Division Description Changes — Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 — Second Reading — 25th Feb 2010

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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2016-04-28 09:28:42

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-06-24.86.1) to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity
  • Someone who voted Aye supports the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • _Debate in Parliament_
  • Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate) introduced the bill as a private member's bill. She argued that the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2). )
  • Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill, arguing that the current marriage law was not discriminatory.(Read the debate on the bill [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2). )
  • _Background to the Bill_
  • The [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s722) was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories are establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time of this division, such schemes have been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young argues that these schemes are insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's argument [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-02-25.96.1).)
  • References
  • The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-06-24.86.1) to read the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/S722) for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity
  • Someone who voted Aye supports the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • ### Debate in Parliament
  • Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate) introduced the bill as a private member's bill. She argued that the bill would remove “the [discrimination that currently exists](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2) within the Marriage Act”.
  • Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill, arguing that the [current marriage law was not discriminatory](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2).
  • ### Background to the Bill
  • The [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s722) was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories are establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time of this division, such schemes have been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young argues that [these schemes are insufficient](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-02-25.96.1) and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:15

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-06-24.86.1 motion] to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity
  • Someone who voted Aye supports the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young] introduced the bill as a private member's bill. She argued that the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2 here]. )
  • Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill, arguing that the current marriage law was not discriminatory.(Read the debate on the bill [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2 here]. )
  • ''Background to the Bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s722 Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009] was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories are establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time of this division, such schemes have been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young argues that these schemes are insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-02-25.96.1 here].)
  • References
  • The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-06-24.86.1) to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity
  • Someone who voted Aye supports the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • _Debate in Parliament_
  • Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate) introduced the bill as a private member's bill. She argued that the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2). )
  • Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill, arguing that the current marriage law was not discriminatory.(Read the debate on the bill [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2). )
  • _Background to the Bill_
  • The [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s722) was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories are establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time of this division, such schemes have been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young argues that these schemes are insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's argument [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-02-25.96.1).)
  • References
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:39

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-06-24.86.1 motion] to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity
  • Someone who voted Aye supports the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young] introduced the bill as a private member's bill. She argued that the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.[1]
  • Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young] introduced the bill as a private member's bill. She argued that the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2 here]. )
  • Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill, arguing that the current marriage law was not discriminatory.[2]
  • Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill, arguing that the current marriage law was not discriminatory.(Read the debate on the bill [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2 here]. )
  • ''Background to the Bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s722 Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009] was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories are establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time of this division, such schemes have been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young argues that these schemes are insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.[3]
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s722 Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009] was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories are establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time of this division, such schemes have been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young argues that these schemes are insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-02-25.96.1 here].)
  • References
  • * [1] Read Senator Hanson-Young's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2 here].
  • * [2] Read the debate on the bill [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2 here].
  • * [3] Read Senator Hanson-Young's argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-02-25.96.1 here].
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 14:05:33

Title

  • Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 - Second Reading - Allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender
  • Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Description

  • The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-06-24.86.1 motion] to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity
  • Someone who voted Aye supports the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young] introduced the bill as a private member's bill. She argued that the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.[1]
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 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 allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. 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 Greens Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. She <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.</p>
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties argued that the current marriage law was not discriminatory. Labor Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FZW4%22;querytype=;rec=0">Senator Nick Sherry</a>, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>This bill was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories were establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time that this division took place, such schemes had been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> these schemes were insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.
  • <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=s722">here</a>.</p>
  • Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill, arguing that the current marriage law was not discriminatory.[2]
  • ''Background to the Bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s722 Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009] was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories are establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time of this division, such schemes have been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young argues that these schemes are insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.[3]
  • References
  • * [1] Read Senator Hanson-Young's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2 here].
  • * [2] Read the debate on the bill [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-25.95.2 here].
  • * [3] Read Senator Hanson-Young's argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-02-25.96.1 here].
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 13:21:32

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 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 allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. 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 Greens Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. She <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.</p>
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties argued that the current marriage law was not discriminatory. Labor Party Senator Nick Sherry, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties argued that the current marriage law was not discriminatory. Labor Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FZW4%22;querytype=;rec=0">Senator Nick Sherry</a>, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>This bill was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories were establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time that this division took place, such schemes had been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> these schemes were insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.
  • <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=s722">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 13:20:18

Title

  • Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 - Second Reading
  • Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 - Second Reading - Allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 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 allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. 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 Greens Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. She <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.</p>
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties argued that the current marriage law was not discriminatory. Labor Party Senator Nick Sherry, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>This bill was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories were establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time that this division took place, such schemes had been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> these schemes were insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.
  • <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=s722">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 13:24:16

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 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 allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. 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 Greens Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. She <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.</p>
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties disagreed that the current marriage law was discriminatory. Labor Party Senator Nick Sherry, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties argued that the current marriage law was not discriminatory. Labor Party Senator Nick Sherry, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>This bill was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories were establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time that this division took place, such schemes had been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> these schemes were insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.
  • <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=s722">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 13:23:17

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 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 allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. 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 Greens Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a> to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. She <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.</p>
  • <p>This bill was introduced as a private senator’s bill by Greens Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. She <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.</p>
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties disagreed that the current marriage law was discriminatory. Labor Party Senator Nick Sherry, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>This bill was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories were establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time that this division took place, such schemes had been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> these schemes were insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.
  • <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=s722">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 13:22:39

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 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>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. 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 Greens Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a> to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. She <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.</p>
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties disagreed that the current marriage law was discriminatory. Labor Party Senator Nick Sherry, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>This bill was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories were establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time that this division took place, such schemes had been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> these schemes were insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.
  • <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=s722">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2010-02-25#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 13:21:45

Title

  • Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 — Second Reading
  • Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 - Second Reading

Description

  • <p pwmotiontext="moved">That this bill be now read a second time.</p>
  • <p pwmotiontext="moved">That the bill be now read a second time.</p>
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 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 Greens Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a> to allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity. She <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> the bill would remove “the discrimination that currently exists within the Marriage Act”.</p>
  • <p>Both the Labor Government and the Coalition Opposition opposed this bill and both parties disagreed that the current marriage law was discriminatory. Labor Party Senator Nick Sherry, the then Assistant Treasurer, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0161;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Government’s “commitment to remov[ing] discrimination” was demonstrated 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>. Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator George Brandis</a> agreed, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0162;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">adding that</a> those two bills “had the strong support of the coalition”. In respect of this bill, Senator Brandis argued that “the coalition does not see this as an issue about discrimination at all”.
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>This bill was introduced at a time when Australian states and territories were establishing relationship registration and civil partnership schemes for same-sex couples. At the time that this division took place, such schemes had been established in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Senator Hanson-Young <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0160;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0000%22">argued that</a> these schemes were insufficient and “fall short of equal legal recognition”.
  • <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=s722">here</a>.</p>