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: Adultery Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Democrats
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: April 2832
Description[?]:
| We need to clarify our position on this matter. However morally abhorrent, it is legal. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to adultery.
Old value:: There is no explicit government policy on adultery.
Current: Adultery is legal.
Proposed: Adultery is legal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:30:10, October 12, 2009 CET | From |  Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Adultery Act |
| Message | We firmly oppose this legislation. Allowing adultery 'legal' status is virtually the same as condoning it, or, at the very least, encouraging indifference to it. There is no reason for the federal government to involve itself in such private social matters, especially if its involvement will violate long-standing social customs and norms by giving legal recognition to morally reprehensible acts. |
| Date | 03:51:56, October 12, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Restoration Party | To | Debating the Adultery Act |
| Message | Why even put adultery in the law books? As things stand adultery is technically 'legal.' Doing this is unneccessary. It's not really something that should be legislated. We shouldn't tell our people that points of personal responsibility are legal or not. |
| Date | 04:01:55, October 12, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Adultery Act |
| Message | We feel this bill will clear up any disputes in divorce or court proceedings. It is merely for administrative purposes. |
| Date | 04:39:27, October 12, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Adultery Act |
| Message | We agree with the points raised by the Heritage Party and Orange Party. There is a first time for everything I suppose. |
| Date | 05:26:15, October 12, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Restoration Party | To | Debating the Adultery Act |
| Message | Ah, yes. The divorce courts. A good point. Very technical indeed haha! |
| Date | 05:45:09, October 12, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Adultery Act |
| Message | The DPR simply just wanted to clear up any ambiguity in this matter. That is all. We certainly don't agree with the moralistic nature of adultery but would like to see it clarified in law. |
| Date | 09:35:08, October 12, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Adultery Act |
| Message | The law regarding adultery doesn't need clarification, as it does not exist, meaning that the act is technically 'legal' in that it is not punished, but it is also not recognized as 'legal' by the federal government for symbolic purposes - if the law takes a stance on certain behaviour, it either condones it or denounces it based on whether the behaviour is made legal or illegal, so if the law recognizes adultery as legal it is essentially endorsing it. The proposed legislation would change nothing, and the status quo is preferable for the afore-mentioned reasons. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 54 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 240 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Treaties will be eligible for deletion if they are more than 50 in-game years old and have no currently ratified members. |
| Random quote: "Those looking for ideology in the White House should consider this: for the men who rule our world, rules are for other people." - Naomi Klein |