Liberal and Nationals MPs on Tuesday endorsed a plan to have the Australian Bureau of Statistics - which is still reeling from last year's bungled census - conduct the postal ballot.
While it's true that the postal plebiscite is non-binding, it is likely that given a "free vote" in parliament, Aussie politicians will finally do the right thing and make same-sex marriage legal.
Same-sex marriage has been a sticking point for the government since the election after promising to take the matter to the people.
Because a postal vote is not required to pass through the Parliament, it will be going ahead from September, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said. The government will receive the final results on Nov 15. When Turnbull seized the leadership two years ago, he needed to keep conservatives on-side so retained Abbott's policy on same-sex marriage.
Expect a LOT of noise over the postal vote in the coming days. A Australians aged 18 and over who are registered to vote. On Monday, Turnbull's party held a crisis meeting over the issue, and made a decision to put legislation before the Parliament for the plebiscite.
The challenge was announced just hours after the Senate rejected the Turnbull government's attempt to reintroduce its bill for its preferred compulsory plebiscite.
The Australian Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill for a plebiscite to decide the future of same-sex marriage in the country.
Asked about a possible boycott of the postal ballot, the MP told reporters: "There were people who chose not to vote for Donald Trump because they walked away from it, and they got Donald Trump didn't they?"
"That is the commitment that we made and that is the commitment that the Liberal party today reaffirmed to make sure that every Australian who is on the electoral role has a say on".
She also took aim at the Australian Christian Lobby after their recent comments about same sex parents.
"You talk about unifying moments?"
"The proposition that voluntary voting lacks legitimacy, I don't accept".
This was Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's emotive argument against the idea of a plebiscite previous year.
"Obviously I will be voting no", he said on Wednesday.
But some have advocated for action over further delay.
"This is a vote whose sole aim is to stop the members of this parliament being given a chance to do their job and vote", said Wong.
"The issue is can the government pay for a postal plebiscite in a constitutionally valid way, and I think there's serious questions about whether it can do that", Paul Kildea, director of the Referendums Project at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, told CNN.