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 and Family Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Heritage Party
Status[?]: passed
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: December 2803
Description[?]:
| The Rutanian Heritage Party believes that in order to safeguard marriage and the family - the most fundamental components and cornerstones of our civilized society - certain reforms to current marriage and adoption policies are imperative. Article 1) The RHP believes that the only family environment in which a child can be adequately and appropriately raised is that of the nuclear family. The nuclear family is an institution that is not only hard-wired into our basic nature as human-beings, but also deeply embedded in the social, moral and cultural fabric of Rutanian society. To arbitrarily re-define this institution by allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is to break down the most important building block of our civilization and to ignore its enormous value, merely for the sake of the abstract and idealistic ideologies of 'egalitarianism' and 'equality'. Furthermore, children raised by homosexuals will naturally be influenced by their predispositions - to put it simply, they will inevitably choose an unorthodox and subversive lifestyle themselves as a product of their upbringing, as their foster parents will, whether subconciously or deliberately, pass their values and beliefs on to them. In addition, the bullying and name-calling that children adopted by homosexuals will be subjected to may well be emotionally damaging and will impinge a healthy, normal childhood - this is something that no child should have to endure for the sake of 'homosexual equality'. In order to protect the family from what may be its most ardent enemies, the RHP propose that only heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. Article 2) The RHP recognizes that marriage between a man and a woman - the foundation of the family and cornerstone of Rutanian society - is an institution belonging purely to civil society. The government has no place regulating an institution that is the natural and historical product of Rutanian culture and tradition; a creation not of government or the state, but of religious heritage and custom. For this reason, the RHP propose that the federal government not involve itself in the institution of marriage, which is clearly none of its affair - let civil society and the church manage what is essentially a religious, cultural and social issue, and let the state have no part in this. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning who can proceed with adoption; in case adoption is legal.
Old value:: Everyone may adopt children.
Current: Everyone may adopt children.
Proposed: Only heterosexual couples may adopt children.
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 does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:22:44, August 12, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | We acknowledge the arguments of the RHP and we tend to support this bill as a sign of partnership, but we would have some questions that should be answered before we reach our final decision. I am referring particularly to one paradox and one questions which arise from the argumentation of this bill: 1. If the family "is the natural and historical product of Rutanian culture and tradition" why should we regulate its composition? If the family as an entity is completely independent from the state or the government, how come that the government wants to regulate its composition? 2. We deeply agree, that a healthy family is essential for the healthy upbringing of the children. But what is more healthier for a children: living in an orphanage or in a homosexual family?Can the specialists of the RHP decide this? Victoria von Bruckenthal, President of the REP |
| Date | 18:55:46, August 12, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Workers Party | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | In point one the RHP fully endorses homophobia - and uses it as a reason for not allowing gay adoption! This is of course a sickening disenfranchisement of the many members of the Rutanian LGBT community, which includes members of our own party. It recognises the "bullying and name-calling" which its party fully endorses and has presided over in its terms in government, and has done absolutely nothing about it - far from a tolerant society. Homohpobia is something which this party, and the working class, should never support. |
| Date | 01:41:22, August 13, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | We thank our fellow parties for their comments. Our response is as follows: Firstly, the REP raise a good point, and this is a point we were initially concerned about ourselves when constructing this legislation - is it paradoxical to support government non-intervention in marriage, but government involvement in adoption policies? We debated this point at length within our own party, and we came to a conclusion - these two issues, although both relating to the same social institution in their own right, are fairly seperate at their core. While churches and civil society can quite easily self-regulate when it comes to the social institution of marriage, adoption is an issue that almost necessitates some form of government involvement - the main reason for this is that if charities or private groups are responsible for adoption, it is unlikely they will be able to resolve what is an extremely controversial issue by themselves. Having said this, we are still willing to consider other options in regards to Article 1. Does the REP have any suggestions? We were initially thinking of devolving adoption policy to local governments - would this be preferable for the REP? As for the RWP's comments, we expected no less - the RHP is, by now, used to hearing politically-correct buzz-words and sound-bites thrown around in response to our proposals, and 'homophobia' seems to be a favourite. The RWP claim that our society is not a tolerant one - this is not for us to judge, nor can we generalize in such a way. Some people in our society may endorse homosexual rights, while others may not - often, this comes down to intuition, values, morals, and culture. This having been said, the implications of what the RWP call a 'tolerant society' go well beyond personal preference and freedom of conscience - under the RWP's definition of a 'tolerant society', people would quite literally be forced to accept an opinion endorsed by the federal government, whether they agree with it or not; they would be forced to accept as equals individuals living life-styles that they may view as immoral or unnatural through hate-crime legislation, equal opportunity legislation, affirmative action, gay marriage and adoption legislation, and so on, lest they be labelled a 'fascist', a 'homophobe' or a 'bigot' if they questioned or stepped out of line. What the RWP call a 'tolerant society' is in fact a society where minorities and special interest groups would be put on a pedastal and forced upon the population through federal government policy, and where anyone who disagrees would be hounded and bullied by the liberal establishment until they relented and fell into their place, 're-educated' - in essence, what the RWP call a 'tolerant society' is one in which certain opinions or thoughts, deemed 'intolerant', would not be tolerated. |
| Date | 04:47:23, August 13, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Workers Party | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | Not only have the RHP completely dodged an important point we raise, namely that this measure is a reaction and endorsement of sections of society's homophobia, but also have waged a war of words on a party platform that they do not understand. Aside from speculation that we support hyper-centralisation - which we do not - they also seem to believe hate-crime legislation, which is supposed to protect violent racial or homophobic attacks, as being a bad thing. Thankfully our party does not support the returning to a religious theocracy where individuals are regarded as perverse and criminals for their own lifestyles or skin colour. This motion will have grave implications and if passed we will repeal at the first possible opportunity. We believe that the RHP will lose seats at the next election in a backlash to this proposal, and deserves to. |
| Date | 12:04:30, August 13, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | If we do lose seats at the next election, it will not be because of this legislation - by now, our strong and loyal voter-base knows our party platform well enough, as we have proposed countless pieces of legislation similar to this one in the past. This legislation is not an endorsement of 'homophobia' - it is an endorsement of the family. |
| Date | 23:17:24, August 13, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | We have decided to support this piece of legislation in case the RHP is willing to change Article 1 in the previously discussed manner: adoption policies should be made by local governments. We find this alternative a fair and wise decision. |
| Date | 12:41:05, August 14, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | OOC: I've just realized that local government isn't an option for regulation of who can adopt children, for some reason...very annoying. As there is no viable alternative without the local government option, I'll have to leave the legislation as it is now. |
| Date | 16:25:33, August 16, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | We will support this bill. |
| Date | 03:09:49, August 17, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Marriage and Family Act |
| Message | Modern marriage offers legal, medical, & financial benefits which encourage and support the nuclear family even going so far as to be an incentive for a healthy family. Secondly, the Liberals do not believe that the gender of those who partake in any such unions are relevant or have any bearing whatsoever on the ability of those individuals to raise children. Surely education would be a better tool to combat childhood teasing steaming from homophobia, and a general sense of intolerance. Simply accepting such prejudice is terrible for all Rutanians, not just our fellow homosexual citizens. This bill is indicative of the lack of understanding for the issue on the whole by my honorable colleagues in the RHP, and I hope they do not harbor any unwarranted disrespect for the many members of the Liberal Party who happen to be homosexual. On a personal note, I find the children of homosexuals to behave no different from other children, and I find the underlying sentiment of this bill to be troubling. I sincerely hope such poor leadership on these issues will not adversely effect our future citizens, although this may prove to be blind optimism. I respectfully decline our support for this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 186 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 119 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain |