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: Equality Act of 2518
Details
Submitted by[?]: Republican Federalist 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: May 2519
Description[?]:
| It's far past time we representatives of the proud people of Solentia move out of the laconic age of discrimination. Our society must take measures to promote equality and individual liberty. I urge my colleagues to support these measures. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning who can proceed with adoption; in case adoption is legal.
Old value:: Only heterosexual couples may adopt children.
Current: Only heterosexual couples may adopt children.
Proposed: Only heterosexual couples and singles may adopt children.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Racial segregation of public amenities (eg. drinking fountains, public toilets)
Old value:: Government owned amenities are not segregated, private organisations are free to choose.
Current: Segregation of any public amenity is banned.
Proposed: Segregation of any public amenity is banned.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: Public nudity is illegal and prosecuted as a civil offence.
Current: Public nudity is illegal and prosecuted as a civil offence.
Proposed: Public nudity laws are left to local governments.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning parental qualifications.
Old value:: The government requires a test for would-be parents, if parents circumvent the test the government takes custody.
Current: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Proposed: Parental qualifications are left to local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:33:42, January 19, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Equality Act of 2518 |
| Message | While this is a step in the right direction, it is seemingly a weak one. We should not be bar homosexuals from adopting children. This legislation favors heterosexuals and "forgets" any others. FIP Second Ranking Senator Gregorivich Emiraeus |
| Date | 06:07:50, January 19, 2008 CET | From | Republican Federalist Party | To | Debating the Equality Act of 2518 |
| Message | Respectfully, We were considering this as well. As said though, this is a step in the right direction. If there is enough support for this measure. I will gladly support further progressive measures. |
| Date | 12:05:48, January 19, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Equality Act of 2518 |
| Message | We oppose. Though the Conservative and Morality party holds a neutral stance on homosexuality and do not take a policy, positive or negative on it’s rapid growth, we support research that clearly shows that children brought up by both a female and a male figure contribute better to society. It has been scientifically proven. We urge all parties to realise that a secure family environment shall establish the basis of a child’s education and the strength of the Solentian family cannot be replaced with “freedom”. |
| Date | 06:02:09, January 20, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Equality Act of 2518 |
| Message | Can this scientific research be shown to us? FIP Second Ranking Senator Gregorivich Emiraeus |
| Date | 08:34:47, January 20, 2008 CET | From | Republican Federalist Party | To | Debating the Equality Act of 2518 |
| Message | To our respected colleagues of the C.M.P; Quite clearly our friends, representative of the Federal Independent Party, bring forth a very valid point. The burden of proof is on the respected C.M.P. What baffles the S.R.F.P. is the Conservative and Morality Parties apparent misjudgment of this bill. The S.R.F.P. partially agrees with you that homosexual relations may or may not be moral. This isn't up for debate here, my respect colleague. Nor is it a slippery-slope towards recognized rights thereof. To rest to your fears of an apparent fear of equality of those who happen to have a different lifestyle than you. Article 1 and Article 2: This proposal does nothing but eliminate the federal government role in adoption practices. If the citizens of our representative locales wish to enact laws to their choosing; let them. The S.R.F.P. stands for and is prepared to fight for a true Republic and the principals of Federalism. Article 3: Once more, this eliminates a major role our Federal Republic has on social issues. We a stewards of the taxpayers assets not their social leaders. Allow local governments to make these decisions. Furthermore, any fear of homophobia should be set aside as this proposal doesn't outline adoption for homosexual couples. It lays the ground work for local governments to decide if befitting single responsible tax-paying citizens can adopt. Far too many children are in foster-care and up for adoption. Why stop these children from an opportunity to have a chance at a good fostering life? Article 4: Well, I shouldn't need to say anything. If your party is so low that it supports segregation; no argument I can make will change this deplorable view. |
| Date | 09:01:54, January 20, 2008 CET | From | Solenthian Monarchist Party | To | Debating the Equality Act of 2518 |
| Message | While we support the SRFP in its endeavor to deregulate society, the SMP does not feel leaving the matters to local government solves the problem. |
| Date | 09:15:01, January 20, 2008 CET | From | Republican Federalist Party | To | Debating the Equality Act of 2518 |
| Message | Well, is it better to attempt to solve the problem or stand by and hope it fixes itself? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 149 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 211 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 65 |
| Random fact: RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. |
| Random quote: "Let's call the drug war what it is, ethnic cleansing of Americans." - Jello Biafra |