So at 10am tomorrow (15 Nov) all will be announced on the results of the SSM vote.

With due reverence to soccer, here is a better depiction of the leaked celebration of the result:
.
.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-14/sweden-players-crash-live-tv-broadcast/9149748?section=sport

At http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19411#345025 I predicted:

"My prediction is that, of votes that are not informal around:
- 60% will vote Yes
- 40% No"

Turns out I was off by just 1.6% with 61.6% voting Yes.

More see http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/how-australia-voted-on-samesex-marriage/news-story/856052cb744b25f734d04c1714e202e7

You guys keep playing ping-pong with your arguments, going back and forth with no conclusion in sight. Your comments are old and stale by now so no need to keep trying to convince the other of anything now. What is not accepted by the Yes camp is that they believe they 'have it in the bag', so to speak. What we have just participated in is an over-rated poll. This way it meant the pollies didn't have to show their hand on the issue, if that's what they wanted. Now that the govt have a better idea of the mood and level of sick'os in this country they can move to write laws that will, unlike other countries, protect us from being negatively affected by this same sex rubbish. A very telling expose' of the 'real' dangers of changing laws to accommodate a sick and precocious minority. Just look up Massachusetts and see what has and is happening there. It will make your skin creep. If our govt don't put in protections against religious and personal rights we will all be seeing a very sick and twisted society in the not too distant future. Go on look it up. I think the law was enacted in either 2004 or 2007, around these times.

Massachusetts?

Oh, ah didn expect dem Bee Gees boys!

http://youtu.be/uSSJwKixbKU

I believe I'm Moral Metermaid No.1 in pointing out that people being allowed to speak is the main problem with Plebiscites.

Furthermore the majority Yes vote is to be regretted on account of No not winning:
- due to the lower number of No Votes.

Moral Metermaid No.2 looked up from her Bible-readin and declared:

"It’s completely unfair. This is not taking into account the amount of moral people who would have voted ‘No’ but didn’t."

plantagenet, WTF are you on. I'm not very good with sarcasm, so could you please explain yourself in a language I/we might understand, preferably English.