Are you trying to say that some people prefer to be discriminated against, intimidated, and called ‘abominations’ or ‘perverts’? Not to mention bashed and killed in some circumstances.

People can’t help what they are, and homosexual people can’t change their sexuality any more than an aboriginal person can change their skin, or a woman can change her genitalia.

So why is the government insisting they be denied rights on the basis of that characteristic? I just don’t understand.

Nevertheless, I have four points to make:

1) The Bradley effect is not absolute: it has not taken place in every case (e.g. the election of Obama, which many people predicted would lose precisely on the Bradley effect)

2) Where support is at 60%, the Bradley effect is less likely to have a significant effect. It is less likely that a whole 10% of people are misrepresenting their views. Nevertheless, 60% support is still in the “controversial” range. Only once public support exceeds 70% can it be called “overwhelming” (some European countries have these levels of support for same-sex marriage).

3) Marriage will probably *never* come up to a vote in Australia. Unlike the US, the Australian system does not have provisions for citizen-initiated ballot proposals, and very rarely involves plebiscites or referenda unless it is a constitutional change issue. In that case, a referendum proposal must first be approved by the Parliament. I find it hard to believe that a future Parliament, after passing same-sex marriage, will choose to also put it to a referendum.

4) As a corollary of point 3, the argument above, while interesting, is not really of relevance. The key is to persuade politicians to vote for it. In this context, public opinion polls matter *more* than true public support, since it is opinion polls which can be used to convince politicians of public support.

The “The non-compulsory nature of voting in the States was the factor in California”. Hang on, I though it was those nasty mormons and their fear campaign that they so savagely waged.

Wait a minute, it was the black people who, having bitterly tasted discrimination themselves, should have sided with us.

No, it was those macho Latinos who simply couldn’t vote for something like gay marriage.

But perhaps it was all of those bible bashers? You know, those nutcase churchies who believe in invisible gods?

What about the large bigot population of California; you know, those who aren’t inner-city hipsters from the “Bay Area” of SF? The ignorant masses?

Nup! None of the above. The vote was lost purely because of “the non-compulsory nature of voting”. You know, people couldn’t get time off work and couldn’t be bothered wit the “extra hassle” of voting by post.

Pretty simple really.

Galaxy regularly does election polling for major newspapers and their results are rarely far off the mark.

The non-compulsory nature of voting in the States was the factor in California.

Americans often have to arrange to get time off work to vote- which means money out of their pockets.

The alternative is a postal vote- which means the extra hassle of arranging a ballot paper and then dropping it off at the post office.

Even if you do turn up to vote in a State or Presidential election, there’s nothing requiring you to stay to vote on the often numerous ballot initiatives that are running as well.

Then there’s the fact it’s a first past the post system which means if you support a party other than the Republicans or Democrats, or are dissolutioned with the big two, there is virtually no point in you voting as when your candidate fails your vote doesn’t continue on to your party of second preference so you actually make it easier for the guy you hate the most to get in. For this reason, few recent American presidents have been elected by a majority of eligible voters in the United States- many third world countries have higher voter turnouts.

Australia is smarter than that. Discrimination is discrimantion and in no circumstance should it be acceptable yet alone legalised.

Fact: – Same sex marriage will be legalised in Australia. When? That is uncertain. What is certain is that it will occur when the majority let go of any ignorance and conseqent fear they hold in their hearts and just accept that love is love. Simple.

Government will reflect the majority. I have faith that the majority already recognise that love is love. Time will tell.

In a poll – in spite of polls being “anonymous”, most people will tend to provide support for same sex marriage because they don’t want to come across as bigots.

When true anonymous voting occurs, the real opinions of people come out.

So if you asked how people felt about, say, Islam, you’ll get a high support in response, but in an isolated, anonymous voting situation, a fairer or more true consensus is achieved. Such is human behaviour

I agree that same-sex marriage would pass if it was put to the voters, but that’s not how we do things in Australia.

Here we elect representatives who we hope are representative of our views and will act as a sort of jury of the people on contentious issues. Unfortunately the party system subverts that intention.

Which of your rights would you like to be voted on?

If there’s a majority of Australians that “back same-sex marriage” then put it to the voters.

Voting may not be compuslory in the US, but all this does is weed out the “unsure” or “can’t be bothered” element. Therefore only those who really care (one way or another) will bother voting.

Having said that, voting in Australia is not compuslory either, in practice. What is compulsory is having your named marked off. What you do with your voting papers, and what you write on them after that, is completely up to you.

I also ask the delegates to the ALP’s National Conference to endorse a move to change Australian law to legalise same sex marriage.