Division Description Changes — Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail — 7th Dec 2017

Change	Division
representatives vote 2017-12-07#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2018-03-28 12:26:23	Title Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Safeguard conscientious & religious beliefs Description <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p> The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-12-07.28.1) introduced by Liberal MP [Andrew Hastie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/canning/andrew_hastie), which means they failed. ### What are the amendments? Hastie MP explained that his amendments are important: > because they seek to safeguard sincere Australians and entities that, for either conscientious or religion reasons, hold to a relevant marriage belief and directly associated beliefs on family structure, sexual relations and parenting. The amendments impose limitations on the expression of those marriage beliefs in that they must not constitute hate speech. They must not be harassing or threatening on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or marital or relationship status. They do not give licence to sexual discrimination. They do not permit a person or entity to discriminate against other Australians, as prohibited under the [Sex Discrimination Act 1984](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Discrimination_Act_1984). > These amendments, rather, are a shield for people and organisations that hold to a traditional view of marriage. They are not a sword to be wielded in the service of bigotry. ### Why did some Coalition MPs vote Yes and others No? The Coalition 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 Coalition 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).

<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-12-07.28.1) introduced by Liberal MP [Andrew Hastie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/canning/andrew_hastie), which means they failed.
### What are the amendments?
Hastie MP explained that his amendments are important:
> *because they seek to safeguard sincere Australians and entities that, for either conscientious or religion reasons, hold to a relevant marriage belief and directly associated beliefs on family structure, sexual relations and parenting. The amendments impose limitations on the expression of those marriage beliefs in that they must not constitute hate speech. They must not be harassing or threatening on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or marital or relationship status. They do not give licence to sexual discrimination. They do not permit a person or entity to discriminate against other Australians, as prohibited under the [Sex Discrimination Act 1984](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Discrimination_Act_1984).*
> *These amendments, rather, are a shield for people and organisations that hold to a traditional view of marriage. They are not a sword to be wielded in the service of bigotry.*
### Why did some Coalition MPs vote Yes and others No?
The Coalition 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 Coalition 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).