It’s happened. On Wednesday morning at 10am, the Australian Bureau of Statistics announced that the majority of almost 13 million votes in the heavily maligned postal survey were in favour of marriage equality.
Australia has said ‘yes’.
Of those who voted, 61.6 per cent of Australians voted Yes for marriage equality, while 38.4 per cent voted No. An additional 0.2 per cent of the vote was unclear.
More than 12.7 million Australians voted in the survey, making up 79.6 per cent of the population.
In announcing the news, ABS chief statistician David Kalisch commended the “outstanding” number of people who came out to vote.
“This is outstanding for a voluntary survey and well above other voluntary surveys conducted around the world,” Kalisch said.
“It is worth noting our youngest on the electoral roll, the 18- and 19 -year-olds, responded strongly with around 78 per cent participation.”
Of the votes, a Yes majority was recorded for 133 electorates, while a No majority was only recorded for 17 electorates. In New South Wales, 57.8 per cent of people voted Yes in the lowest Yes vote percentage of any state. Meanwhile, ACT had the highest proportion of Yes votes, with 74 per cent. Behind the ACT came Victoria (64.9 per cent), WA (63.7 per cent), Tasmania (63.6 per cent), SA (62.5 per cent), QLD (60.7 per cent) and NT (60.6 per cent).
The Equality Campaign described the result as historic.
“This happened because millions of Australians reached out to our own families, neighbourhoods, organisations – to stand up for equality, stand by our loved ones and share why YES was so important,” spokesman Alex Greenwich said in a statement.
“Parliament still has to pass Australia’s unequivocal mandate for equality into law. And you can be sure we’ll hold them to that – we expect a timely vote on a fair and simple bill, this year.
“But for now we celebrate YES.”
The Prime Minister told reporters in Canberra he now wants federal parliament to approve same-sex marriage laws before Christmas .
"It is our job now to get on with it, and get this done," he said.
"I say to all Australians, whatever your views on this issue may be, we must respect the voice of the people.
"We asked them for their opinion and they have given it to us. It is unequivocal, it is overwhelming."
It's a truly brilliant result.
But as we know, the result doesn't mean same-sex couples will be frantically booking wedding venues for this weekend. The survey was non-compulsory, and non-binding, which means there's another hill to climb on the road to marriage equality: making it law.
Malcolm Turnbull previously promised that: "If the nation votes 'yes' then we will facilitate a private member's bill to make same-sex marriage legal before the end of the year."
That will involve a bill to change the Marriage Act, which currently specifies that marriage is "the union of a man and a woman".
Liberal Senator Dean Smith has had one waiting in the wings for months, and is expected to introduce it to Parliament as early as Wednesday afternoon.
What does Senator Smith's bill look like?
Senator Smith's Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 would change the legal definition of marriage to be "the union of two people”. It also contains exemptions that will allow marriage celebrants to "refuse to solemnise marriages" that conflict with their religious beliefs.
It's also been formally backed by Labor, the Yes campaign, and a number of moderate coalition MPs.
But challengers have emerged.
Please explain.
In the lead up to the result announcement this week, Liberal Senator James Paterson peddled an alternative marriage equality bill, with more comprehensive exemptions. It stipulates that those with “relevant marriage beliefs” — in other words, those who support the existing laws restricting marriage to between a man and a woman - may refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding. The objections can be on religious or conscientious grounds.
Senator Paterson's bill also seeks to protect freedom of speech and to allow parents to have their children removed from school classes that don't reflect their views on marriage.
Mia Freedman talks to Janine Middleton, the CEO of Australian Marriage Equality. (Post continues below.)
He says the bill “preserves the freedoms of all Australians”. But critics, including The Law Council of Australia, argue that it will effectively wind back anti-discrimination laws.
"You could potentially see a situation where a hire car company could leave their customers stranded on the way to a marriage ceremony simply because the driver held a thought or belief against it. This is even if the belief had nothing to do with religion," Law Council chief Fiona McLeod said.
Senator Paterson reportedly hopes to put his bill to a coalition partyroom meeting, the next of which is not scheduled until November 28.
So, which bill will they choose?
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told reporters in Manila it will be up to senators to work out which bill they wanted to deal with first.
But at this stage, it's looking good for Senator Smith's bill.
According to Buzzfeed News, the Smith bill has the backing of a powerful cross-party group of senators, that should ensure it passes through the Upper House.
Among those to have signed a motion to introduce the bill are Liberals Linda Reynolds and Jane Hume, Labor's Penny Wong and Louise Pratt, the Greens' Richard Di Natale and Janet Rice, the Nick Xenophon Team's Skye Kakoschke-Moore and Derryn Hinch.
When could we expect it to become law?
According to Buzzfeed News, the motion on the Smith bill requires it to be passed by November 30.
While the Senate would consider the bill this week, the House of Representatives doesn't sit again until November 27 - leaving a one week window for passage through the lower house.
If you ask Prime Minister Turnbull, that shouldn't be a problem. He previously said he expected the bill to "sail through the Parliament".
Minister Cormann echoed that optimism, telling The Australian he expects a bill to pass by the end of the year.
Once again, it's a waiting game.
What can you do in the meantime?
Find out where your Federal member stands on the issue (ABC has collated that here), and if they're opposed and especially if they're undecided CONTACT THEM. Write, email, call, Tweet, or all of the above.
And here's hoping that by Christmas, same-sex couples will be able to, finally, marry.
You can find there details here.
Top Comments
The great thing about these results is also seeing how some of the most blue chip liberal electorates overwhelmingly voted YES. Hopefully now Turnbull and the moderate Liberals can gain more confidence to push back against the extreme religious rightwing who are trying to take over the party.
I'm an SSM supporter, but this point scoring is getting tiring.
Since you are making this political. Have you seen the results of the electorates that overwhelmingly voted NO by over 70%.
They are not Blue Ribbon seats, they are from Labor in Western Sydney and not right wing by any means, they are rock solid Labor electorates and have been so for years.
Conversely, Tony Abbots electorate voted overwhelmingly Yes, even when he was NO a supporter.
So it's weird all round right? There is no need to cherry pick.
Yeah, the next election is going to be ... interesting, to say the least (for so many reasons). If One Nation was politically savvy & organised enough (hah!), I could see them picking up some votes in Western Sydney.
I am a Liberal voter so it makes me glad that my area voted YES. I have never voted Labor before but I do know a lot of Labor voters who are definitely in the NO camp. That is up to them and their party to discuss.
I actually am not trying to point score anything, just pleased that the classical "small l" liberal vote still exists as I feel moderate liberal voices have been drowned out over the last few years. Sorry you have taken my comment so badly.
Yes I wonder how Labor are going to reconcile their multicultural policies when it’s the constituents in those electorates who have benefitted from the policies but demonstrate strong intolerance and non-alignment with prevailing community values. I wonder if anyone is going to be brave enough to raise that awkward point
I don't see the issue with allowing parents to remove their kids from classes that don't support their views on marriage. If there are exemptions for celebrants to refuse participation in marriage ceremonies because it is against their religious beliefs, then this is only an extension of that.
Personally, I don't think it is up to the education system to decide when my child should be taught about sexuality and how. I'd prefer manage this conversation within my own home. I have nothing against SSM, but I would like to introduce the concept to my kids when I feel they are ready.
the problem arises when a homophobic parent has a lgbt kid and refuses to engage with the child. better all kids receive appropriate education from a teacher trained to give the best advice for all kids then leave it to parents who wont accept who their kids are, dont really know or know how to express the best sex ed or just dont want to teach their precious sweet kid about the birds and the bees/birds
What does this vote have to do with what you teach your children? Teach them what you like. Live and let live.
I honestly don't understand why sexuality has to be taught at all? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious, since I'm not aware of anyone feeling the need to teach kids about heterosexuality.
My kids have known gay people their whole lives. Close family members are gay. My son started kindergarten with the son of a gay couple. I never had to explain it to them, they have simply always known and accepted it, the same way they accept hetero couples and single parents.
And what exactly are people worried about schools teaching? If kids don't know about gay people before they start school, they'll probably find out fast enough when one (or more) of their class mates has gay parents. It just seems silly to me to try and avoid the issue altogether when gay people exist and are in every part of society. What are people trying to protect kids from?
The vote has nothing to do with it. But the proposed bill does, hence my opinion.