Almost 13 million Australians can't be wrong. They took a decision to register their vote in the same-sex marriage postal survey. But, while an 80 per cent turnout was exceptionally high and the result clear, we shouldn't use the postal vote process again.

This is not because the process lacked integrity – there can be no such claim. Not because the critics picked holes in the non-binding nature of the outcome or their declaration that the whole thing was an abrogation of parliamentary responsibility. Not even because of overhyped claims about people self-harming or advocates for or against same-sex marriage in a sophisticated country like ours being able to conduct themselves in a civil way as they took part in a public debate. No, the reason is the nature of this issue and the significance of a proposal to fundamentally change a social foundation stone that dictated the break-glass option of the postal plebiscite. The postal plebiscite is not a tool for garden variety issues of public policy.

For many of us, we live and breathe politics and enjoy public debates, but for the vast majority of Australians the three-yearly trudge to the polling booth is driven only by its compulsion. The turnout rate indicates Australians were motivated by the significance of this issue.

And while the debate was largely respectful, some of the most vocal on both sides of the debate failed to appreciate the passion and the emotion of the other side. The religious influence (particularly in many ethnic communities), or the emotion of watching a gay child or grandchild in a committed relationship – that is what stands this issue out from almost any other decision a government might make term to term.