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 Deregulation Act I
Details
Submitted by[?]: Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes the withdrawal from a treaty. It will require half of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2154
Description[?]:
| The first step to removing government involvement in marriage. |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the International Gay Rights treaty.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:53:10, December 10, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Marriage Deregulation Act I |
| Message | This is not an attack of the rights of homosexuals. Any party who takes it that way has consented to be hit over the head with a large lump of wood. This treaty forces governments to take a role in the religious institution of marriage. We would prefer that the institution of marriage is completely beyond the control of the government but first need to withdraw from this treaty in order to do so. |
| Date | 16:23:25, December 10, 2005 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Marriage Deregulation Act I |
| Message | Hm...would you say Baltusia has any form of inheritance tax and/or other ways that married couples have legal benefits over unmarried couples? Until we know we'll have to vote de-regulation down. |
| Date | 02:10:23, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Marriage Deregulation Act I |
| Message | OOC: Unofficially, I dont there are any benefits in Baltusia to being married (no special treatment when it comes to welfare or taxation) but I couldn't say for certain. I'd also say that inheritance tax would be based on the people specifically named in the will, perhaps defaulting to a next of kin, which may be a offspring, sibling, parent or possibly partner. The specific law would be "The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions." which is to say that the government is capable of recognition of marriage but does not propose any specific laws pertaining to it, nor does the government grant marriages. That's my view of it. |
| Date | 17:13:30, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Marriage Deregulation Act I |
| Message | Marriage is a civil institution as well as a religious one; if this government wishes to disengage itself entirely from marriage, and the familial structure that that envisages, that is a valid perspective. We however feel that the structure, in its most basic sense (meaning committed adults with some degree of legal entanglement) has facets to be commended, and would not wish it to be ended. As such, we vote no. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 173 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 169 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you want to know how many players there are in Particracy right now, check out the Game Statistics buried at the bottom of the World Map screen. |
| Random quote: "Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of fascism." - Benito Mussolini |