While Wong took aim at the process of the proposed plebiscite, calling it a "vote to vote on same sex marriage", others are taking issue with the fact it will be a voluntary postal vote. The government earlier this week said if the bill was voted down in the Senate, then a voluntary non-binding postal vote would occur - also at a cost of nearly $100 million, ABC reported.
Guardian Australian understands the case will also question whether the direction to conduct the vote and the appropriation to pay for it are in fact "urgent", when they could be made through an instrument the Senate could disallow.
Treasurer Scott Morrison defended the $122 million price tag of the postal ballot, insisting "keeping promises is money well spent". Gay and lesbian couples in Australia are therefore unable to divorce because, under the law, they are not married.
But the government's second bid was defeated on Wednesday by a 31-vote tie.
When asked whether the same-sex marriage vote could negatively affect the LGBTQ population, Headspace CEO Jason Trethowan offered a blunt assessment: "Yes".
"I think they should abandon it".
Senator Cormann said there were "decisions yet to be made" and "further discussions to be held". "The hurt, the hatred, the attacks on LGBTI people are going to be amplified in our community".
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is set to make the announcement today, confirming Thursday August 24 as the cut off date for registrations.
"Unlike in Ireland there is no need to change the constitution to allow same-sex marriage".
Welcoming the Finance Minister on ABC's Lateline Monday night, hours after a controversial party room meeting opted to maintain the status quo on gay marriage, Alberici kicked off with a withering opening salvo.
"At the end of the day, this is simply about all Australians being equal before the law, it's about mutual respect".
Former prime minister Tony Abbott has signalled he will take a lead role in campaigning for the "no" vote in the same-sex marriage postal plebiscite by leaping out of the blocks Wednesday morning with a strong denunciation of the proposal.
'We will argue the government can not validly undertake a postal vote and also that it can not fund the exercise without parliamentary approval'.
By quite a way, the same-sex marriage postal plebiscite must count as one of the most baroque, convoluted, ad hoc responses to this social issue.
He used the same justification to refute Alberici's questions over whether a postal plebiscite "has any legitimacy at all" and is considered "a bit of a farce", and that gay people and the wider public "don't want a plebiscite".