Neither a plebiscite no a conscience vote by politicians are satisfactory ways of resolving this issue because there are complexities related to 'homosexuality' that have not yet been publicly considered - see Would A Plebiscite on Same Sex Marriage Abuse Children's Rights?
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/child_abuse.htm#15_9_15

So long as the public and the politicians turn a blind eye to those complexities, neither of the available 'democratic' options can to lead to an informed outcome.

Loudmouth

article in Australian today stating how the senior Islamic army officer is homophobic. What will win out? racism, sexism, victimhood. Quite hysterical to see some nude leftist activist in Germany demanding to have womens rights respected. I am sure all the muslims are nodding their heads. Well in many towns the woman have been told not to go out at night. I am glad Susies blogging skills are improving. More and more women will be staying at home.

Take Howard’s plebiscite on a republic. That did not work, it’s a matter of who sets the rules for what is covered. Just like Abbott’s rules for a royal commission with who and what is covered, plus a stacked investigating Commission. A flawed system of democracy all around. It’s the vote you have when you do not want anybody to know what you are voting for.
The only true system of a public vote is a referendum. One person one vote

Hi 579,

From Wikipedia,

'Australia defines 'referendum' as a vote to change the constitution and 'plebiscite' as a vote that does not affect the constitution.'

Ireland held a plebiscite asking citizens whether or not they wanted to accept or reject a Constitution, as proposed.

The two terms get confused. But clearly, a plebiscite is any question posed for the consideration of the voting population, while a referendum is more specifically a question posed whether or not to change a clause etc., in the existing Constitution.

Each form of voting is on the basis of one-person-one-vote.

Presumably, in Australia, a plebiscite is based on the Australia-wide voting population: a simple majority carries the proposal. But a referendum, as you would be aware, requires majorities in a majority of States.

Joe

Howards pleb; consisted of about 24 people. No doubt hand picked to derail a republic vote. The rest sound reasonable to me.
Howard was a fair PM until he got over enthused and bought in work choices, that was his downfall. Even though he did build a railroad to nowhere. That’s ok. I think he had a dream about cities popping up along the rail road, just like the wild west days of cowboys and Indians.
Turnbull has his head screwed on, and hopefully point us in the direction that needs to be travelled. He needs to get a front bench that is trustworthy and can behave like intelligent human beings for a start. Which is a letdown for our PM. All being considered they are remnants of another era, which sort of makes sense of why their behavior is questionable.

Loudmouth: In addition to what you wrote about plebiscites and referenda: plebiscites are NOT binding. The Government can ignore them if they want.

I would just like to pick up something mentioned in the article that many people use as an argument against any referendum/plebiscite in general: the cost. The $160 million quoted does seem like a lot but when you divide it by about 15million+ enrolled voters it's only about $10 each. Not much to pay to have direct a say in our laws. When you work out the costs per year for our all referendums they're very cheap because there so few and far between.

Personally, if you like to see citizen initiated referenda like Switzerland. We should set aside two days six months apart every year, say on the equinoxes, when voting may be held for any current issues that have been petitioned by more than 2% (or some other small target) of the voters. I'll be willing to pay even $100 extra tax for it: that's about $4 a week- less than an coffee or 1/2 a beer at a pub.