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: The Protection of Marriage Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Heritage 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 2735
Description[?]:
| - |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign marriages.
Old value:: All foreign marriages are recognised, regardless of domestic policy regarding marriage.
Current: Only foreign marriages that comply with domestic policy regarding marriage are recognised.
Proposed: Local governments regulate the recognition of foreign marriages.
Article 2
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 | 11:59:13, March 29, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the The Protection of Marriage Act |
| Message | Yet again, these are interventionist measures limiting the liberties of each individual. We cannot support this bill, either. |
| Date | 18:57:41, March 29, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Restoration Party | To | Debating the The Protection of Marriage Act |
| Message | Ibid. |
| Date | 03:36:01, March 30, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the The Protection of Marriage Act |
| Message | The 'Rutanian Heritage Party' understands the 'REP's and the 'OP's concerns for liberties - liberty is important to civilized society, and is deeply ingrained in our national political culture. Having said this, the 'RHP' also understands the need for social institutions and associations that are not open to all, and we do not view this as a deprivation of liberty; rather, we view these institutions as the exclusive preserve of some, while others cannot reasonably be allowed participate. We do not subscribe to the fallacies of equality, egalitarianism, and pluralism; we do not believe that the ability to marry is a 'right' or a 'liberty', and, if it were, we certainly don't believe it should be a 'right' or 'liberty' granted to all. Our reasons for this are simple: the family, which is rooted in the ancient, time-honored institution of marriage between a man and woman - which has existed, in one form or another, for the entire history of man-kind, predating religion as perhaps the most natural and instinctual associations of the human race - is the basic and fundamental component of man's collective social existence; the cornerstone of civilized society. Never in the history of civilization has a society existed in which marriage has not been confined to man and woman - the coupling of two individuals whose naturalness is manifest in the process of child-birth. In various cultures, it has been a custom that one man may have several wives, but never, before the 21st century, has the nocuous idea been put forward that marriage should include those who cannot reproduce naturally, and who are not attracted to each other by nature or genetic predisposition, but through some mental fault or personal choice. Marriage, as the cornerstone of the family, and thus, the most integral human association to civilized society, has always been between man and woman - let the lessons of history show a better source of wisdom on this matter than the infantile, abstract, Utopian fantasies of 'equality', 'egalitarianism' and 'pluralism'. |
| Date | 05:54:44, March 30, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the The Protection of Marriage Act |
| Message | We understand the arguments of the RHP however we do not see why local governments should have the possibility to restrict foreign marriages (between men and women). Besides, some religious institutions do not recognize homosexual marriages. This can give a certain "closure" of social institutions advocated by the RHP. Nevertheless each and every citizen of Rutania is equal in front of the law, in the eyes of the state there are no privileges. Thus the state should recognize marriages involving homosexual couples, and while civil marriages are enforced by the state, there must not be any differentiation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 90 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 205 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Never use the same password as a friend. If two or more active accounts use the same password, they will be inactivated. |
| Random quote: "How we can possibly be giving £1bn a month, when we're in this sort of debt, to Bongo Bongo Land is completely beyond me." - Godfrey Bloom |