Same-sex marriage survey: 61.6 yes, 38.4 no

And the winner is …

So there you have it. Below is a tool for exploring the results at divisional level according to a range of electoral and demographic criteria. Take your pick from the drop down menu, and you will get divisional “yes” votes recorded on the vertical axis, and their results for the relevant indicator on the vertical axis. Most of these are self-explanatory, with the exception of “One Nation support index”. This equals the division’s 2016 Senate vote for One Nation divided by the party’s overall Senate vote in that state, multiplied by 100. So an electorate will score 100 if its One Nation vote is exactly equal to the state average; it will score 200 if it’s double; 50 if it’s half; and so forth. This is to prevent the party’s across-the-board high results in Queensland from spoiling the effect. “Finished school” is measured as a percent of the 15-plus population.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,326 comments on “Same-sex marriage survey: 61.6 yes, 38.4 no”

Comments Page 15 of 27
1 … 14 15 16 … 27

  2. I haven’t commented on the positions of various Parliamentarians with question marks over their eligibility. I am not a legal expert. I have my opinion on what would be fair, reasonable and logical but judges have to interpret what the law actually says, which may bear only a tenuous relationship or none to any or all of fair, reasonable and logical.

    So what’s fair and reasonable? In my opinion, ditch S44, the citizenship aspects and the stuff about ‘office of profit’. If you can vote, you can stand for parliament. And if you’re a policeman, nurse at a public hospital or other public employee, you can stand. I would only draw the line at serving military officers.

  6. Sydney just became as big a parrty city as we have not seen since the Olymopics. For celebrations. Maybe New Year.

    Just wow. What a day. 🙂

  8. @Aqualung says:
    Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 9:55 pm
    First half was ordinary Sonar. Much better second.

    Yep. But it all turned out for the good.

  18. Already one diehard No campaigner pontificated today that the upcoming Same-sex marriage legislation should also guarantee private companies the right to reject business from couples who intend to be married in a religious ceremony different to that of any company’s owners religious convictions, not just from those entering Same-sex marriages.

    I’ve been involved in commerce for a good few decades. You don’t need a special law passed so that you can say,”No bid” on a sale. No-one can force you to sell to them.

    If you don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, you might extend that to “Sorry mate, out of stock.”

    If some over-zealous loon from the gay lobby tries to force a baker to sell them a cake, I’d be cheering if the baker told them to eff-off. It’s buyer and seller. Simple as that.

  20. Today’s Mumble on the postal survey results and Bennelong by-election:

    Her presentation alongside Bill Shorten on Tuesday, while fine in content (this isn’t about John Alexander, it’s about the Turnbull government), came across as so much politics-speak, and not terribly sincere. And her explanation on Channel 10’s The Project for suddenly deleting her tweets was risible.

    The Liberals will energetically dish dirt over the coming month. But Keneally obviously enjoys recognition and is, when she’s not reading a script, an appealing, talented communicator.

    And this is not your run-of-the-mill by-election, because the future of the government may actually be in play. Just how that dynamic plays out is impossible to say.

    http://insidestory.org.au/marriage-equality-gets-a-yes-uncertainty-strikes-in-bennelong/

    My own view on KK is that she hasn’t had as much of a visible media presence as a Sky commentator as many here assume. Sky’s audience share is woeful, and getting more woeful as Netflix hoovers up Foxtel viewers.

    But I’m prepared to give her my support simply because a Labor govt will always be better for the nation than a coalition one.

  22. The Sydney electorates that returned majority ‘no’ responses to the survey seem to line up pretty well with the “Red Rooster Line”. Only Bennelong lies to the east of it I think?

    (Can “Number of Red Roosters” be added to the dropdown? 🙂 )

  24. Sir Pyjamas, if you’re still around, the reason Keneally is such a God-botherer is she has a degree (Masters?) in Theology. I reckon if she’d been born a bloke she might have trained for the priesthood . That said, she is amazingly open-minded about most subjects

  26. It’s basic Thucydides:

    The former president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Keysar Trad, was pleased at the 75 per cent “no” vote in Labor frontbencher Jason Clare’s electorate of Blaxland, and surprised it was not even higher.

    The expat colonies are always behind the motherland, socially. Long after the Old Country has given up the veil, the migrants stick to the old ways.

    It’s the kids who make the changes.

  27. I do so hope that Malcolm Turnbull grows a pair and guillotines the Smith SSM Bill through parliament, with the Labor numbers, and rubs the noses of the recalcitrant rump in it.

    Fanciful notion, I know.

  28. The same sex result should afford the government with a huge fillip and a turn around in the polls, (watch this space) but knowing the RWNJ element in their party, it wont. They will spoil whatever short term bounce occurs through their spoiling tactics in the medium to long term.

  29. Sprocket at 6.33pm. I have read the Amicus view about Hollie Hughes, and I think the High Court will say that she was disqualified not because she took the AAT job, but because she didn’t resign from it soon enough.
    She resigned on the 28th October, but that was after the High Court had ruled that Fiona Nash was disqualified on the 27th October. One could reasonably argue that the election process was reopened on the 27th October, so therefore the fact that she was still in the AAT job after the High Court decision disqualified her.
    If this proves to be the High Court’s reason, then blame can again be laid at the feet of Brandis and Turnbull, who were so confident the High Court would rule in their favour, that they developed no contingency plan in case the High Court ruled against them. So they should have got Hollie Hughes to resign before the 27th October, and I suspect that if they had done that, they would have been OK.

  30. I would only be concerned about the No vote in Western Sydney if polling showed a big drift away from the ALP. I do not think it will happen. While it was disappointing, those seats will not flip to the dark side.

  31. Player One @ #671 Wednesday, November 15th, 2017 – 8:07 pm

    Oops! I meant Hollie Hughes of course, not Lamb. Trying to track too many cases at the same time!

    Hughes did violate would have violated the Constitution. The HC said so, and so it is. She did not maintain her eligibility for the term she ran for, and as such she cannot sit in Parliament until the next term without violating the Constitution.

    That may not be fair or equitable, but it appears that’s what the Constitution requires.

    John Goss @ #726 Wednesday, November 15th, 2017 – 9:19 pm

    Sprocket at 6.33pm. I have read the Amicus view about Hollie Hughes, and I think the High Court will say that she was disqualified not because she took the AAT job, but because she didn’t resign from it soon enough.
    She resigned on the 28th October, but that was after the High Court had ruled that Fiona Nash was disqualified on the 27th October. One could reasonably argue that the election process was reopened on the 27th October, so therefore the fact that she was still in the AAT job after the High Court decision disqualified her.
    If this proves to be the High Court’s reason, then blame can again be laid at the feet of Brandis and Turnbull, who were so confident the High Court would rule in their favour, that they developed no contingency plan in case the High Court ruled against them. So they should have got Hollie Hughes to resign before the 27th October, and I suspect that if they had done that, they would have been OK.

    Actually, I think that’s the most plausible explanation put forward so far.

  32. Guytaur,
    You do remember BB’s other objectionable comments about ‘other people’s’ opinions wrt the nature of homosexual acts, don’t you?

    Surprised by the latest position? I’m not.

  35. BB

    Put Jew instead of gay. Read what you just posted again.

    Guytaur, you’re just the sort of trouble-maker who’ll fuck it up for the gay lobby. If you go around insisting that bakers bake cakes for SSM weddings, and that plumbers only fix gentiles’ dunnies, or that any other commercial organization has to give a reason for not supplying goods or services to someone (or else be forced to by some unenforceable law) then all you do is play into the hands of the Tony Abbotts of this world.

    You just cannot stop people from having (what youregard as) irrational dislikes for others. No law will change that, or should.

    A wedding cake is a wedding cake. It’s a bauble, a decoration, a piece of flim-flam. It’s not an essential service, otherwise you might have a point.

    Same with marriage celebrants. If they (as well as the bakers, butchers and candle-stick makers) want to do themselves out of business, then they can be my guest. They’re the ones who have to do the commercial sums.

    There are obviously going to be limits on this, of course, but wedding cakes and marriage celebrants are not anywhere near those limits.

    I have cients who I just know are bad news. They nit-pick, They phone you in themiddle of the night. One even used to swab down the seat with disinfectant wherever I (or any other “trade”person) sat. I deal with them once, but never again. I don’t have to give a reason. Call it prejudice. Call it wisdom. But don’t try to force me to serve them.

  36. guytaur says:
    Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 9:57 pm
    Sydney just became as big a parrty city as we have not seen since the Olymopics. For celebrations. Maybe New Year.

    Just wow. What a day.

    It’s a great milestone for the LGBTQI community and for their families and supporters, g. There’s no doubt about that at all. It’s also a day when Australians as a whole can be proud. We have dispensed with an old prejudice. That is a formidable thing. We should not underestimate ourselves. Change is possible here, no matter the swindling of the clerics and the patriarchs.

    However, I also have to say that, from a purely personal perspective, I’m glad it’s over. I know my own family members have been struggling with their fears; and our tears today were shed from relief as well as happiness. We have been together today. We have held each other closer than usual. And we have all released our breaths as one.

  38. Clem Attlee,
    I would not go so far as to predict a turnaround in the polls for the government.

    That would be one hell of a bump from a ‘least worst’ process foisted on the nation because that same government and the same pusillanimous leader couldn’t do their day job and legislate for SSM.

  39. GG

    Your reaction says it all about you.

    You would say no such thing about bakers making a cake for Jews or black people.

    You hVe a prejudice to address.

  41. Bushfire:

    I don’t have to give a reason. Call it prejudice. Call it wisdom. But don’t try to force me to serve them.

    Yeesh, nobody “forces” you to serve them now, and no way in hell does the postal survey result force you to serve gay people you don’t want to.

    You don’t want to serve Aboriginal people? Fine, don’t. You don’t want to serve gay people? Fine, don’t do that either. You don’t want to serve people with disability? Then don’t do that and do your damnedest to scream that right of yours from the highest pulpit while you’re at it.

    But we do have anti-discrimination laws in this country for a reason, and there has been no logical argument made that same sex marriage laws should give way to laws permitting discrimination against minority groups. Quite the opposite in fact, I’d posit.

  43. Small business people in Australia are price takers. They operate in a very small market. They can not afford to offend any one.

    A smart business person only turns away business when then know they have so much business they can’t complete all existing orders. They know back work politely and inoffensively.

    This baker offended by an order for a wedding cake for a SSM couple is a load of hooey.

  45. C@

    I do so hope that Malcolm Turnbull grows a pair and guillotines the Smith SSM Bill through parliament

    I’ve not got much good to say about David Cameron but at least he had the gutz to defy his own party in the UK over SSM.

  47. Bushfire Bill @ #735 Wednesday, November 15th, 2017 – 10:26 pm

    BB

    Put Jew instead of gay. Read what you just posted again.

    Guytaur, you’re just the sort of trouble-maker who’ll fuck it up for the gay lobby. If you go around insisting that bakers bake cakes for SSM weddings, and that plumbers only fix gentiles’ dunnies, or that any other commercial organization has to give a reason for not supplying goods or services to someone (or else be forced to by some unenforceable law) then all you do is play into the hands of the Tony Abbotts of this world.

    You just cannot stop people from having (what youregard as) irrational dislikes for others. No law will change that, or should.

    A wedding cake is a wedding cake. It’s a bauble, a decoration, a piece of flim-flam. It’s not an essential service, otherwise you might have a point.

    Same with marriage celebrants. If they (as well as the bakers, butchers and candle-stick makers) want to do themselves out of business, then they can be my guest. They’re the ones who have to do the commercial sums.

    There are obviously going to be limits on this, of course, but wedding cakes and marriage celebrants are not anywhere near those limits.

    I have cients who I just know are bad news. They nit-pick, They phone you in themiddle of the night. One even used to swab down the seat with disinfectant wherever I (or any other “trade”person) sat. I deal with them once, but never again. I don’t have to give a reason. Call it prejudice. Call it wisdom. But don’t try to force me to serve them.

    No in this you are definitely wrong. If you as a business refuse to serve someone because they are an arsehole and you dislike them then that is not against the discrimination laws. If you as a business refuse to serve someone because they are black, yellow, mixed race, male, female, jewish, muslim, christian, lesbian, gay, transgender, etc. then this is definitely against the law and you should be punished according to the anti-discrimination law as it stands. Plus you should be called out for it in public and hopefully a business that discriminates in such a manner loses all its business and shortly fails to be a business anymore.

  49. Spent most of the game wondering when Honduras’ legs would go. They started wobbling towards the end of the second half and after about ten minutes of the second they turned into statues. Only one winner after that. Nothing like developed world conditioning to get you into the world cup!

  50. One of my good friends is a wedding planner. The first whiff of high maintenance couples who mess with her OCD mojo and she’s like ‘Hmm, no, unfortunately I’m booked solid, sorry.’

    End of story.

    I also know that gay people would very quickly get the lay of the discriminatory land with retailers who refused to deliver appropriate customer service, and would give their business elsewhere.

    It’s called commerce. But aside from that, why should minority groups accept second class service from commercial ventures simply because of prejudice? Not good enough.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 15 of 27
1 … 14 15 16 … 27