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: Sanctity of marriage act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness
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: June 3679
Description[?]:
| No fault divorce as ushered in many broken families, and children suffer greatly in many ways from frivolous divorces. Not only that but children from divorced family's have been shown to be more likely to divorce furthering the chain of suffering. Even more so some studies suggest friends and family members close to those having a divorce have been shown to be more likely to consider and act upon divorces after seeing others do it! Many who divorce simply find new people to be unsatisfied with, divorcing yet again and again ( this phenomena is called "serial monogamy"). This causes social breakdown! We argue for couples seeking to get a marriage to have longer waiting times and marital education so they fully know what their getting into, then a ban on no-fault divorce. In recognition of individual freedom and dignity alongside community benefit we will permit divorce in cases of adultery and abuse. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:06:22, June 08, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawa Liberal Party | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | divorces for adults can also cause many problems, such as medical problems from stress such as and not limited to: Seizures, Heart Attacks, Fainting Spells, Headaches, etc. If to adults stay together not loving each other will destroy the children not help them, the virtue and righteousness party is not helping families but destroying them even more. |
| Date | 17:42:08, June 08, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | Breaking up marriages is more destructive and more permanent action. Problems in marriages are normal because people are imperfect and with most everyone seeking a relationship a certain percentage will always be unhappy. Ideally if everyone was focused on improving their relationships this wouldn't need to be the case, but the harsh reality is unhappy relationships continue even if you allow divorce, only a minority find "the one". Expecting largely trouble free relationships without effort is hopeless idealism. We must focus on keeping families together and encouraging reconciliation. No fault divorce encourages breaking off relationships for poor reasoning and little reflection (esp. The easier it is to get the divorce), focusing on escape rather then facing problems.widespread Divorces are more consistently bad for kids then the occasional very unsatisfactory marriage. |
| Date | 19:10:09, June 08, 2014 CET | From | Kirla Tea Party | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | I see some sense in need of grounded cause (Afterall Marriage is obligation taken on individual out of their free will), and state marriage with divorce which can be conducted anytime is senseless legal regulation, However adding delegalisation of adultery makes legal state marriage just another permission our citizens are forced to get from the government - permission for legal sex. |
| Date | 19:16:58, June 08, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawa Liberal Party | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | I strongly disagree with what my college is saying we should not force people to stay in marriages it will just get even worse and em posing this law will affect their own civil liberties. If someone does not want to stay in a marriage it would be best for everyone even the children for them to get out of it. Let me give you an example: if 2 people cannot stand to be around each other that will harm the children having to listen to them argue I cannot belive that you are still suggesting that this is ok what you are proposing. |
| Date | 00:54:23, June 10, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | Out of respect to the kirla tea party's wishes we have removed the adultery clause. |
| Date | 01:29:18, June 10, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | What kirlawa national is discussing is quarreling couples (a legitimate concern), which is a form of marriage bad for kids, but they fail to understand this is a minority of cases (ooc: compare the 7% quarrel rate to the statistics that about half of British marriages will end in divorce.which is more endemic? ) [bic:] we also point to the fact we will reduce bad marriages by educating people on marriage before they can get their license and increased waiting time to make certain their truly certain and know what their getting into before going ahead. Quarreling can also lead to abuse so a portion will be able to divorce due to this, they are bad families and shouldn't be kept together. We also encourage awareness of the effects on the children: encouraging quarreling parents to either seek anger and/or marital counseling as well as to do quarrels outside of children's sight. |
| Date | 02:02:54, June 10, 2014 CET | From | Kirla Tea Party | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | Indeed this is something Kirla Tea Party might consider voting on. As Marriages are volountary it can be seen as obligation rather than useless ceremonial before registry office. However we have some fears that even this small obligation could lower the number of legalised marriages and make people choose cohabitate instead. To prevent desacration of marriage and not scare people off from that choice, we thought of a different kind of solution: Government policy toward marriage. >The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions. The legality of divorces. >The Government has no policy concerning divorces. Leaving the marriage to religious organizations as it was for centuries before state tried to stick their nose everywhere, even to the most intimate spheres of human lives. Also notary or witnesses might be present if newweds would like to have their marriage documented. This will enable people to have volountary marriage contracts on whatever they agree on. OCC: As you can see gentlemen, State Marriage is not something that was there always, and people regulated their relationships just fine before regulations came in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753 |
| Date | 02:59:05, June 10, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | We would worry not only about the benefits of encouraging marriage via state recognition and perks but fear it would also make a legal mess. Ooc: I was trying to find a cato institute article about a libertarian defense of legal marriage and arguing it protects individuals from the state. But for some reason I can't find that article at the moment so here is a related objection from a libertarian source: http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/10/why-the-united-states-cant-divorce-marri |
| Date | 03:17:27, June 10, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | Ooc: aha! It is found! It seems to be dealing with a wider range of stuff(taxes,welfare, other marriage laws, etc.) but the relevant part to what I was arguing is : "Although privatizing all aspects of marriage may well be appealing, such an approach would result, at both state and federal levels, in much greater government interference in family life, higher taxes for married couples, invasions of privacy, difficulties related to child custody, and other negative consequences. In some areas, marriage is a defense against state power, and such a defense should not be lightly discarded" |
| Date | 04:00:04, June 10, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | Very very mildly favour; no real preference. |
| Date | 16:12:30, June 10, 2014 CET | From | Kirla Tea Party | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | We're still not sure whether to support this motion, as for now it is acceptable, however a little changes in other laws later could have much greater (and we believe more state control is bad for citizens] effect if this one passes. @' benefits of encouraging marriage via state recognition and perks:' In Kirlawa we have very few right now, if any... occ:Admin didn't add too much options for this, adoption is not marriage-dependable, adultery is legal, etc... etc... "marriage is a defense against state power, and such a defense should not be lightly discarded" - I like this sentence and agree... as long as the state exists,marriage is defense from its opression :P |
| Date | 22:49:12, June 10, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Sanctity of marriage act |
| Message | Also we would like to point out the economic effects of divorce: namely that it increases poverty and poverty risk, more so for women then men. This is also bad for society and individuals. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 425 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 193 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 99 |
| Random fact: Bill descriptions must be in English, or at least include a full English translation. Bill titles may appear in a language that is appropriate to the nation and are not required to be translated into English. |
| Random quote: "Wherever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship." - Harry S. Truman |