Division
The majority voted in favour of keeping items 5, 8 to 17 and 64 and part 4 of schedule 1 unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for those items to *stand as printed*. These items were opposed by One Nation Senator [Pauline Hanson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/pauline_hanson) (Qld) and they related to who counted as a religious marriage celebrant (as opposed to *civil* celebrant) and what that meant for the application of anti-discrimination laws. Senator Hanson [argued that](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-29.5.1): > *The difference in definition between religious marriage celebrants and civil marriage celebrants is unnecessary. If a marriage celebrant wants to refuse to solemnise a marriage, they should be entitled to do so without recrimination.* ### 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, 2017-11-29. affirmative: ayes 36, noes 17.
Question
The majority voted in favour of keeping items 5, 8 to 17 and 64 and part 4 of schedule 1 unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for those items to *stand as printed*. These items were opposed by One Nation Senator [Pauline Hanson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/pauline_hanson) (Qld) and they related to who counted as a religious marriage celebrant (as opposed to *civil* celebrant) and what that meant for the application of anti-discrimination laws. Senator Hanson [argued that](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-29.5.1): > *The difference in definition between religious marriage celebrants and civil marriage celebrants is unnecessary. If a marriage celebrant wants to refuse to solemnise a marriage, they should be entitled to do so without recrimination.* ### 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.