALP in the eyes of the electorate over this, a nonsense issue; has ridden on the back of the environmental party of the greens, and inflicted the same damage to Greens credibility in the process. The dishonesty of Bob Brown ,the leader of a once credible environmental party, is reprehensible, destructive and treacherous.

...Maybe in time, following the decomposition of the Greens and the ALP, sense will again be maintained, but not until the grass roots issues applicable to the both parties are once more given their rightful place in the political debate.

...Abbott is on a winner with a stance against gay-rights and its followers

...Further:

...If I had the privilege of five minutes in Tony Abbott’s ear, I would be arguing for the “Decomposition” of the ABC. I notice the ABC now proudly lauding the arrival of a leading poofter from the USA in time for this week’s Q&A.

...Needless to say, the night will be stacked against conservative protest…any bets!

@ diver dan

So let me guess, your happy for Fred Nile to be on Q&A, but not a 'poofer' from the USA? You have just been exposed as somebody who is against free speech.