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 Freedom Act of 3837
Details
Submitted by[?]: Sinsegi-Dongmaeng 신세기동맹
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: October 3837
Description[?]:
| Mr. Speaker, Prior to the Septembrist takeover, one of the long-standing policies of this nation was equal recognition for the marital status of both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Our country promoted conservative morality and social unity while also recognizing no contradiction being produced from the existence of homosexuals and their right to marry. Using the advantage of absolute legal authority, the Septembrists dismantled this centuries old policy. It was all in the name of their idea of "traditional values," which seems more derived from Western standards than our own. All the decades of equal marriage rights have proven that there is no threat to moral lifestyles and social prosperity. Any claim otherwise is based in ignorance. Yoo Donghyun Dankuk National Union |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Current: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Proposed: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:52:12, April 27, 2015 CET | From | Guglib Jeongchi Yeonhab | To | Debating the Marriage Freedom Act of 3837 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Yoo Donghyun is to be commended for his judgement on many issues, but on this one, we must differ from him. It is true, we concede that so-called "equal marriage" was legally recognised under the old Kyo regime, but we are not convinced it was a positive thing. It led to a breakdown in family life and a disintegration of society. Perhaps if the old regime had cherished our social institutions more responsibly, it would not have fallen from ascendancy. Jeong Jin Ji Party Chairman |
| Date | 17:00:37, April 27, 2015 CET | From | Grand National Party | To | Debating the Marriage Freedom Act of 3837 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, we will vote in favour of this bill, but distance ourselves from the rhetoric of Yoo Donghyun. Marriage equality is a tradition dating back to well before the last regime and was then conceived in opposition to state-decreed "conservative morality", not as part of it. We also condemn the use of the term "takeover" as a description for the establishment of an elected, democratic government, and wish to draw attention to the fact that it was Yeonhab, not our coalition partners, who introduced the bill proposing an abolition of same-sex marriage, and it was only narrowly endorsed within the Septembrist party. Assemblyman James Breckinridge DUP Floor Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 244 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 242 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 151 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not implement nation renaming requests where the proposed name does not comply with the requirements set out in the Nation Renaming Guide: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6364 |
| Random quote: "Political institutions are a superstructure resting on an economic foundation." - Vladimir Lenin |