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 as a National Institution Act (MANIA)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Traditio et Honorem
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: September 4114
Description[?]:
| A stable family is far more important than quitting a relationship due to self-interest and vanity. This act looks to elevate marriage to the status of most contracts: there is no single party opt-out; contracts are in place for stability and as such, stability must be maintained. The family structure is the single most important structure on the country as it teaches tradition, honor, morality, culture, and right and wrong to the children. Dissolving vows and the status of matrimony shall only be considered under situation of Adultery, Abuse, Addiction, or Abandonment - commonly known as the 4As. |
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: Only divorces that comply with religious doctrine are legal.
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 | 14:03:14, November 01, 2016 CET | From | Serviunt Civitati | To | Debating the Marriage as a National Institution Act (MANIA) |
| Message | We support this belief, however we feel it should be less restrictive in cases that do not involve children. A forced, unhealthy commitment is just as dangerous (if not more so) than those frivolously broken. People make mistakes. People change. Forcing people to maintain a commitment that neither party wishes to continue will have people opting to forego marriage in some cases, which could ultimately lead to an increase in out-of-wedlock births and broken families in the end. |
| Date | 14:48:57, November 01, 2016 CET | From | Integritas | To | Debating the Marriage as a National Institution Act (MANIA) |
| Message | I agree. There does need to be a mutual consent clause as they are adults and do change over time. In the case of mutual consent, there will be 50/50 split of everything, unless an undue hardship can be owned by one of the parties (debt not included in that), and custody well be 50/50 unless one parent gives up that custody our sites to not be capable of custody. This should all be fine with minimal court time but a higher cost of procedure. |
| Date | 19:49:23, November 01, 2016 CET | From | Traditio et Honorem | To | Debating the Marriage as a National Institution Act (MANIA) |
| Message | Mutual consent equates to no-fault divorce. No-fault divorces are destructive to society in that they take the nature of humanity and reduce it to the whimsical nature of walking away when things get even slightly rough. Walking away simply because neither of the two parties are willing to work on compromise creates and enforces a spoiled, self-centered, presumptuous, and degraded society. I heard the idea that people changed being uttered in this chamber as if people in successful marriages must have to stay the same in order to succeed. Compromise and true love cannot be discovered without surviving the day-to-day events that impact and yes, change us all. One must understand that even the warmest of hearths today was build one heavy and cold stone after another over the course of time. So too is a warm and loving relationship crafted and preserved. Marriage, the heart of the family and society, should be taken seriously and not cast aside due to 'directional growth' i.e. growing apart. No one will ever be happy if the only change they expect is for others to change for them, and if others fail to change then the course of accepted action is to leave in search of someone else. Are you the same person you were ten years ago? Five years ago? Last year? Are any of your loved ones or friends the same? Would you expect them to be? How far are you willing to distance yourself from everyone to maintain the illusion of being independent of one's relationships? Are we to live in a society that declares such an illusion to be real? |
| Date | 10:41:21, November 02, 2016 CET | From | Clara Aurora - COSIRA | To | Debating the Marriage as a National Institution Act (MANIA) |
| Message | Marriage is not the center of everything, first of all. And you talk about the government not influencing in a lot of aspects of the citizens' life and now you want to obligate others to keep joined if they don't want to. |
| Date | 16:46:25, November 02, 2016 CET | From | Traditio et Honorem | To | Debating the Marriage as a National Institution Act (MANIA) |
| Message | The Tradition and Honor Party is unsurprised that In Marea, with its modern leftist positions, fails to have the capacity to grasp any understanding of a traditional concept such as marriage. In Marea's claim that marriage is not the center of everything also speaks endless volumes about where that party might find the core of society. I would not doubt if In Marea feels the state, the government itself, is closer to the center of everything than the family. Tradition and Honor understands that by way of the family, marriage stands as the foundation for success. A straw man has been raised in the room erroneously postulating that since my party tends to be against government control, then it must follow that the party must always find the government to be in contempt. Since this is not the case, In Marea has offered only confused rhetoric. Such sophomoric reduction is more fit for the school yard than the these hallowed halls of legislation. For the sake of clarity, if not for In Marea, then for the citizens who also drink the same nectar as that party, I will explain. There is a difference between government control and government intervention. Control assumes there are faults that must be preemptively handled due to inherent evils in humans that only the government can mitigate. For the most part, Honor and Tradition find this position to smack of elitism, authoritarianism, and needless centralization of government. Again, for the most part, and certainly with the modern standard, we reject this dangerous notion. Government intervention comes into play after individual cases of demonstrable wrong-doing have occurred. Because we believe in intervention, we also believe that those who have been found guilty of betraying the public trust should suffer steep consequences. As you should be able to now discern, some in this audience prefer to deny all - even without evidence of wrong-doing, where as we prefer to sanction those who wish to deny others. I want that idea to sink in for a moment. . . I hope that there is slight bit of discomfort in the room since anyone who has a mind for analysis must be noting that if our party wants to put sanctions on those who wish to deny others, then certainly we must not have a fondness for a party that seems dedicated to denying all citizens before any crime has been committed by all. While I hope to see eye to eye with any and all parties, there seems to be a canyon, a virtual gulch, dividing our ideals, when we look at In Marea. Without spending more time on that topic, I would now like to use the rest of my time to address something less tangential. For those who still mistakenly think this is an attempt at control versus a simple intervention on part of my party, I'd like the evidence examined a bit closer. Is it my party's position that people must marry? We can agree that would be a control, and a very non-productive one at that. Is my party arguing that marriage is never to be dissolved? Again, that would be a control, an absolute control that does not allow for variance. What we are stating is that when two people stand before witnesses and solemnly vow to live out their lives together that that vow is larger than either one of them. Because of the centrality of family in society, and the realization that the foundation of family must be marriage, society needs the stability of people dedicated to the family. Vows and oaths are matters of honor and integrity. While marriage is like a contract in that it is binding, it is also more than a contract because of the direct societal impacts caused by people who treat vows and oaths as nothing more than declaring their favorite food one month and then changing it the next. Divorce is an explicit request for government intervention - not government control. Government's overarching reason for existing is to mediate social situations that are not addressed by society itself. In this sense, two people approach society and ask to be absolved from their solemn, and possibly holy, vows simply because it no longer suits them to be together. The government has a right, indeed, a duty to ask what benefit to society does gain permitting vows and oaths to be treated so light? History shows no benefit. It is the role of the government to ask the married couple who asked for the intervention why society should accept them reneging on their solemn oaths and vows. How is society benefited from those who make promises and then decide to break them and thus weaken the view of vows and honor in all of society. It is to be remember that the couple comes to the government and not the government coming to the couple. Public, and sacred, voews and oaths must mean something more than whimsy. I wonder in In Merea is the party of whimsy. There is a benefit to the dissolution of marriage when abuse, adultery, etc are taken into account as it shows no one should be expected to break vows, act in injurious ways towards someone you've vowed to cherish, and yet maintain the benefits of marriage. It also shows that society does not tolerate tyranny in the home. Accepting tyranny in the home makes it easier to accept tyranny in the state, and that is not in society's interest. I hope that this has clarified not just my party's reason for wanting to sustain marriage, the family, the importance of vows, and tradition, but also offer clarification as to the different roles of government and which role we know to be more beneficial than the rest. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 750 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players should not role-play characters without the consent of the owner, and if they find they have role-played the character beyond what the owner intended, they should withdraw or amend the role-play appropriately. |
| Random quote: "Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage." - Niccolo Machiavelli |