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: Divorce Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist 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: April 2510
Description[?]:
| TBD |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Current: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
Proposed: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:53:47, December 26, 2007 CET | From | Tukarali Graenix Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | I'm debating this one with myself, but I am leaning to opposing |
| Date | 00:15:10, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | We oppose. Why should be force two people to be married when they no longer wish to? In any case, the government should stay out of matters of marriage. |
| Date | 00:39:04, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | There should be no divorce on demand. This way. People will think twice before they get married. |
| Date | 05:54:08, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | Why should they need to? Marriage is a vestige of former times, and is not relevant in today's society. |
| Date | 16:12:44, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | WOW!!! JUP, that is just idiotic. I cannot even describe what I'm thinking now because well...yea! I'll just leave it at that. |
| Date | 17:48:26, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | Opposed |
| Date | 03:29:03, December 28, 2007 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | oppose. our nation is a secular state. what it takes for your religion to grant a divorce is an entirely separate matter. |
| Date | 17:58:08, December 29, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | JDW. I'm not doing this for religious reasons. I'm doing it for the sake of the children. |
| Date | 23:17:13, December 29, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | Exactly, because children are much better raised in a household where the state forces two people to remain married even though they really don't get along. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a child might be well raised by parents who have been divorced, or, as horrible as it sounds, not married in the first place. This bill is simple backward-looking, religious flavoured nonsense. |
| Date | 02:38:14, December 30, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | And that is why the change in law JUP! By making it this way, we make sure that if they want to be married, that it will last. Fly by marriages rarely work and wind up in divorce court. This change in law will do away with on demand divorce and will force, yes I used the word force, to think twice before they committ to one another. |
| Date | 03:36:22, December 30, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | That is exactly the problem. The state should refrain from forcing a person to do anything, except in especial circumstances, with justifiable cause. This is not such a circumstance. "Think of the children" is rarely a good reason. |
| Date | 12:18:47, January 01, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Divorce Reform Act |
| Message | Forcing people to stay married, will only degrade the situation.. and make it more likely of leading to adultry and violence. We can't have that, can we. If they realise the marriage isn't working, they should be able to put an end to it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 128 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 267 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 104 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "Politics is the art of the possible." - Otto von Bismarck |