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: Families Act 2995
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
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: December 2995
Description[?]:
| Written by: Jonas Beauchamp, Unionist Chancellor. Proposed by: Harrison Spicer, Unionist Senatorial Lead. |
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: Only heterosexual couples may adopt children.
Proposed: Only couples may adopt children.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to adultery.
Old value:: There is no explicit government policy on adultery.
Current: Adultery is a capital offence.
Proposed: Adultery is illegal, but not prosecuted.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions.
Current: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Proposed: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:15:04, September 05, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Families Act 2995 |
| Message | I am afraid we must oppose based mainly on articles one and two. We believe it must be up to the individual and the freedom they have. On article one, we would prefer anyone the option to adopt, regardless of their relasionship status, as the alternative could well be a children/state home. Whilst a couple would offer more stability and be easier on the parents, we would not wish to deny the children a right to a home, or an individual to adopt. On Articles two and three, we believe the government should take no involvement in marriage or personal affairs, and believe it is up to the individual who they choose to marry, up to the registry office/church who they want to perform cermonies with and if people commit adultery,w hilst we do not approve, it is not up to us as a state to take a position on the issue as it is a personal matter. When people say my party hasn't changed on the issue of the individual, we would show them our stance on issues like this. Patsy Davidson Party Leader |
| Date | 14:21:18, September 05, 2010 CET | From | Social Justice Party | To | Debating the Families Act 2995 |
| Message | The SDWU would support an amendment to this Act containing articles 1 and 3, but our members cannot support any change in policy with regards to article 2. Tobias Alteruthemeyer SDWU Internal Affairs Spokesperson |
| Date | 14:32:16, September 05, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Families Act 2995 |
| Message | "When it comes to the rights of children, the liberty of the individual has no place. Children must be given stability and security, regardless of selfish individualist needs of the adult populace. We believe that the Govermment has a responsibility to protect individual rights. The right to homosexual marriage has to be protected under law, which is why we advocate a Government position on the issue. As we believe the Government advocates a position on marriage and civil contract, we also believe that the breaking of that contract needs to be regulated. Whilst the Government shouldn't prosecute, if the Government sanctions contracts on the issue as we believe it should, it's only right that we make breaking those contracts illegal unless doen in a divorce case, ending the contract. This is about the Government protecting rights, individualism and liberty." Harrison Spicer, Unionist Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 14:35:25, September 05, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Families Act 2995 |
| Message | This is why we are putting children first with regards to article one. We do not wish to see children resigned to the scrap heap of a childrens home, we want to see them given a loving home and their are many single parents who could offer this. A couple raising a child is better, but beggers cannot be choosers. There are loving single parent families and we feel the unioists are quite wrong to put a law forward banning individuals from raising children, as this doesn't put children first, they will be the ones who would suffer as a result. Patsy Davidson Conservative Leader |
| Date | 14:44:41, September 05, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Families Act 2995 |
| Message | "If a couple works better, let's raise the bar instead of allowing children to go the runner-up single-mom. It's time to start setting standards on this of thing. Time to get serious on child welfare." Harrison Spicer, Unionist Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 15:45:48, September 05, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Families Act 2995 |
| Message | We are all in support of couples being the top choice, however if the second choice is between a single parent or being placed into a care home and resigned to the scrap heap, we will support a single parent meaning we cannot support this law change. Patsy Davidson Party Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 45 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 55 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: "I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." - Charles de Gaulle |