Majority of Australians Vote Yes in National Same-Sex Marriage Survey

AUSTRALIANS have voted in support of legalising same-sex marriage in following the results of a national survey.

The result came to 61.6 per cent voting ‘Yes’ and 38.4 per cent voting ‘No’.

A total of 133 out of 150 electorates recorded a majority ‘Yes’ result while only 17 voted ‘No’.

The national survey returned 7.8 million responses in support of same sex marriage and 4.9 million voted against.

Queensland voters followed the national trend with 61 per cent voting ‘Yes’ and 39 per cent voting ‘No’.

In an address to the Australian public, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the survey results captured the views of the Australian people.

“It is our job now to get on with it, get on with it and get this done,” Mr Turnbull.

“It is fair. The people have voted yes for marriage equality. Now it is our job to deliver it.”

Liberal Senator Dean Smith is expected to introduce his bill in the Senate today to legalise SSM.

However, conservatives are pushing for an alternative bill with far-reaching religious protections.

Large crowds sporting the rainbow flag turned out in Brisbane on George St near Parliament House and in Sydney’s Prince Alfred Park.

Comedian and same-sex marriage campaigner Magda Szubanski performed a jig on stage at the Sydney rally.

"The national survey returned 7.8 million responses in support of same sex marriage and 4.9 million voted against."

I Googled number of eligible voters in Australia and got 15.7 million (2016), corrections welcome.

So hypothetically, if the 15.7 - 12.7 = 3 million who did not vote had voted against gay marriage, then the possible 4.9 + 3 million = 7.9 million (7.9 > 7.8) total who might have voted against gay marriage could have stopped it.

I suppose that we should also consider money influence from wealthy gay people as I understand happened in Ireland.

I love the Aussies, but since when do they take a "survey" then vote on the results?

First of all, this isn't really a survey in the normal sense. Australia's constitution specifically requires referendums in certain circumstances, and connected with that, national plebiscites have been used on a few occasions in our history (and only a few) to address specific questions. Prior to the 2013 election, the Liberal/Nation coalition promised that Australia would only move towards same sex marriage if a plebiscite was held on the specific issue. That promise was repeated prior to the 2016 election.

Unfortunately, the Labor opposition aided by the Greens decided to use their numbers in the Senate to try and block such a plebiscite from happening, instead arguing that same sex marriage should become law without any sort of public vote on the issue. The government found a way around that blockage by having a postal vote conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for which new legislation was not required. Labor and the Greens then tried to stop this from happening in the High Court and failed.

In other words, the very fact that this vote happened at all was only because the conservative side of politics insisted the Prime Minister keep a promise twice made to the Australian people that would get a vote specifically on this issue, in the face of concerted opposition by the left to stop that from happening. Once the left failed in their repeated efforts to block the vote, that's when they started saying "Oh, it's just a survey. Not a real vote." This article has for some reason decided to use their term - basically legitimising the dishonesty and anti-democratic tendencies of the left.

This was a national vote of 100% of the Australian electorate, with procedures in place to ensure that everybody who chose to vote would have that chance, and to ensure that nobody would be able to successfully vote more than once. It wasn't some sort of random survey of a small group. And nearly 80% of people who were eligible to vote did so - considerably more than the US gets for most Presidential elections (most elections in Australia are compulsory so we can't make a comparison like that here).

As to why we have to follow the procedure of introducing a Bill to Parliament after the national vote, that is down to the Australian constitution which is derived (mostly) from principles in the British constitution. One of these is the concept of Parliament Sovereignty - and it's also the reason why the Brexit Referendum in the UK is having to be followed by legislation in Parliament. There's no constitutional mechanism that allows such a national vote as this to automatically take effect - it has to be done by legislation introduced after the vote is taken. That's how our constitution works.

I Googled number of eligible voters in Australia and got 15.7 million (2016), corrections welcome.

That's pretty close. The electoral roll on the day the papers were sent out was just over 16 million (16,006,180) That's partly increase in population over the year, partly because there was a concerted effort to get people to register for this vote.

Theoretically, yes. 48.84% of all eligible voters voted yes if you divide the Yes vote by total number of voters - so not quite a majority.

But it is almost certain that at least some of those who didn't vote would have also voted Yes - at least 94% of the non-voters would have had to vote No, to scrape a bare majority.

Elections are decided by those who bother to vote. But the Yes case almost certainly would have won even with 100% turnout.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.