Division
The majority voted in favour of keeping particular parts of [schedule 1](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs1099_first-senate%2F0001%22;rec=0) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for "*section 39DD and subsection 39DE(3) in item 8, and items 9 to 16 and 57, of schedule 1 [to] stand as printed.*" This division took place after Liberal Senator [David Fawcett](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/david_fawcett) moved that that parts [be opposed](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-28.16.1). These parts deal with the issue of religious marriage celebrants (including how to identify them), who are allowed to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs in certain circumstances. ### Why did some Liberals vote Yes and others No? The Liberal Party was split on this issue, with some voting Yes and others voting No. This split within the party is unusual but, given the nature of the subject matter of the vote, the Liberal Party decided to run this as a free vote, meaning that its members could vote however they chose rather than having to vote along party lines. ### What does this bill do? This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1099) will allow same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, it will also: > *enable ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, chaplains and bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to solemnise or provide facilities, goods and services for marriages on religious grounds; and make amendments ... to provide that a refusal by a minister of religion, religious marriage celebrant or chaplain to solemnise marriage in prescribed circumstances does not constitute unlawful discrimination.* Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054).
Senate, 2017-11-28. affirmative: ayes 42, noes 24.
Question
The majority voted in favour of keeping particular parts of [schedule 1](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs1099_first-senate%2F0001%22;rec=0) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for "*section 39DD and subsection 39DE(3) in item 8, and items 9 to 16 and 57, of schedule 1 [to] stand as printed.*" This division took place after Liberal Senator [David Fawcett](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/david_fawcett) moved that that parts [be opposed](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-28.16.1). These parts deal with the issue of religious marriage celebrants (including how to identify them), who are allowed to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs in certain circumstances. ### Why did some Liberals vote Yes and others No? The Liberal Party was split on this issue, with some voting Yes and others voting No. This split within the party is unusual but, given the nature of the subject matter of the vote, the Liberal Party decided to run this as a free vote, meaning that its members could vote however they chose rather than having to vote along party lines. ### What does this bill do? This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1099) will allow same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, it will also: > *enable ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, chaplains and bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to solemnise or provide facilities, goods and services for marriages on religious grounds; and make amendments ... to provide that a refusal by a minister of religion, religious marriage celebrant or chaplain to solemnise marriage in prescribed circumstances does not constitute unlawful discrimination.* Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054).
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.