Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 01:53:46
Server time: 14:06:13, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Paulo Nogueira | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Hello Kitty 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: March 2620

Description[?]:

Marriage is between two people.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date12:05:02, August 02, 2008 CET
FromGreenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageMaybe perhaps.. :)

Date12:06:00, August 02, 2008 CET
FromGreenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageWe will need more time to come to a conclusive stance on this rather complex matter

Date14:17:57, August 03, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageWe feel that this does not go nearly far enough in addressing the matter at hand.

Date23:14:44, August 05, 2008 CET
FromGreenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageNow we'll support

Date23:24:01, August 05, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageWhy should we not recognise polygamous relationships? They are no different to any other relationships, except obviously including more than two people.

Date23:29:51, August 05, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageWe shall support as well.

Date23:33:04, August 05, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageExactly, no one can give a good reason why our law should discriminate, and yet you'll all vote blindly for it.

Date23:44:15, August 05, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageBecause of ethics as well as morality as well as safety of children?

Date03:41:21, August 06, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageJUP does not care at all about children Liberty. You know that. If he did, he would not be in support of something that can and has led to incest and abuse.

Date04:09:33, August 06, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageAbuse? Incest? Oh please do back that up with some reason.

And your "morals" are rubbish, frankly. You think you can impose your morals on other people because somehow you think you know best. You don't, of course. Some flavours of Christianity and Islam expressly allow polygamous relationships, for instance, are you saying that they are wrong, and you know better than all their adherents?

No, the problem with you is intolerance. It is intolerance that has lead to most of the ills that plague the world today, and have done for many centuries. You refuse to accept that some people believe differently than you, and you wish to impose your beliefs on them. And it is wrong.

Date05:27:36, August 06, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
Message"Abuse? Incest? Oh please do back that up with some reason."

Well let us think about that one. If I give reason, you will just ignore it and say that I am wrong because of some dumb reason or another. If I do not give a reason, then you will claim that I do not know what I am talking about.

Here is a good one for you....

Common Law. As far as I can tell, common law does not allow for polygamy.

Date06:32:53, August 06, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageIndeed, the common law was never very fond of polygamy, for it offended their Honours. However, for a long time the common law regarded homosexual relationships as illegal, but it changed when human rights became important. The common law changes, and without a doubt the common law would've changed with regard to this in time.

However, we now have statute regulating it, so it is not a matter of the common law. In fact, that is why we pass statute law, to override the common law.

Date16:54:02, August 06, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageHowever, Common Law still reigns supreme in this nation as you are so fond of telling us and anything that goes against that, is violating the law of the land. Polygamy violates this and as such, violates the law of the land.

Date21:30:40, August 06, 2008 CET
FromGreenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageWe're firm believer of roman law. But in roman law there're laws against polygamy as well. So, JUP has no point..

Date23:13:08, August 06, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageLP/HKP: Judge-made law, ie the common law, exists only so far as there is no statute law to the contrary. Statute law is always superior to the common law.

There are no Romans here GLDS :P

Date23:53:55, August 06, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageOn the flip side of that coin Judicial Union, it is not up to the Judges to make laws. It is up to the legislature to make them. That is why we have this thing called separation of powers.

Date23:54:10, August 06, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageAnd tell us how you know there are no romans here? :D

Date23:55:23, August 06, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageThat's what those crazy civil law people say. But if we wanted a strict separation of powers, then you couldn't have Cabinet either, since that's members of the legislature involving themselves in the executive. Judge-made law works, just as Cabinets work.

Date00:03:27, August 07, 2008 CET
FromGreenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageOOC: Don't be an arse. I've could have just as well said classical law, or statutary law of codified law. I just meant what the principle of the legal system is based on. It's not because the romans didn't excist in terra, the legislalatory-makes-the-laws principle doesn't escist, and we automatically have to use the Anglosaxon judge-made common law. Especially since -Oh my god!- there is no England or British commonwealth here either...

BTW, if the Romans didn't excist, then what's up with all the latin national motto's in Terra, Latin is the language of ancient rome, and since ancient rome didn't excist here it's must be all gibberish. Also, if Romans didn't excist, then why some nations claim to have a Roman-Greco culture. Or how come the Roman catcholic church excists as a religion, there is no vatican here, there is no Rome here, no Jerusalem, no Jesus.. all that doesn't excist here either...

Date03:18:11, August 07, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageOOC: I was joking, why so serious?... The principles of civil law and common law transcend where they were developed in the real world, and they're both valid alternatives for a legal system.

The only difference between the two is really the role of judges, whether they should be limited to interpreting statute law (civil law) or whether they should, in addition to interpreting statute law, be able to fill in lacunae in the law with judge-made law (common law). The fact that civil law was developed by the Romans and that the common law was developed by the English doesn't really matter in the least, as they are just labels attached to certain points along a continuum of judicial powers.

Date14:07:45, August 07, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageIt is not the jurisdiction of the judicial system to make laws. It is our responsibility to make laws.

"But if we wanted a strict separation of powers, then you couldn't have Cabinet either, since that's members of the legislature involving themselves in the executive."

You obviously have no idea what a cabinet is.

Date14:23:09, August 07, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageWhat do you think a cabinet is then, matey?

Date14:39:57, August 07, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageThey are Presidential Advisers who look after the various departments of the Executive Branch of Government. They advise the President. They establish procedures for their department and if those procedures are not followed, they are relieved of their duties.

Date14:46:30, August 07, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageNot quite. They are members of the legislature who, by dint of being part of the ruling party, are given ministerial portfolios. Their job with respect to those portfolios is to present relevant legislation, to speak for the ministry in legislative debates, to request funding etc. They do not deal in the ordinary day-to-day affairs of the ministry (since the executive shouldn't be political). They do however deal in implementing government policy, and ensure the ministry follows the law. If there is a failure in the ministry, it is the minister who takes the fall, for political reasons. Ministers are members of the legislature who are heads of the executive ministries. Cabinet is the collection of ministers who collectively decide government legislative policy.

They advise the head of state theoretically if you believe that all power derives from the head of state. We do not believe that to be true for Tukarali.

Date15:02:50, August 07, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageYou see this is the problem we have. We do not know in this game if they are or not. I am I am going on the assumption that they are not.

Date15:18:22, August 07, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageMinisters propose bills (budgets, tax etc). Only members of the legislature are allowed to propose bills. Therefore, ministers must be members of the legislature.

Date20:43:26, August 07, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageWhich is funny since I am not in the cabinet but I can propose all sorts of legislation from taxes to budget. So that holds zero weight.

Date01:08:08, August 08, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageYou can only propose budgets and tax proposals because of a bug in the code of the game. It doesn't really say much.

Date02:02:37, August 08, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageBug or not, we can do so. And for your information, the budget can be proposed by the head of government as is normally the case after conferring with his department heads. Meaning the cabinet.

Date02:08:51, August 08, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageMaybe where you come from...

Date14:56:23, August 10, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageAnd now I got you.

Date14:58:53, August 10, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageIt was meant to sound more condescending than perhaps it came across. Perhaps <i>italics</i> would've made it clearer.

Date15:07:26, August 10, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Polygamous Marriage Derecognition Act
MessageExcept that it failed utterly.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 194

no
   

Total Seats: 306

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Information about the population of each country can be found on the Population Information thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8663

    Random quote: "A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." H. L. Mencken

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 89