The gay marriage plebiscite is looking increasingly unlikely. Picture: Thinkstock

THE rowdy wedding crasher ruining the hopes for same-sex marriage celebrations is unadorned, and uninvited, political posturing.

With so much evidence, both anecdotal and data-based, of broad support for changes to the Marriage Act, the major parties have found ways to complicate the issue beyond redemption.

In the process, the concept of elected representative government has been confounded to resemble a threat to democracy rather than the essence of it.

Only something as basic as allowing two men or two women to enter contractual monogamy could be the source of so much outrage.

There are degrees, of course, of complication being imposed on this relatively simple process.

The Coalition’s plan to appease right-wing supporters and MPs and its senators is for a plebiscite — effectively a roll call of voters to see whether they hold the views we already know most of them hold.

It would be compulsory for voters to take part in the plebiscite, but not compulsory for MPs to vote in Parliament according to its outcome. And there might not consensus on the wording.

Further, some anti-same-sex-marriage forces are suggesting anti-discrimination laws should be suspended during the plebiscite, to allow them to say nasty things about homosexuals and lesbians. It threatens to be a rough campaign.

Labor figures, the Greens, and influential senator Nick Xenophon are opposed to the plebiscite, because they are unsure of the outcome and because they fear attacks on homosexuals — political and physical.

Senator Nick Xenophon has shot down hopes of a same-sex marriage plebiscite. Picture: Kym SmithSource:News Corp Australia

But if you think that would be a complex approach, stand back for Pauline Hanson’s four-stage plan — complete with three national ballots.

The senator-elect outlined it today on the Seven network: First up she wants a referendum to state section 51 of the Constitution deals only with marriage between opposite sexes — man and woman.

Marriage is one of the many things mentioned in s51 as the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The list also includes lighthouses, but doesn’t stipulate where or when they should be built. That is a decision for the Federal Government and the Parliament.

Next, she wants a plebiscite to identify the feelings of the electorate.

Should the vote be in favour of same-sex marriage, there would need to be another constitutional referendum to adapt section 51 — yet again.

Only then could the matter be put before Parliament.

The notion that people are elected to Parliament to make decisions is discounted by this process, which portrays this arrangement as unfortunate but sadly unavoidable.

In addition, despite her three national ballots, Ms Hanson is worried about the cost to taxpayers of even one, $160 million plebiscite.

This is like travelling from Sydney to Melbourne via Madrid, Chicago and Wellington. Except it would take months longer. Clearly, she doesn’t want change, something she acknowledged last year.

And she is not alone.

Back in what Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull hopes will become the “sensible centre” formed by the Government and the Labor Opposition, there are strong forces both opposing and supporting same-sex marriage.

Those opposed in the general community have been the louder voices and the most active in lobbying their MPs. But they do not necessarily stand for the majority.

The way things are going, we might not be able to confirm or deny this for another three years at least.