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: Marriage Reformation Act 2102
Details
Submitted by[?]: Nationalist Freedom Party
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: October 2102
Description[?]:
| A Bill that may be acceptable to everyone. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Current: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Proposed: Civil marriages are defined by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:58:22, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Freedom Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | There, thats acceptable to everyone? |
| Date | 15:25:48, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | No, because if one area is blatantly homophobic (let's call it Kansas for example) The homosexuals of Kansas will be restricted in their rights. Hopefully more are friendlier (let's call this place California), but I don't want to take a chance on discrimination. We are all humans and to say one block of us maybe shouldn't be given equal rights based off hates and fears of others is immoral and demeaning to that group. |
| Date | 15:45:35, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Secular Humanist Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | No, of course. |
| Date | 16:32:34, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Freedom Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | But this will allow the more religious regions in this nation to ban homosexual marriages (and we're only talking about marriages here) and the liberal ones to all the marriages. Whats wrong with that? - Aren't you suppose to be the "people's party"? Aren't you supposed to be the "humanist party" - why not led the people decide, why not be fair to those who are religous and have deep fate. - and you all say that I discriminate? How is it that Communism and communist bills are accepted but whenever someone puts up a remotely right-wing bill, everyone goes hell for leather, NO NO NO! - I mean this bill hardly discrimminates against anyone, it lets the people decide. |
| Date | 17:14:24, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | It lets the people as a whole decide whether to discriminate against another group of people in their midst. Religious people can very easily refuse to get married to people of the same sex, but it is not their position to impose their moral code on others. This is especially true considering by illegalising gay marriage you restrict their rights to visit eachother in the hospital, file income tax together, and get health insurance together, and several other rights that come with marriage. Should we deprive a group of people of all these benefits just because most people in a region are bigots? Jews don't believe in working on the Sabbath (Saturday). If one region is majority Jews should we make working on the Sabbath illegal? After all we're only depriving non-Jews a day's pay, right? PS-I'm Jewish. |
| Date | 17:20:06, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Freedom Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | I know your Jewish and I know that the old testimate (which is your hold book, right?) speaks highly against homosexuality, but that's not the question here, ebcause personally, I am not anti-homosexual nor am I homophobic, I'm simpl,y saying that this should be a matter for the individual regions because opinion obvisouly differs across the nation |
| Date | 17:25:52, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | How about it be a matter of individuals? They can decide whether THEY get married and who THEY get married too rather than intruding on the personal lives of others? |
| Date | 17:27:09, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Freedom Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | Calm down KPP. I'm merely aying, its a good idea to let the regions decide for themselves. |
| Date | 17:33:59, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | I am calm. Sorry about the caps I usually just use *'s to get attention. Those were misleading. But there is absolutely no reason that people should be discriminated against and cast aside by their own government just because they're different from the majority. (Unless different means career criminal or something dangerous) |
| Date | 17:34:35, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran Imperial Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | We're for centralization and more freedoms |
| Date | 20:05:26, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran National Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reformation Act 2102 |
| Message | Being a staunch federalist, I must also vote against this bill, simply because it extends rights to the states not granted to them in our Constitution. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 109 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 328 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 3 |
| Random fact: There are two countries based on Egypt in the game. Cobura is based on modern Egypt with a retro twist, while Hawu Mumenhes is based on Ancient Egypt with a modernist twist. |
| Random quote: "People say I steal. Well, all politicians steal." - Huey Long |