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 Reform Act 2652
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party of Tukarali
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: February 2653
Description[?]:
| The Marriage Legitamacy in Regards to Polygamous Marital Relations Act 2652 All those with more than one spouse will have an amnesty of 1 year to begin annulment/divorce proceedings in realation to their marriages that will contravene the new monogomy marital rule. Anyone found to be in defiance of this decree will -Be fined an amount decided by the judge -Have 50% of their assets taken by the state, sold, the proceeds divided up between their spouses and their marriages dissolved -Re-offending will result in a mandatory prison sentence of between 6 months and 2 years depending on the number of extra marriages AND/OR the number of previous convictions for this offence. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to polygamy.
Old value:: Polygamous marriages are accorded equal recognition to monogamous marriages.
Current: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships.
Proposed: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships and prosecute those who pursue a polygamous lifestyle.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:31:31, October 15, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party of Tukarali | To | Debating the Marriage Reform Act 2652 |
| Message | Polygamy poses a serious problem in regards to the legitamacy of wills, life insurance, inheritance and child custody. We propose that introducing a ban on polygamy will solve any such problems and to be fair we propose that an amnesty of 1 year should be in place to allow divorce proceedings to begin. |
| Date | 23:49:59, October 15, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reform Act 2652 |
| Message | So, we should deny people the right to marry who they love merely because it makes some administrative matters a bit messy? Even worse, you propose to prosecute them for doing something which harms no one. That is ridiculous. |
| Date | 12:47:24, October 16, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party of Tukarali | To | Debating the Marriage Reform Act 2652 |
| Message | It does harm others as say for example a man with six wives has one child with each of them, he then dies suddenly leaving no will. Who gets the rights to his property? The house if it was in his name? Do all the women and children go their seperate ways? Which wife gets a widowers pension? Do they all get a widows pension? Do they get one sixth of a standard pension or does each one get a full pension? There is also an increased problem in preventing incest as if people are having multiple partners there is also the chance that they are having children with all of those partners and it starts to get much more complicated, especially in small towns, to find people not related to one another. |
| Date | 13:09:55, October 16, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Marriage Reform Act 2652 |
| Message | That would be dealt with by the ordinary rules of intestacy, defined by the Courts. It would probably be split equally among the spouses, each gaining a one-sixth share of his estate. Nor would we have widows pensions (because that is an outdated concept, the spouse can go get a job). What if a man has six wives sequentially, then you have the same problem. Or has several illegitimate children. That is hardly an issue that is going to be solved by merely disallowing polygamous marriages. On the other hand, making them illegal does cause a harm. |
| Date | 21:49:42, October 16, 2008 CET | From | Witchdoctor's Leftist Doctrine | To | Debating the Marriage Reform Act 2652 |
| Message | I don't think this is right... Taking away something that is more often than not a religious practice just for the sake of less paperwork... It's not morally justifiable that way. I say let them deal with it themselves. This isn't a very large issue on the whole anyways, this is an archaic and isolated practice at best. Such a small percentage practice it, it's not an issue the government should be concerning itself with. Our time would better be spent improving the social freedoms of our people and providing for them. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 62 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 438 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?" Charles De Gaulle, "Les Mots du General |