Division Description Changes — Business — Marriage Equality Legislation — 11th Oct 2012

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-24 11:37:03	Title Description The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1) to ask the [Gillard](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lalor/julia_gillard) Government to “rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation”. This means that the majority believe that the Government should be able to challenge state same-sex marriage laws in the [High Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia). Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) introduced the motion. ###Background to the motion Two weeks ago, the [Tasmanian Legislative Council](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Legislative_Council) voted against a bill that would have made Tasmania the first state to recognise [same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) in Australia. Members who opposed the bill were concerned that it may not be [constitutionally valid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality) because it was inconsistent with [Commonwealth marriage law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_%28Australia%29). And their main concern was the potential cost of a Commonwealth challenge against the bill (see ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538)). Two weeks ago, the [Tasmanian Legislative Council](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Legislative_Council) voted against a bill that would have made Tasmania the first state to recognise [same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) in Australia. Members who opposed the bill were concerned that it may not be [constitutionally valid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality) because it was inconsistent with [Commonwealth marriage law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_%28Australia%29). And their main concern was the potential cost of a Commonwealth challenge against the bill (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538)). Professor [Anne Twomey](http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/anne.twomey.php) gives a good discussion of the bill's constitutional issues [here](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html). Professor [Anne Twomey](http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/anne.twomey.php) gives [a good discussion](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html) of the bill's constitutional issues.
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-23 18:54:33	Title ~~Motions — State—based Marriage Equality Legislation — Do not challenge the legality of state—based same—sex marriage laws~~ Motions – State-based Marriage Equality Legislation – No Commonwealth challenge Description The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1) "_That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia._" The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate). ~~Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.~~ ~~_Background to the Motion_~~ On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage. One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.(See [here](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html) for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. ) Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.(See ABC News coverage [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538). ) Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.(See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.) ~~References~~ The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1) to ask the [Gillard](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lalor/julia_gillard) Government to “rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation”. This means that the majority believe that the Government should be able to challenge state same-sex marriage laws in the [High Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia). Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) introduced the motion. ###Background to the motion Two weeks ago, the [Tasmanian Legislative Council](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Legislative_Council) voted against a bill that would have made Tasmania the first state to recognise [same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) in Australia. Members who opposed the bill were concerned that it may not be [constitutionally valid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality) because it was inconsistent with [Commonwealth marriage law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_%28Australia%29). And their main concern was the potential cost of a Commonwealth challenge against the bill (see ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538)). Professor [Anne Twomey](http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/anne.twomey.php) gives a good discussion of the bill's constitutional issues [here](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html).
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:18:01	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''" ~~The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].~~ ~~Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.~~ ~~''Background to the Motion''~~ On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage. One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.(See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. ) Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.(See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here]. ) Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.(See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.) ~~References~~ The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1) "_That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia._" The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate). Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion. _Background to the Motion_ On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage. One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.(See [here](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html) for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. ) Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.(See ABC News coverage [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538). ) Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.(See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.) References
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:03	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''" The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion. ''Background to the Motion'' On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage. ~~One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2]~~ One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.(See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. ) Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.(See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here]. ) ~~Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.[3]~~ Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.(See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.) References * [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. * [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here]. * [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-07-31 08:23:25	Title ~~Motions - State-based Marriage Equality Legislation - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws~~ Motions — State—based Marriage Equality Legislation — Do not challenge the legality of state—based same—sex marriage laws Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''" The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This was a [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx substantive motion], meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”. Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion. ''Background to the Motion'' On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage. One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2] Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.[3] References * [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. * [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here]. * [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia. * [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 13:22:10	Title ~~State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws~~ Motions - State-based Marriage Equality Legislation - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''" The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This was a [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx substantive motion], meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”. Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion. ''Background to the Motion'' On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage. One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2] Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.[3] References * [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. * [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here]. * [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-14 15:54:21	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''" The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This was a [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx substantive motion], meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”. Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion. ~~''Background to the Motion'~~ ''Background to the Motion'' On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage. One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2] ~~Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.~~ Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.[3] References * [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. * [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here]. * [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-14 15:51:39	Title ~~State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Agree to the motion - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws~~ State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''" The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0000%22">motion</a>, which was introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</i></blockquote></p> This was a [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx substantive motion], meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”. <p>This was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">substantive motion</a>, meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.</p> Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion. <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagreed with the motion.</p> ''Background to the Motion' ~~<p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p>~~ On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage. <p>On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.</p> One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2] <p>One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.</p> <p>Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.</p> Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future. References * [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. * [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here].
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-07 14:02:38	Title ~~State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Agree to the motion~~ State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Agree to the motion - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0000%22">motion</a>, which was introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">substantive motion</a>, meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagreed with the motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.</p> <p>One of the key concerns about the bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.</p> <p>One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.</p> <p>Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.</p> ~~<p>Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.</p>~~
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 12:40:12	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0000%22">motion</a>, which was introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">substantive motion</a>, meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagreed with the motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, it would have been the first state to do so.</p> <p>On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.</p> <p>One of the key concerns about the bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.</p> <p>Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.</p>
senate vote 2012-10-11#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 12:38:37	Title Business — Marriage Equality Legislation State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Agree to the motion Description ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p>~~ ~~<p>I move:</p>~~ <p class="italic">That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</p> <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0000%22">motion</a>, which was introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">substantive motion</a>, meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagreed with the motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, it would have been the first state to do so.</p> <p>One of the key concerns about the bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.</p> <p>Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that notice of motion No. 970, moved by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.</p>~~

Change

Division

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-24 11:37:03

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1) to ask the [Gillard](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lalor/julia_gillard) Government to “rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation”. This means that the majority believe that the Government should be able to challenge state same-sex marriage laws in the [High Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia).
Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) introduced the motion.
###Background to the motion
Two weeks ago, the [Tasmanian Legislative Council](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Legislative_Council) voted against a bill that would have made Tasmania the first state to recognise [same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) in Australia. Members who opposed the bill were concerned that it may not be [constitutionally valid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality) because it was inconsistent with [Commonwealth marriage law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_%28Australia%29). And their main concern was the potential cost of a Commonwealth challenge against the bill (see ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538)).
Two weeks ago, the [Tasmanian Legislative Council](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Legislative_Council) voted against a bill that would have made Tasmania the first state to recognise [same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) in Australia. Members who opposed the bill were concerned that it may not be [constitutionally valid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality) because it was inconsistent with [Commonwealth marriage law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_%28Australia%29). And their main concern was the potential cost of a Commonwealth challenge against the bill (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538)).
Professor [Anne Twomey](http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/anne.twomey.php) gives a good discussion of the bill's constitutional issues [here](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html).
Professor [Anne Twomey](http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/anne.twomey.php) gives [a good discussion](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html) of the bill's constitutional issues.

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-23 18:54:33

Title

~~Motions — State—based Marriage Equality Legislation — Do not challenge the legality of state—based same—sex marriage laws~~
Motions – State-based Marriage Equality Legislation – No Commonwealth challenge

Description

The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1) "_That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia._"
The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
~~Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.~~
~~_Background to the Motion_~~
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.(See [here](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html) for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. ) Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.(See ABC News coverage [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538). )
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.(See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.)
~~References~~
The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1) to ask the [Gillard](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lalor/julia_gillard) Government to “rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation”. This means that the majority believe that the Government should be able to challenge state same-sex marriage laws in the [High Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia).
Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) introduced the motion.
###Background to the motion
Two weeks ago, the [Tasmanian Legislative Council](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Legislative_Council) voted against a bill that would have made Tasmania the first state to recognise [same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) in Australia. Members who opposed the bill were concerned that it may not be [constitutionally valid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality) because it was inconsistent with [Commonwealth marriage law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_%28Australia%29). And their main concern was the potential cost of a Commonwealth challenge against the bill (see ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538)).
Professor [Anne Twomey](http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/anne.twomey.php) gives a good discussion of the bill's constitutional issues [here](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html).

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:18:01

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''"
~~The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].~~
~~Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.~~
~~''Background to the Motion''~~
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.(See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. ) Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.(See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here]. )
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.(See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.)
~~References~~
The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1) "_That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia._"
The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.
_Background to the Motion_
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.(See [here](http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html) for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. ) Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.(See ABC News coverage [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538). )
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.(See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.)
References

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:03

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''"
The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.
''Background to the Motion''
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
~~One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2]~~
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.(See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill. ) Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.(See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here]. )
~~Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.[3]~~
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.(See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.)
References
* [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill.
* [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here].
* [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-07-31 08:23:25

Title

~~Motions - State-based Marriage Equality Legislation - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws~~
Motions — State—based Marriage Equality Legislation — Do not challenge the legality of state—based same—sex marriage laws

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''"
The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This was a [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx substantive motion], meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.
''Background to the Motion''
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2]
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.[3]
References
* [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill.
* [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here].
* [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.
* [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 13:22:10

Title

~~State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws~~
Motions - State-based Marriage Equality Legislation - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''"
The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This was a [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx substantive motion], meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.
''Background to the Motion''
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2]
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.[3]
References
* [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill.
* [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here].
* [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 15:54:21

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''"
The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This was a [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx substantive motion], meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.
~~''Background to the Motion'~~
''Background to the Motion''
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2]
~~Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.~~
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.[3]
References
* [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill.
* [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here].
* [3] See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia here] for more general information about same-sex recognition in Australia.

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 15:51:39

Title

~~State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Agree to the motion - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws~~
State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-10-11.27.1 motion] "''That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.''"
The motion was introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
The Aye voters failed to pass the following <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0000%22">motion</a>, which was introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>:
<blockquote>That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</blockquote>
This was a [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx substantive motion], meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.
This was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">substantive motion</a>, meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagree with the motion.
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagreed with the motion.
''Background to the Motion'
~~Background to the Motion~~
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid.[1] Opponents were concerned about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.[2]
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion attempted to put at ease this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.
References
* [1] See [http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html here] for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill.
* [2] See ABC News coverage [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538 here].

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 14:02:38

Title

~~State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Agree to the motion~~
State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Agree to the motion - Do not challenge the legality of state-based same-sex marriage laws

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass the following <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0000%22">motion</a>, which was introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>:
<blockquote>That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</blockquote>
This was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">substantive motion</a>, meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagreed with the motion.
Background to the Motion
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.
One of the key concerns about the Tasmanian bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the federal government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.
~~Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.~~

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 12:40:12

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass the following <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0000%22">motion</a>, which was introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>:
<blockquote>That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</blockquote>
This was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">substantive motion</a>, meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagreed with the motion.
Background to the Motion
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, it would have been the first state to do so.
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, Tasmania would have been the first state to recognise same-sex marriage.
One of the key concerns about the bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.

senate vote 2012-10-11#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 12:38:37

Title

Business — Marriage Equality Legislation
State-based Marriage Equality Legislation Motion - Agree to the motion

Description

~~Sarah Hanson-Young~~
~~I move:~~
That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.
The Aye voters failed to pass the following <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F17882b8a-dc1d-4551-8f35-099917c16db8%2F0000%22">motion</a>, which was introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>:
<blockquote>That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.</i></blockquote>
This was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">substantive motion</a>, meaning that it was a “self-contained proposal... drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”.
Someone who voted Aye supported the motion. Since the majority voted No, the motion was unsuccessful. This means that the majority of the Senate disagreed with the motion.
Background to the Motion
On 27 September 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 (Tas). This Bill had been introduced into the Tasmanian parliament as an attempt to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage at a state level. If it had been successful, it would have been the first state to do so.
One of the key concerns about the bill was whether it was constitutionally valid (see <a href="http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2012/12/tasmanias_samesex_marriage_bil_1.html">here</a> for a good discussion about the constitutionality of the bill). Opponents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/tasmania-upper-house-votes-down-gay-marriage/4284538">were concerned</a> about the cost of a potential High Court challenge against the bill.
Senator Hanson-Young’s motion sought to address this concern by calling on the government to refrain from challenging any state-based legislation in the future.
~~Stephen Parry~~
~~The question is that notice of motion No. 970, moved by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.~~