So around half of Australia voted, if we have approx 25million people in Australia. How can it be a resounding victory for the YES camp if the calculations are made using only half the population? Moving on I note that the YES camp are attempting to justify the final numbers. It is easy to understand. The YES camp, knowing full well they were staring down the well of defeat mustered all their people and went on a destructive and well co-ordinated offensive against anyone or anything that smacked of NO! If the hugely naive and precocious YES camp think they have won, hah! All they have done is widened the gap between queers and straights. The fun part will begin once the final draft of the Bill is passed. The govt' is still on notice because if they do not take heed and study very closely what happened in Massachusetts, USA, they will be putting the queer community in a very bad position, in that they will have to learn to look over their shoulder a lot for fear of retribution. I take my lead from the family courts. They wrongly interfere with a families interactions and the fall-out from their interfering has been the death of one or more of that family. This will have similar consequences!

Wait, we have to hold another $100 million survey for ALTRAV, three year old's didn't get to vote. Yes they did, you got to vote ALTRAV, along with the rest of the forums 'Usual Suspects', what are you bitching about.

//So around half of Australia voted, if we have approx 25million people in Australia.//

Kids can't vote.

//It is easy to understand.//

Yep, you were out-voted. Build a bridge and get over it.

//All they have done is widened the gap between queers and straights.//

No they haven't.

//The govt' is still on notice because if they do not take heed and study very closely what happened in Massachusetts, USA they will be putting the queer community in a very bad position, in that they will have to learn to look over their shoulder a lot for fear of retribution.//

The Salem witch trials?

Nope, I can't see violent mass hysteria breaking out. The only person around here that seems to be hysterical is you, and I can't see it catching on because I don't think anybody agrees with your incitements to violence. Looks like you're on your own [deleted for abuse]. Good luck with that.

Armchair Critic: Your numbers are not correct, the correct ones are those I gave in the original post of the thread, ie:

# Yes vote- 61.6% of those of voted validly

# No vote- 38.4% of tose of voted validly

# Participation rate (ie: percent of all eligible voters who actually voted validly)- 79.5%

- This gives 21.5% didn't vote validly (ie. 100-79.5)

- Multiplying the participation rate by the Yes vote gives the actual percentage of all eligible voters who voted yes- 61.6*79.5/100 = 48.972%

So overall we had a majority of those who voted vote YES but NOT a majority of all eligible voters. Which means that if we are to consider the survey as a truly outright democratic event (ie: 50%+1voter of *all* eligible voters required), then the YES vote failed to get enough support.

However, we live in a representative democracy (well at least we claim that the lower house is anyway) which means that the MPs are meant to represent the "will of their electorate"- ie, the MPs are meant to follow majority (that's 50%+1voter) of their constituents. So, theoretically each MPs should take the Yes vote of their electorate and multiply it by the participation rate of their electorate and vote accordingly.

[PS: I haven't see any breakdown of the participation rate by electorate, but presumably it is downloadable somewhere on the ABS web-site. So with a simple spread-sheet we could calculate how each MPs should vote (if we are to assume that our "democracy" is a representative one) and thus calculate of the overall vote by parliament.]

Opinionated2, do you actually have marriage equality? Simply being given the right to marry (if passed) does not mean a gay marriage is the same as a straight marriage, and there in lies the problem as this is not about two queers getting married, its about marriage equality and I suspect this may haunt them for ever and a day.

As for calculating the vote, and after giving more consideration, I am of the opinion that the result should be calculated on the number who voted, not the number who were eligible to vote as the vote was not compulsory. Just trying to be fair and I will always stand corrected if I think I am wrong, even if it means correcting myself as I have which is the case here.

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever hear the end of this. If only they could have found another word and been accepting of such as equality can never happen if all things are not equal, as is the case here. Equal in rights yes, any better or worse, no, but equal, no.

From the posters here Homosexual relationships are called a "Civil Contract" or "Social Contract". The term must now be the legal term and replace the term marriage, because it is a legal term should be handled by solicitors before a Magistrate, where the contracts are signed by the parties and witnessed by persons known to the parties. That all contracts of relationships, currently called marriage, to live together be removed from Celebrants and religious Celebrants and placed in the appropriate hands, i.e. the Courts of petty sessions. Pre nuptial agreements be also registered, and in the dissolution of the contract the courts would hear the reasons and dissolve the contracts.

This would allow Churches, Synagogues, Temples and Mosques to bless and celebrate the union of two people in a religious ceremony after the contracts of intention to live together have been registered with the State.