Division Description Changes — Bills — Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012; Second Reading — 20th Sep 2012

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2012-09-20#5 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:18:12	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. ~~This means that the bill will not be considered any further.~~ ~~''Debate in Parliament''~~ This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate Patricia Crossin]. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it. A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. ) Opponents of the bill such as Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis] disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008].(Read Senator Brandis' contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1 here]. ) ~~''Background to the Bill''~~ Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. ) The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.(More information about this bill can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884 here].) However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage. ~~References~~ The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. This means that the bill will not be considered any further. _Debate in Parliament_ This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party Senator [Patricia Crossin](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate). It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it. A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2). ) Opponents of the bill such as Senator [George Brandis](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate) disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060) and the [Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011).(Read Senator Brandis' contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1). ) _Background to the Bill_ Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2). ) The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.(More information about this bill can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884).) However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage. References
senate vote 2012-09-20#5 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:08	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. This means that the bill will not be considered any further. ''Debate in Parliament'' This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate Patricia Crossin]. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it. A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.[1] Opponents of the bill such as Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis] disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008].[2] A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. ) Opponents of the bill such as Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis] disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008].(Read Senator Brandis' contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1 here]. ) ''Background to the Bill'' Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.[3] Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. ) ~~The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.[4] However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.~~ The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.(More information about this bill can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884 here].) However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage. References * [1] Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. * [2] Read Senator Brandis' contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1 here]. * [3] Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. * [4] More information about this bill can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884 here].
senate vote 2012-09-20#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-14 15:26:17	Title ~~Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading - Recognise same-sex marriage~~ Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time Description The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. This means that the bill will not be considered any further. ''Debate in Parliament'' <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate Patricia Crossin]. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it. ~~<p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p>~~ A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.[1] Opponents of the bill such as Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis] disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008].[2] ~~<p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>~~ ''Background to the Bill'' <p>This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Patricia Crossin</a>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.</p> Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.[3] <p>A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a> and the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008</a>.</p> The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.[4] However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage. ~~<p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>~~ <p>Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.</p> ~~<p>The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.</p>~~ <p>More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.</p> References * [1] Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. * [2] Read Senator Brandis' contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1 here]. * [3] Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. * [4] More information about this bill can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884 here].
senate vote 2012-09-20#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-07 13:59:08	Title ~~Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading~~ Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading - Recognise same-sex marriage Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Patricia Crossin</a>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.</p> <p>A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a> and the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008</a>.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.</p> <p>The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.</p> <p>More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2012-09-20#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-08 16:29:18	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Patricia Crossin</a>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.</p> <p>A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a>.</p> <p>A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a> and the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008</a>.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.</p> <p>The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.</p> <p>More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2012-09-20#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-08 12:20:31	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://...">Senator Patricia Crossin</p>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.</p> <p>This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Patricia Crossin</a>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.</p> <p>A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a>.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.</p> <p>The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.</p> <p>More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2012-09-20#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-08 12:19:37	Title Bills — Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012; Second Reading Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading Description ~~<p class="speaker">Trish Crossin</p>~~ <p>I rise to sum up the debate on the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. I understand that I am the last speaker in what I think has been an important week for this country, both here and in the House of Representatives. I want to start by thanking the Senate for allowing us the time to undertake this debate. It is not a government piece of legislation, but unusually it is a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government. I also want to place on record my acknowledgement of those who have contributed to this debate and the personal stories we have heard. The wide-ranging views of people both for and against this legislation have, I think, enlightened our community in one way or the other around this country as to what people in this parliament are thinking.</p> <p>I want to start by putting on record my personal situation. I, like many other people in this country, have either family members or very close friends who identify as gay or lesbian. If they are family members, of course I have known them all my life. The friends I am talking about I have known for the best part of nearly 40 years. I am a heterosexual woman and I have been married for 30 years.</p> <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://...">Senator Patricia Crossin</p>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.</p> <p>A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a>.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.</p> <p>The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.</p> <p>More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p>~~ ~~<p>Well done.</p>~~ ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

senate vote 2012-09-20#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:18:12

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages.
~~This means that the bill will not be considered any further.~~
~~''Debate in Parliament''~~
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate Patricia Crossin]. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. ) Opponents of the bill such as Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis] disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008].(Read Senator Brandis' contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1 here]. )
~~''Background to the Bill''~~
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. )
The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.(More information about this bill can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884 here].) However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
~~References~~
The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages.
This means that the bill will not be considered any further.
_Debate in Parliament_
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party Senator [Patricia Crossin](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate). It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2). ) Opponents of the bill such as Senator [George Brandis](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate) disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060) and the [Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011).(Read Senator Brandis' contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1). )
_Background to the Bill_
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2). )
The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.(More information about this bill can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884).) However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
References

senate vote 2012-09-20#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:08

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages.
This means that the bill will not be considered any further.
''Debate in Parliament''
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate Patricia Crossin]. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.[1] Opponents of the bill such as Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis] disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008].[2]
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. ) Opponents of the bill such as Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis] disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008].(Read Senator Brandis' contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1 here]. )
''Background to the Bill''
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.[3]
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.(Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here]. )
~~The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.[4] However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.~~
The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.(More information about this bill can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884 here].) However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
References
* [1] Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here].
* [2] Read Senator Brandis' contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1 here].
* [3] Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here].
* [4] More information about this bill can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884 here].

senate vote 2012-09-20#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 15:26:17

Title

~~Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading - Recognise same-sex marriage~~
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Description

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages.
This means that the bill will not be considered any further.
''Debate in Parliament''
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate Patricia Crossin]. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
~~Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.~~
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin argued that the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”.[1] Opponents of the bill such as Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis] disagreed, saying that any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008].[2]
~~Debate in Parliament~~
''Background to the Bill''
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Patricia Crossin</a>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, highlighted the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.[3]
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a> and the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008</a>.
The bill aims to enable same-sex couples to marry under Australian law.[4] However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
~~Background to the Bill~~
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.
~~The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.~~
More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.
References
* [1] Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here].
* [2] Read Senator Brandis' contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-17.4.1 here].
* [3] Read Senator Crossin's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-20.133.2 here].
* [4] More information about this bill can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884 here].

senate vote 2012-09-20#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 13:59:08

Title

~~Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading~~
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading - Recognise same-sex marriage

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Patricia Crossin</a>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a> and the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008</a>.
Background to the Bill
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.
The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.

senate vote 2012-09-20#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-08 16:29:18

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Patricia Crossin</a>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a>.
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a> and the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008</a>.
Background to the Bill
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.
The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.

senate vote 2012-09-20#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-08 12:20:31

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://...">Senator Patricia Crossin. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Trish_Crossin&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Patricia Crossin</a>. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a>.
Background to the Bill
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.
The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.

senate vote 2012-09-20#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-08 12:19:37

Title

Bills — Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012; Second Reading
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 - Second Reading

Description

~~Trish Crossin~~
I rise to sum up the debate on the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. I understand that I am the last speaker in what I think has been an important week for this country, both here and in the House of Representatives. I want to start by thanking the Senate for allowing us the time to undertake this debate. It is not a government piece of legislation, but unusually it is a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government. I also want to place on record my acknowledgement of those who have contributed to this debate and the personal stories we have heard. The wide-ranging views of people both for and against this legislation have, I think, enlightened our community in one way or the other around this country as to what people in this parliament are thinking.
I want to start by putting on record my personal situation. I, like many other people in this country, have either family members or very close friends who identify as gay or lesbian. If they are family members, of course I have known them all my life. The friends I am talking about I have known for the best part of nearly 40 years. I am a heterosexual woman and I have been married for 30 years.
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Labor Party <a href="http://...">Senator Patricia Crossin. It had the support of the Greens Party. The Labor Party was given a conscience vote on it, resulting in Labor senators voting both for and against. The Liberal Party uniformly opposed it.
A key feature of the debate was disagreement as to whether the current marriage law was discriminatory. Supporters of the bill such as Senator Crossin <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the current law “discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them access to marriage”. Opponents of the bill such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> disagreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fcb9ee569-ca11-453b-bbc3-38d3893c8e82%2F0000%22">saying that</a> any discrimination against same-sex couples was removed with bi-partisan support by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3060">Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008</a>.
Background to the Bill
Senator Crossin, who introduced the bill in the name of herself and three other Labor colleagues, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0155;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff12702a2-dfed-4af1-ba05-32a4c0133aaa%2F0000%22">highlighted</a> the unusual nature of this bill. That is, although it is not a government piece of legislation, it is “a piece of legislation that has been moved by four members of a government”.
The bill would have enabled same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, a minister of religion would not have been obliged to solemnise a same-sex marriage.
More information about this bill can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s884">here</a>.
~~Penny Wong~~
~~Well done.~~
~~Long debate text truncated.~~