
Australian Same-sex marriage postal survey results are in - ACow_Adonis
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/same-sex-marriage-results-ssm/9145636
======
marak830
I am extremely happy this passed. Although I was shocked when I came back to
Aus a few weeks ago and saw some of the no adverts.

I had hoped for a higher % but at least there is no doubt now.(not that there
ever should have been, but oh well).

~~~
Paraesthetic
That freedom of speech and religion will be destroyed? yeah its not like they
referenced other countries where that happened. Oh wait they did.

~~~
marak830
Freedom of speech and religion destroyed by letting two men or women cement
their bond to each other? Mate you need to take a few steps back, and a long
look at that statement.

------
microcolonel
It's a shame it got so muddied. I suspect a lot of the "No" votes are more
related to uncertainty about _what specific policies will be involved_ , than
to opposition of same sex marriage itself.

~~~
will_hughes
> It's a shame it got so muddied.

The whole structure of the survey (not vote) was deliberately done to confuse
the issue.

\- It's not legally binding on the parliament (it's a survey, not a vote)

\- It's not mandatory participation like voting (again, survey)

\- It was done by the ABS with responses tracable back to the person -
supposedly those responses will be destroyed and not recorded elsewhere.

\- It was mailed out in recognisable letters, allowing sabotage of the survey
(plenty of examples of letters being dumped on footpaths, some examples of
someone responding on behalf of others)

\- Responses were sent back in recognisable envelopes through which you could
see the response, again permitting anyone with access to the mail to
tamper/destroy responses they disagreed with.

\- Those handling the responses were put under gag clauses which prevent them
from talking about any issues they might have witnessed.

\- No independent witnesses to the counting process.

~~~
microcolonel
> _survey (not vote)_

Yeah, I'm aware that genuine postal referenda are probably not lawful in
Australia; which is good for the many reasons you add. ;- )

I meant "vote" in the more casual sense, since it's a multiple choice question
gathering responses from a demographic, it is a _poll_ in the strictest sense.
An individual response to a _poll_ is a _vote_ , whether it's binding, non-
binding, serious, humourous, legitimate, or illegitimate.

------
chiaro
The text of the Dean Smith bill, which is the likely form of how it will be
legislated:

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4204045-Marriage-
Ame...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4204045-Marriage-Amendment-
Definition-and-Religious.html#document/p1)

~~~
Paraesthetic
Lets hope not, the guy has no idea.

~~~
chiaro
Nah it's got pretty broad support. It does a good job at making appropriate
carveouts.

------
senectus1
shame it cost us 120 million effing bucks to do something they should have
effing known was a forgone conclusion and the only _human_ effing decision to
make.

what a waste of money. bunch of 1st class political wankers they are... the
whole lot of them.

~~~
Paraesthetic
'Human decision' lol yes saying those who can't push forward their genetic
line is acceptable is totally a human decision.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
What has marriage to do with pushing forward genetic lines?

Are you trying to strawman, or did the strawman just work on you?

~~~
benjohnson
To answer your question: historically, the primary benefit to marriage was to
ensure a stable household for the raising of children and for the economic
wellbeing of the resulting family. It was often a pragmatic arrangement
instead of a romantic one.

Now days marriage for some has become a declaration of longer-term romantic
love.

