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 Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kundrati Reform 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: June 2709
Description[?]:
| Whereas the government recognizes marriage contracts and actively issues them to citizens; Whereas the current government supports bills that protect the family and the definition thereof; Whereas men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law. Be it resolved that the definition of Marriage be changed from "any two adults" to "one man and one woman". |
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: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:50:00, February 08, 2009 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | Wow, I never thought I'd see the day when someone would say allowing homosexuals civil marriages is an afront to freedom. Bravo good sir, bravo. This is nothing but legislative gay bashing. |
| Date | 21:14:40, February 08, 2009 CET | From | Kundrati Reform Party | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I am not bashing gays, I am upholding the traditional legal structure in which moral nations such as this one were founded on. The idea of gay marriage has given way to the belief that things such as adultery and polygamy are ok (which seem to be held by the left wing parties). The left is progressively (NPI) altering the definition of marriage so that everyone can get in on this exclusive contract. Next thing you know, they will want the definition to be 'a man and an animal' then 'a man and 2 women' then 'a man and himself' then '5 men, 7 women, 3 dogs, a cat, two 6 year olds, and a partridge in a pair tree'. If two gay guys wanna get together in a relationship and be unified by a religious group they can do it, but it shall not be called marriage. Marriage has a definition and no matter what left wing legislation passes through this house, it will always be one man and one woman. I ask that the government recognize this. Let's keep the definition the way it has always been until the left infiltrated this nation. |
| Date | 21:23:40, February 09, 2009 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | Ah yes, the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. Have we, the left, legislated on polygamy? No. And we won't. Have we legislated on adultery? Yes, because it shouldn't be a capitol offense. Do we like it happening? No, but again, it shouldn't be a capital offense on par with murder, rape, and being a traitor. "Let's keep the definition the way it has always been until the left infiltrated this nation." As a person who's been in the KU for a long time, and took a break then came back, this is wrong. This was the definition of civil marriage until the RIGHT infiltrated this nation. As much as you like to talk about it, the KU is not some conservative paradise. Look at political opinions. This is quite the secular, left leaning nation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 170 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 305 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players should not role-play characters without the consent of the owner, and if they find they have role-played the character beyond what the owner intended, they should withdraw or amend the role-play appropriately. |
| Random quote: "Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy." - Ludwig von Mises |