Toni, when we had voluntary local council voting the turnout was as low as 25%. There is a danger that many yes voters will think it is a forgone conclusion, and not both voting at all.

Toni Lavis writes:
“No, for that comparison to be valid we'd still have to have buggery laws.”

Yes, and it’s a better world where the state doesn’t seek to legislate with respect to what gay folk do in their bedroom. Generally, I don’t think the majority of the public care about that. I don’t.
Same thing for polygamists.

And for sure we’d have to code some legal provision to include, say, religions where polygamy were allowed on the basis of religious freedom.

This would show that much heralded equality and given that polygamists conform to the current notion of marriage in all other respects, there should be no rational objections.

But I agree, we’re not going to see the repeal of bigamy laws any time soon.

Toni Lavis writes:
“But it's not though, is it? Argentina, Belgium, Brazil […]”

So, 22 out of, what, 196 countries?
The EU comprises 28 nations and permits hoards of illegal aliens unchecked passage across their borders, too. There’s plenty of examples of different countries having different laws and in some places they throw gays off roofs or chop their heads off with a sword and still practice forced child marriage.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Books. I refer you to my previous posts.”

Any chance of a link or just a page number would do?

Toni Lavis writes:
“It seems a bit fishy to me - why not just make it compulsory […]”

The last thing the gay lobby want is a compulsory vote. That is abundantly clear.
But I understand this has to do with the ABS running it and they can’t invoke the compulsory voting provision as would be the norm with the AEC.

Dear Dustin,

You asked me on what basis do I think same-sex couples
are entitled to marriage?

On the basis that marriage in our society is a legal
contract presided over by the government. Like taxes.
Therefore same-sex couples should not be excluded.
The Marriage Act was changed by government in 2004.
It can be changed again.

The "eligibility" clause was only introduced in 2004.
Without any public consultation. The government has
the power to fix this.

You know when I think about it I think this whole postal vote thing is pretty dumb, and certainly open to manipulation.
Hosestly I think it's going to turn a lot more ugly yet, because neither side is likely accept the validity of the verdict.
I thought about Turnbull last night and the slimy way he went about things in that Trump phone call, and I can't help thinking this is gonna be a stitch-up with SSM getting across the line.

Postal vote seems stoneage, like Cobb and Co type stuff in an era of modern computing.
They spent $120m on this, why couldn't we all just login and vote online?
It feels like if they really supported democracy thats what they would do.
Something smells a little 'off' about this whole thing I think.

The Commonwealth Games Village on the Gold Coast
has financial difficulties. Grocon Constructions
who are building the Village don't have enough
funding to pay the sub-contractors. Grocon
Constructions promises that they will finish the
project no matter what. The $122 million being
wasted on the SSM postal vote could be better spent
paying off the contractors working on an important
Australian event. Just one example of how the government
could put the money to better use.

Foxy writes:
“The Marriage Act was changed by government in 2004.”
. . and . .
“The "eligibility" clause was only introduced in 2004.”

Nope. The Marriage Act was not changed as such. The wording was, however, updated (codified) to make the implicit definition explicit. The changes merely reflected what was already understood and recognised.

Otherwise, where are all the gay folk that married prior to 2004?
That’s right; there aren’t any.

Foxy writes:
“Without any public consultation.”

Correct. Updates to laws happen all the time in the exact same manner.
Both sides of parliament approved the changes.

De facto relationships are also recognised under the Family Law Act going back to the 70’s, if memory serves. I recall it was Kevin Rudd who introduced changes to eliminate discrimination against same sex folk. There may be a few niggles currently unaddressed, though.

Armchair Critic writes:
“[…] this whole postal vote thing is pretty dumb, and certainly open to manipulation.”

I’ve seen that said, but with no plausible logic as to how manipulation might happen.

Armchair Critic writes:
“[…] why couldn't we all just login and vote online?”

Same as always; not everyone has a computer or is literate in same. The reasoning will be just like the census.