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: Liberalisation of Divorce (2155)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Front Canrillaise
Status[?]: passed
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 2156
Description[?]:
| We believe that local governments shouldn't determine divorce laws as it will creat inconsistencies. If one city does not allow divorce then the one next to it might, and people are not stupid and would instead just get a divorce in that city. Also, having different cities have different divorce laws does not ensure the freedom to divorce; it should be the same all throughout the land. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are prohibited.
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the initiation of divorces (if allowed).
Old value:: Local governments decide who can initiate a divorce.
Current: Either partner may initiate a divorce.
Proposed: Either partner may initiate a divorce.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:36:48, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Union for the Rights of Christian Women | To | Debating the Liberalisation of Divorce (2155) |
| Message | "If one city does not allow divorce then the one next to it might, and people are not stupid and would instead just get a divorce in that city" That argument we will use against you. If that is so then why not respect the decision of the cities since it does not limit the rights of the people? |
| Date | 14:21:39, December 14, 2005 CET | From |  Parti Citron de Rildanor | To | Debating the Liberalisation of Divorce (2155) |
| Message | Agreed |
| Date | 20:35:21, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Liberalisation of Divorce (2155) |
| Message | And what if, say, none allow it? Then the right is, by all means, limited. Because this is subject to change, it is better to give the freedom to all and give equality to the people. And still, even if you do respect the decision of the city, you might not limit the right of the people to get divorced in the nation, but the right to divorce in your own city is certainly limited! By allowing this, freedom and fairness is assured for everybody. Also, being able to divorce is a good right, because if things really turn out for the worse after marriage, should you not have the freedom to break the bond, which only inhibits your happiness as a whole? |
| Date | 23:12:15, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Union for the Rights of Christian Women | To | Debating the Liberalisation of Divorce (2155) |
| Message | And what if, say, none allow it? Then that means that there is no city/village/community that support this. SO I ask you then if nobody wants it why force it on the population. |
| Date | 08:25:12, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Liberalisation of Divorce (2155) |
| Message | Why force it on the population? This is about giving the population the right to have a choice, not force people to divorce! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 52 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 22 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 11 |
| 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: "The right to suffer is one of the joys of a free economy." - Howard Pyle (commenting on unemployment in Detroit) |