All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2017-11-28#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-12-29 12:58:42
|
Title
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - in Committee- Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Religious and conscientious protection
Description
|
|
senate vote 2017-11-28#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-12-29 12:37:27
|
Title
Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; in Committee- Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - in Committee
Description
<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>- The majority voted against the [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-28.16.1) introduced by Liberal Senator [David Fawcett](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/david_fawcett) that were numbered (1) to (19), (21) to (23), (25), (27) to (38), and (40) to (44) on sheet 8326.
- ### What were these amendments about?
- Senator Fawcett [explained that](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-28.16.1):
- > *These amendments go to a couple of issues, one particularly to do with religious and conscientious protection for celebrants that was raised during the Senate select committee. The human rights law is a right that extends to every individual, not just to members of the clergy and not just to religious organisations.*
- > *The change that we have proposed extends the definition. It says:*
- >> marriage means:
- >> (a) the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life; or
- >> (b) the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
- > *What that means is that we are providing a balance so that 40 per cent of Australians who hold to the traditional view of marriage are not unnecessarily disenfranchised, but in no way does it prevent people who are same-sex-attracted who wish to access marriage being able to do that. It is an amendment that is intended to be a unifying amendment, meaning that we actually provide Australians, whichever way they voted—the 60 per cent and the 40 per cent—with a place in our law, so that they recognise that their views are respected and legal in Australian law.*
- ### Why did some Liberals vote Yes and others No?
- The Liberal Party was split on this issue, with some voting Yes and others voting No. This split within the party is unusual but, given the nature of the subject matter of the vote, the Liberal Party decided to run this as a free vote, meaning that its members could vote however they chose rather than having to vote along party lines.
- ### What does this bill do?
- This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1099) will allow same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, it will also:
- > *enable ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, chaplains and bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to solemnise or provide facilities, goods and services for marriages on religious grounds; and make amendments ... to provide that a refusal by a minister of religion, religious marriage celebrant or chaplain to solemnise marriage in prescribed circumstances does not constitute unlawful discrimination.*
- Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054).
|