Division Description Changes — Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading — 6th Dec 2017

Change	Division
representatives vote 2017-12-06#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2018-03-28 11:09:09	Title Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Adjourn debate Description ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Burt in continuation.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Matt Keogh</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-12-06.6.1) to adjourn debate. In other words, they put off further discussion on this bill until the next sitting day. ### 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). <p>It is also about a fair go for Stephen and Dennis, who, despite being the first gay couple in Australia to marry here, under the ACT's short-lived laws, by my friend and colleague Terry Healy MLA, ultimately had to marry in Ireland. It is about a fair go for my cousin, my aunt, CT, and my cousin-in-law, Jack. It's about a fair go for my friends Craig and David and so many others in the LGBTIQ around Australia so that, should they wish, they too can marry the person they love. It is about our country legally recognising their relationships and removing discrimination against them so that they can all enjoy the same legal rights, privileges and status in our community that my wife, Annabel, and I have—because the love we share is the same as the love all these couples share too; because all Australians are equal and should be entitled to full participation in our society. That's why I voted yes in the survey and will vote yes in this parliament for marriage equality. I commend the bill to the House.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jason Falinski</p>~~ <p>I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I do not wish to detain the House for long in moving to a vote on this matter but I did feel that it was proper to explain briefly to this chamber why I will be voting in the manner and form in which I shall be voting. I cannot say that I had some sort of road-to-Damascus experience, an epiphany brought about because someone I loved or respected or held in high regard had shared with me their experience and its injustices were so clear and the virtues so sure that they pleaded like angels, trumpet tongued, against it. The truth is: for as long as I can remember, I have known people who were gay and were treated no differently except—and this is a rather large exception—under the law.</p> <p>My father had a business partner who openly lived with his boyfriend at a time when homosexuality was illegal in New South Wales. One of my good friends in the Liberal Party was Ross Barlow. I say this because he recently passed away. He lived with his boyfriend and partner for over 50 years. As he lay in the hospital bed, delirious from his long illness, he asked me if the postal ballot had been successful. Unfortunately, Ross passed away before I could answer that question definitively.</p> <p>Homosexuality has never really struck me as being unusual or, honestly, that different. I guess it would be easy for me to hide behind the clarion call of democracy in support of my views. We gave the people a voice and they spoke with a roar. In Mackellar, 84 per cent of people voted and nearly 70 per cent said yes. But I'm also persuaded, as many who have come before us have noted, that replacing the tyranny of dictators with the tyranny of the majority is no advance. Instead, I believe that government is at its noblest when it is providing freedom to its citizens, when those freedoms do not impinge adversely on any single person and are giving voice to those freedoms. To have a freedom that cannot be properly exercised is also no advance. If government is to regulate marriage then it should be regulated to ensure everyone has access to it.</p> <p>As a practising Catholic, I accept that my personal views on marriage may no longer be expressed in law. However, it weighs more heavily on me that I should not use government to enforce upon others my personal views. Just as I would not want those opposite to impose their personal views on me, it is not unreasonable for them to ask that I do not impose my personal views on them. Few of us in this House are gods. And few of us always know what is good for us, as is readily demonstrated on a daily basis. So how can we presume to always know what is good for others? These choices, whether right or wrong, are best reserved for the individuals who are most directly impacted by them.</p> <p>I know that there are many who are worried that their freedoms to express their beliefs and conscience openly and without undue constraint may be compromised by this bill. I'm obviously one of those people. A discussion about the inherent rights of those of conscience is long overdue. Compared to the United States, where these matters were considered and resolved some two centuries ago, Australia has much work to do. My distinct preference is for this discussion to be dealt with holistically rather than piecemeal in a bill designed to give expression to the people's voice by expanding the definition of marriage in law. As such, I support the Ruddock review as the best path towards protecting those rights both now and into the future.</p> <p>This parliament should always look to give as much freedom to people as possible, only constrained by the removal of a right or freedom of another. Therefore, this parliament should support provisions that protect people's rights to express their conscience, and, where there is doubt, we should sow certainty. But just as importantly, this parliament should now allow people who love each other to marry.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Tony Smith~~
~~The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Burt in continuation.~~
~~Matt Keogh~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-12-06.6.1) to adjourn debate. In other words, they put off further discussion on this bill until the next sitting day.
### 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).
It is also about a fair go for Stephen and Dennis, who, despite being the first gay couple in Australia to marry here, under the ACT's short-lived laws, by my friend and colleague Terry Healy MLA, ultimately had to marry in Ireland. It is about a fair go for my cousin, my aunt, CT, and my cousin-in-law, Jack. It's about a fair go for my friends Craig and David and so many others in the LGBTIQ around Australia so that, should they wish, they too can marry the person they love. It is about our country legally recognising their relationships and removing discrimination against them so that they can all enjoy the same legal rights, privileges and status in our community that my wife, Annabel, and I have—because the love we share is the same as the love all these couples share too; because all Australians are equal and should be entitled to full participation in our society. That's why I voted yes in the survey and will vote yes in this parliament for marriage equality. I commend the bill to the House.
~~Jason Falinski~~
I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I do not wish to detain the House for long in moving to a vote on this matter but I did feel that it was proper to explain briefly to this chamber why I will be voting in the manner and form in which I shall be voting. I cannot say that I had some sort of road-to-Damascus experience, an epiphany brought about because someone I loved or respected or held in high regard had shared with me their experience and its injustices were so clear and the virtues so sure that they pleaded like angels, trumpet tongued, against it. The truth is: for as long as I can remember, I have known people who were gay and were treated no differently except—and this is a rather large exception—under the law.
My father had a business partner who openly lived with his boyfriend at a time when homosexuality was illegal in New South Wales. One of my good friends in the Liberal Party was Ross Barlow. I say this because he recently passed away. He lived with his boyfriend and partner for over 50 years. As he lay in the hospital bed, delirious from his long illness, he asked me if the postal ballot had been successful. Unfortunately, Ross passed away before I could answer that question definitively.
Homosexuality has never really struck me as being unusual or, honestly, that different. I guess it would be easy for me to hide behind the clarion call of democracy in support of my views. We gave the people a voice and they spoke with a roar. In Mackellar, 84 per cent of people voted and nearly 70 per cent said yes. But I'm also persuaded, as many who have come before us have noted, that replacing the tyranny of dictators with the tyranny of the majority is no advance. Instead, I believe that government is at its noblest when it is providing freedom to its citizens, when those freedoms do not impinge adversely on any single person and are giving voice to those freedoms. To have a freedom that cannot be properly exercised is also no advance. If government is to regulate marriage then it should be regulated to ensure everyone has access to it.
As a practising Catholic, I accept that my personal views on marriage may no longer be expressed in law. However, it weighs more heavily on me that I should not use government to enforce upon others my personal views. Just as I would not want those opposite to impose their personal views on me, it is not unreasonable for them to ask that I do not impose my personal views on them. Few of us in this House are gods. And few of us always know what is good for us, as is readily demonstrated on a daily basis. So how can we presume to always know what is good for others? These choices, whether right or wrong, are best reserved for the individuals who are most directly impacted by them.
I know that there are many who are worried that their freedoms to express their beliefs and conscience openly and without undue constraint may be compromised by this bill. I'm obviously one of those people. A discussion about the inherent rights of those of conscience is long overdue. Compared to the United States, where these matters were considered and resolved some two centuries ago, Australia has much work to do. My distinct preference is for this discussion to be dealt with holistically rather than piecemeal in a bill designed to give expression to the people's voice by expanding the definition of marriage in law. As such, I support the Ruddock review as the best path towards protecting those rights both now and into the future.
This parliament should always look to give as much freedom to people as possible, only constrained by the removal of a right or freedom of another. Therefore, this parliament should support provisions that protect people's rights to express their conscience, and, where there is doubt, we should sow certainty. But just as importantly, this parliament should now allow people who love each other to marry.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~