A voluntary, non-binding plebiscite isn't a "vote", it's an opinion poll. How did we get into this mess in the first place? The government just upped and changed the Marriage Act in 2004. No plebiscite, no "vote", no nothing other than politicians unilaterally making a decision to actively discriminate against part of society.
We don't have plebiscites for far bigger issues so why for this particular issue? It makes absolutely no sense.
Our parliament is meant to be a place in which there is a free exchange of ideas. Proposed legislation is meant to be hotly debated and passed or rejected based on its merits. For big ticket items, especially where parliament remains divided a smart parliament will take the issue to the people during an election. This is demanded by the electorate and assumed under our democracy.
On the matter of proposed SSM the parliament has failed abysmally. Any and all debate in the matter has been completely stifled to the extent that any mention of traditional marriage is howled down as some sort of bigotry. In the case of a parliamentary vote on the matter, on one side of parliament politicians have been ordered by their party to vote yes or else. On the other side politicians have been allowed a "conscience vote". A conscience vote means voting based on an individuals moral code rather than representing their electorate. I don't want this any more than you do. A parliamentary vote in this circumstance may be legal but would be considered and argued to be illegitimate. It would sit like a festering wound. If you find this present parliamentary situation acceptable then it stands to reason that the obverse is true and a future parliament could rescind SSM with the same level of disdain for process and community expectations.
The best option under these circumstances is to give the people a say through a plebiscite. Whilst it is true that a plebiscite is non binding it's also true to say that only an arrogant or extremely foolish parliament would go against the clear and express demand of the people. Let the debate happen. Let the legislation rise or fail on its merits.
On the question of Howard changing the marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society. If society has changed then that should be easily determined through the plebiscite.
The very nature of the definition of marriage is discriminating, it's also exclusive but within marriage is equality. Marriage is also between a man and a woman. In my opinion anything else is not marriage, irrespective of what you want to call it. Just as Julia found that a man disagreeing with her is not misogyny, as much as she wished the definition to change to fit her description. Seeking change on the grounds of perceived "inequality" is folly. If cohabiting gays in a committed relationship wish to have a legal tag then so be it. But it isn't "marriage" just as my dog can never be a camel. I accept that this is something that should be debated in an open discussion amongst the community.
Democracy.