Liberal Party Debating Policy re same sex marriage

[keltingmeith]

WOOHOO!!!

Does anyone know if we can actually see what the exact changes are? Or will we have to wait for the HoR for that?

[peterpiper]

WOOHOO!!!

tbh more like: YASS QUEEN!!

Also, this quote from the article made me laugh (and cry a little in the inside):

One Nation senator Pauline Hanson brought up the 1967 referendum to recognise indigenous people, using it as an example of how unintended consequences could stem from major change.

She claimed laws now gave indigenous people more rights than other Australians.

“My concern is that, in time to come, the parliament and its members could at any time change this (definition) to include multiple marriages or marriages of people under a certain age,” she said.

  idk Pauline. But even with all the changes stemming from recognising the basic rights of Indigenous Australians, we're nowhere near even half compensating for the devastation the settlers have caused in the centuries previous....

[PhoenixxFire]

We're a bit paranoid, we Christians, because we have a history of being picked on, and being picked on in a big way

Yet another conservative playing the victim 😂. His speeches are the most entertaining though. The bill is going to be voted on in the lower house shortly.

[PhoenixxFire]

It's done. The bill just got passed by the lower house

[vox nihili]

It's done. The bill just got passed by the lower house

Hold your horses, not quite yet. They’ve just defeated the amendments to the bill. Final vote happening now

[PhoenixxFire]

I'm watching it live, the final vote just happened when i posted that, they just hadn't done the final official bit yet. Just has to get the stamp now.

[vox nihili]

I'm watching it live, the final vote just happened when i posted that, they just hadn't done the final official bit yet. Just has to get the stamp now.

I’m pretty sure that was the vote on the amendments. A lot of media started reporting that it had passed but they misunderstood parliamentary procedure. Then they tried to pass it on the voices but it went to a division.

Anyway who cares, IT’S FINALLY FUCKING DONE

[PhoenixxFire]

They had a vote on the last amendment which got voted no, then they voted on it, which passed on voices. Then they had to reread it to make it official, 2 people voted no about being asked to reread it, which led to the division.
There was a big cheer and some people started singing after the amendments got defeated though.

Anyway who cares, IT’S FINALLY FUCKING DONE

Yep

[keltingmeith]

Does anyone know if we can actually see what the exact changes are? Or will we have to wait for the HoR for that?

This again.

I really want to know exactly what's on what got passed, but I can't seem to find anything anywhere except, "SSM is now legal". After the Paterson bill, discrimination in the bill is really worrying me. :S

[PhoenixxFire]

Not sure about all the details but
-Current civil celebrants can move into a new category to not have to officiate SSM, new celebrants have to officiate them.
-Bakeries, florists, etc cannot refuse to provide services
-I'm not sure on whether churchs can refuse their buildings?
-Also not sure about church-owned buildings?

There is a bit on it here and here and here

EDIT: this

[peterpiper]

Not sure about all the details but
-Current civil celebrants can move into a new category to not have to officiate SSM, new celebrants have to officiate them.
-Bakeries, florists, etc cannot refuse to provide services
-I'm not sure on whether churchs can refuse their buildings?
-Also not sure about church-owned buildings?

There is a bit on it here and here and here

EDIT: this

For the lazy:

"Religious bodies will be able to act in accordance with their doctrines, tents and beliefs in providing facilities, goods and services in connection with the marriage" - according to the greens' fb link provided by phoenixxfire

[vox nihili]

I think the final bill ended up being fairly low key, without really asserting any rights that didn't already exist. Turnbull tried to delay it by commissioning Phillip Ruddock. Personally, I think the debate around religious freedoms has become a little asinine on both sides. People running around pretending that passing SSM will be the end of religion is clearly ridiculous, but likewise it's ridiculous to say that people don't deserve to have their views and beliefs protected under the law, no matter how much we might disagree with them. This article is really balanced and provides an alternative view about it.