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: Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917
Details
Submitted by[?]: Folkepartiet (People's Party)
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: March 3918
Description[?]:
A BILL to prevent the promulgation of new polygamous marriage certificates. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to polygamy.
Old value:: Polygamous marriages are accorded equal recognition to monogamous marriages.
Current: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships.
Proposed: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 11:28:18, October 05, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917 |
Message | Herr President, Folkepartiet is a strong believer in the institution of marriage: an institution that is based on the promise of undivided love and care, of two lives shared. It is no secret, therefore, that we oppose the practice of polygamy that is currently sanctioned by the marriage code. Ask yourself the question: can you really give somebody your undivided love and care and share your lives until death do us part, if it is possible for either partner to marry another? Since there is no need for consent from the present spouses for a polygamous marriage (OOC: going on my understanding of the practice as it exists in most RL societies who practice it here), how can that be? Polygamy, however loving some who enter into such relationships must be, degrades the institution of marriage which is so important to the life of millions of families. And that's not where it ends - if polygamous couples consisted of multiple men with multiple wives or one wife with multiple husbands, that might make it more justifiable, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of polygamous relationships is between one husband and multiple wifes. It's therefore not only degrading to the institution of marriage, but to the equal position of women in our society. I ask Storting to join us in decreeing a moratorium on all new polygamous marriages. Nelline Opland (FP - Dreton) FP Leader |
Date | 11:28:19, October 05, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917 |
Message | Herr President, Folkepartiet is a strong believer in the institution of marriage: an institution that is based on the promise of undivided love and care, of two lives shared. It is no secret, therefore, that we oppose the practice of polygamy that is currently sanctioned by the marriage code. Ask yourself the question: can you really give somebody your undivided love and care and share your lives until death do us part, if it is possible for either partner to marry another? Since there is no need for consent from the present spouses for a polygamous marriage (OOC: going on my understanding of the practice as it exists in most RL societies who practice it here), how can that be? Polygamy, however loving some who enter into such relationships must be, degrades the institution of marriage which is so important to the life of millions of families. And that's not where it ends - if polygamous couples consisted of multiple men with multiple wives or one wife with multiple husbands, that might make it more justifiable, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of polygamous relationships is between one husband and multiple wifes. It's therefore not only degrading to the institution of marriage, but to the equal position of women in our society. I ask Storting to join us in decreeing a moratorium on all new polygamous marriages. Nelline Opland (FP - Dreton) FP Leader |
Date | 11:28:27, October 05, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917 |
Message | (OOC: Sorry, double-post) |
Date | 11:38:55, October 05, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917 |
Message | Mr Speaker, Folkepartiet is trying to impose its interpretation of the idea of marriage on everyone else by starting from moral premises which those people who engage in polygamous relationships obviously do not share. Although most FV deputies do not approve of polygamous relationships, we do not believe that they should be banned as long as they are based on voluntary participation. We agree that the term marriage has historically denoted a certain a very specific institution characterized by some of the things she has mentioned, and we understand that the hon. lady feels that its name is tarnished by an association with polygamy. The best solution, then, would mean getting the government out of the business and removing from the state the right to define what constitutes marriage. Johan Theisen FV Parliamentary Leader |
Date | 11:53:16, October 05, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917 |
Message | Herr President, Then I suppose Herr Theisen is also going to end any and all family tax relief? I respect his judgment on polygamous marriages, though I disagree with it. However, this proposal to get the state out of marriage altogether will result in the total erosion of family values in public policy - after all, if the state cannot recognise marriage, it follows that it does not value this stable foundation for many families. That is the wrong signal to be sending. Nelline Opland (FP - Dreton) FP Leader |
Date | 12:01:10, October 05, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917 |
Message | Mr Speaker, no, we will not end any tax relief, we will keep them in place because the structures of the traditional family promote economic self-reliance and are an important pillar of non-governmental social security, which serves the liberal values we are committed to. Marriage in the traditional sense, however, is not a state institution, it is based on faith and cultural values that do not require symbolic and exclusive state approval to unfold their beneficial impacts. Johan Theisen FV Parliamentary Leader |
Date | 12:03:48, October 05, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917 |
Message | Herr President, Can Herr Theisen confirm what he was saying just now? That he believes marriage should be a matter of the church, rather than the universally valued social institution it is today? Nelline Opland (FP - Dreton) FP Leader |
Date | 17:13:33, October 05, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Polygamous Marriage Moratorium, 3917 |
Message | Mr Speaker, if the hon. lady had examined my statement more carefully, then she would know that I have implied no such thing. What I was saying is that marriage is an institution based on social conceptions and values regarding the structure of human relationships, and that its precise definition should consequently be left to civil society, which includes all kinds of religious creeds as well as other traditional institutions who shape the concept of marriage. Government should have no role in this process, as it should not be allowed to take control of this social institution. Johan Theisen FV Parliamentary Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes | Total Seats: 61 | ||||
no | Total Seats: 70 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 8 |
Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
Random quote: "Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men." - John Stuart Mill |