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: Civil Rights Act of 3280
Details
Submitted by[?]: Chann National Party (CNP)
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 3281
Description[?]:
| The government should have NO STANCE on the tastes and preferences or the lifestyle of an individual citizen. There are certain rights that belong to each citizen naturally and cannot be abridged by government. Neither can government obtain the right to distribute rights to individuals, this bill neither legalizes nor makes illegal any of these activities. It only seeks to restore to citizens their natural rights and to leave their lifestyle and behavior regarding themselves and their personal health and personal body to their discretion. The only area government has power to regulate is the interaction between citizens and individuals, hence it would be unwise to argue that this bill would allow, say, a man to freely murder another person because he has a right to do whatever he wants. Citizens are allowed to do what they want regarding themselves and the consent of another... it is only when they seek to interact or to do things to other citizens against their will and with intent to harm is where the government assumes a role to regulate. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government position in respect to crossdressing policy.
Old value:: Crossdressing is allowed.
Current: Crossdressing is prohibited by the state.
Proposed: The government has no policy concerning crossdressing.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government recognition of interracial marriages (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Mixed race marriages follow the same regulation as other marriages.
Current: Mixed race marriages follow the same regulation as other marriages.
Proposed: The government has no policy concerning interracial marriage or civil unions.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The legality of interracial sex.
Old value:: Interracial sex is legal.
Current: Interracial sex is legal.
Proposed: The government has no policy concerning interracial sex.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Current: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Proposed: The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:21:39, March 29, 2012 CET | From |  Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Civil Rights Act of 3280 |
| Message | "The Unionists shall oppose vehemently any attempt to damage racial equality in this country. This Act would render mixed race marriages and relationships under question and in the hands of oppressors. Articles 2 and 3 of this Act are misguided at best and an overt racist assault at worst. The so-called populares ought to be ashamed that their party shall be forever stigmatised with racism should this Act go to the House. Say what you want about the role of Government in marriage but equality under the law is a true Solentian ideal and it shall be upheld by this Party." Alexander York, Unionist Vice-President (Legislative Lead) |
| Date | 07:02:03, March 29, 2012 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Civil Rights Act of 3280 |
| Message | "Some of us fail to see the logic in both our proposals and our statements. He is quick to label the populare's as racists when in fact our aim is no where's near condoning racism in this nation. We are perhaps even more the advocates of equality by proposing these measures than the Unionist's! Article 4 proposes that the government does not involve itself in marriages and civil unions, which are essentially contracts between individuals. If two individuals, regardless of their race, color, creed, religion or any other form of self-identity, choose to marry each other, than it is a matter of choice between the two parties involved with nothing to intervene. They do not need government recognition in order to marry." "Article 4 as it stands gives the government the power to 'recognize' marriage. Therefore, it also has the power to not recognize a marriage based on whatever reason it puts forward. If we remove the government as the middleman than people are MORE free to marry each other, regardless of the color of their skin! Article 2 states that marriages follow the same regulation as other marriages, meaning that it falls under the jurisdiction of Article 4. If we remove the governments intervention in Article 4, we must also remove Article 2." "Once again, this bill does not condone racism and we ask Mr. York to calm his rhetoric and approach this issue with an objective approach. This bill will do more for Equality than maintaining the status quo ever will. This bill seeks to enhance individual freedom, that is, the right of an individual to choose whom they want to marry without the government's power to 'recognize' a marriage. Love is a personal choice and should not be regulated or be subject to the 'recognition' and approval of government!" Julius Catan Party Consul Populares Party |
| Date | 07:05:40, March 29, 2012 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Civil Rights Act of 3280 |
| Message | "This bill does not, contrary to what those in opposition say, put marriage in the hands of opressors but rather in the hands of the individual. No where in this bill does it state that a local government, religious group or any other sect is allowed to ban marriage between certain people's of certain colors. It merely withdraws the hand of government from a choice made between two citizens!" |
| Date | 19:11:04, March 29, 2012 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Civil Rights Act of 3280 |
| Message | This bill would make it possible for the Realms or muncipalities to de-legalize interracial relationships. How dare the Populares Party bring this racist document before the Curia Regis! |
| Date | 21:16:11, March 29, 2012 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Civil Rights Act of 3280 |
| Message | "The Unionist Party has a 400 year history as one of Solentia's most influential equality campaign groups. We are not afraid of our record. We have never sought to permit by law discriminiation or oppression. We have never recklessly left such large loopholes and have never left ourselves open to accusations of racism. 100 years from now, Solentia will STILL remember the Unionists as a pro-Liberation party, how will she remember the Populares Party?" Alexander York, Unionist Vice-President (Legislative Lead) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 67 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 335 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: Selucia is Particracy's modern take on Ancient Rome, located on the continent of Majatra. |
| Random quote: "The radical right is so homophobic that they're blaming global warming on the AIDS quilt." - Dennis Miller |