We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Civil Unions Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Revolutionary Democratic Socialists
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2431
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions.
Current: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Proposed: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:15:57, July 18, 2007 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Civil Unions Act. |
| Message | What's the reasoning behind this again? |
| Date | 07:04:10, July 18, 2007 CET | From | Gazelle Party | To | Debating the Civil Unions Act. |
| Message | I voted 'yes' because it would potentially allow couples to file jointly for taxes. |
| Date | 11:18:12, July 18, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Civil Unions Act. |
| Message | pretty much |
| Date | 14:46:53, July 18, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Civil Unions Act. |
| Message | The current law says we do not involve ourselves in marriage. It does not say we do not recognise marriage or other relationships. |
| Date | 18:02:14, July 18, 2007 CET | From | Gazelle Party | To | Debating the Civil Unions Act. |
| Message | Yes, but unless its civil, it holds no water in property law and tax law. |
| Date | 07:31:18, July 19, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Civil Unions Act. |
| Message | OOC: That doesn't match up with my personal experience. Here (Australia, that is), I just have to have a de facto of the opposite sex with no official bond and we get treated the same for tax and welfare purposes as a married or otherwise civilly joined couple. Since I have no real idea about Baltusia's legal system (I didn't get that far along the wiking when I was interested in it), it just seems at odds with what conventionally works around here to presume you have to be in an arbitrarily recognised partnership for legal purposes. This is especially pertinent when you consider how long this law has been in place and presumably the legislature has enough brains not to completely undermine its own legal system. |
| Date | 16:52:06, July 19, 2007 CET | From | Gazelle Party | To | Debating the Civil Unions Act. |
| Message | It would be a bad assumption to make either way. |
| Date | 19:10:21, July 19, 2007 CET | From | I need to make new party | To | Debating the Civil Unions Act. |
| Message | it because these proposals are so vague... Thats why I have to agree with OP and vote No to this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 47 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 130 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
| Random quote: "For every action there is an equal and opposite government program." - Bob Wells |