The plebiscite over this question need not be expensive if at the same time we are also asked a few dozens of other important questions in all areas of governance.

It should obviously include for example questions about asylum seekers and in the context of this particular issue, whether or not government should continue to involve itself in registering and providing certificates for personal relationships.

Yuyutu I was drafting a post last night very much along the same lines as your post, however my thoughts are that rather than hold an expensive plebiscite, why not say offer such topics as you have said at say every second fed election, or include it as part of our consist (if that's the right spelling)

Its very sad to think the likes of border protection, immigration and the forthcoming closure of our car industries have taken a back seat to the likes of gays wanting to marry during this campaign. In fact, its a disgrace and just shows what a politically correct ham strung country we have become.

Lets face it, Indigenous affairs are far more important, yet have not had so much as a mention.

Quite frankly I don't understand why we need a plebisite.
We have elected representatives who represent their
electorates and who make all sorts of decisions on our
behalf on all sorts of issues. Why can't there simply be
a conscience vote in Parliament and get it over and done
with. The Representatives know the views of their
electorates. Or if they don't they'll find out.
To me this would be a simply way of doing things.

cont'd ...

Apologies for the typo.

Another thing that has occurred to me:

If John Howard could change the Marriage Act why can't
it just be changed back in Parliament? It was Howard
who altered the Act to read that marriage was to be
between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all
others. Previously it did not specify that - so
can't it be changed back to what it initially stated?

Yuyutsu:

“The plebiscite over this question need not be expensive if at the same time we are also asked a few dozens of other important questions in all areas of governance.”
That is damage control over an issue that should not even be considered in the first place.

Rehctub:

“Its very sad to think the likes of border protection, immigration and the forthcoming closure of our car industries have taken a back seat to the likes of gays wanting to marry during this campaign. In fact, its a disgrace and just shows what a politically correct ham strung country we have become.”

Those in favour of same-sex marriage point to the polls which say that 70-80 percent of Australians support same-sex marriage. No one ever polls the importance of the question - it is just presumed. If Australians had to put it on a list of importance to the country where would it finish up? Would it warrant all the time and money being spent on it?

Many people want the government to show leadership and to vote on the question rather than have a plebiscite. Real leadership would be to ignore the issue altogether and get on with things that matter and affect people’s lives on a daily basis.

Well Foxy, we could easily have a vote in the parliament to change the marriage act. No problem legally why that can't happen. That's definitely what the the homosexual community want because they see that that is the most likely path to getting what they want. After Brexit the last thing they want is to give the people an actual voice in matters such as this. Who know's, they might actually vote the wrong way again!

It comes down to the level of importance you place on the proposed changes. If you see it as just a minor tinkering with an out-dated quaint custom then having parliament spend 30minutes in making the changes seems right.

But if you see it as the latest in a series of assaults on the family structure and you see the family as the very foundation of our civilisation then you might want to have society spend a little more time pondering the ramifications of the changes. You see, there are a great many people who think that the break-down of the family as the bedrock of society which has occurred over the past 50 or so years, is a major cause for societal decay, explaining things like the so-called epidemic of domestic violence and the violent youth culture. These people see homosexual marriage as a further assault on the institution of the family which will usher in other assaults, and they want to make a stand right here, right now. Up until quite recently. these people included not only religious groups but also people like the Obamessiah, Gillard, Rudd, Shorten.

So for them its a bit more than changing a few words in the statute. They want the ramifications fully aired and the full demos to decide.

Unfortunately for those who see it otherwise, these people currently hold sway and today the process is to poll the entire nation on its view AFTER all arguments have been put. For them spending $160mill on what may be the most important societal decision this century is a pittance.

That's why there will (probably) be a plebiscite.