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: Love act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Dranish Hosian 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: November 3403
Description[?]:
| Mutual love is one of the deepest and most personal things in any person's life. The government should not be required to acknowledge these kinds of relationships, that should be between two consenting people. Keep the government out of the bedroom. Legalize true love. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Current: Civil marriages are defined by local governments.
Proposed: The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:27:18, November 28, 2012 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Love act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, as ever I admire Green Solidarity for their youthful idealism, but I cannot see this proposal getting off the ground. My party's supporters and voters would not be pleased to be told that I had just voted to render their marriage certificates legally meaningless. Mrs. Butterworth might not be too please either... George Butterworth (Leader of the DSP) |
| Date | 12:30:43, November 28, 2012 CET | From | Dranish Hosian Democrats | To | Debating the Love act |
| Message | This is not an act to illegalize the marriage, it is to keep the government out of it. Why must we haev a centralized government to approve of the love between two consenting people? Can't Mr. Butterworth love mrs. Butterworth as the one and only if she was called ms. Butterworth? We must rid ourselves of this outdated social construct, this marriage. It is an old and outdated instution, no fit for a modern state such as Dranland. Ashly Sanchez, MP for Valdor Spokeserson for Justice |
| Date | 23:37:07, November 28, 2012 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Love act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point my honourable friend is making, but the fact remains that if a law like this were passed, a great many people would have the perception that their marriage relationships had somehow been devalued or delegitimised. This is a political risk the DSP is not prepared to risk. There are also practical reason to support the legal recognition of marriage. Marriage, at its best, promotes healthy loving relationships and provides a good environment for children to be raised in. George Butterworth (Leader of the DSP) |
| Date | 04:47:40, November 29, 2012 CET | From | Valdorian Blue Shirt Movement | To | Debating the Love act |
| Message | The VBSM will certainly stand against this absurd proposal. If the government does not monitor one of society's most important institutions, who will? It will be open to even more degradation and perversion than it already is under the government's current policies. Javier Rabal Jefe Adjunto de Partido |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 93 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 116 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 41 |
| Random fact: Particracy is completely free! If you want to support the game financially, feel free to make a small donation to the lievenswouter@gmail.com Paypal account. |
| Random quote: "[In the West] unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for an official ban." - George Orwell |