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 Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Liberal 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 4245
Description[?]:
| The issue is very simply: every consenting adults should have access to marriage and our government must have a clear law to allow it because we the duty to ensure those basic civil rights for Hutorian people. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions.
Current: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Proposed: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:45:40, July 21, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Why is marriage the responsibility of the state? It is historically the domain of religion and the church not that of government. Furthermore, I thought the SLP was adamantly against the institution of any form of religious tradition in to secular government. However, the frequent logical inconsistencies of the left should not surprise me by this point. Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
| Date | 23:31:41, July 21, 2017 CET | From | National Progress Party | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker I don't even understand what the senator McLaughlin is arguing about anymore. Is he implying that marriage may be nothing more than a religious tradition? Because marriage is way more than a simple tradition, it is also a legal status that brings many right to the married couple, that's why the government must ensure that everyone has the right to wedding even if they are not part of any religion. Their is in Hutori 30% of non-religious people, would the Federalist want to deny the right to wedding to litteraly 30% of the population? -Carl Fernandez Senaot and former minister of Justice |
| Date | 23:31:49, July 21, 2017 CET | From | National Progress Party | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | *senator |
| Date | 23:49:09, July 21, 2017 CET | From | National Progress Party | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | *There |
| Date | 23:59:08, July 21, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Allow me to put this in terms that the NPP might be able to understand. Premise 1) The NPP abhors religious influence in government. Premise 2) Marriage is an inherently religous doctrine. Therefore, the NPP should be against government involvement in marriage. It is simple logic if the premises are true then so is the conclusion. Furthermore, there are actually no legal benefits for being married in Hutori. There is also no restrictions on independent organizations performing marriage ceremonies. So once again the logic and arguments of the NPP fail to withstand scrutiny but, then again there is no surprise there. Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
| Date | 04:52:12, July 22, 2017 CET | From | National Progress Party | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker Yes it is true that the NPP does abhors religious influence in government. But we do not believe that wedding is a religious doctrine. Because wedding is not a religious tradition, it is a tradition yes, but not a religious one. The senator McLaughlin has said it himself, there is many independent organizations that can perform secular marriage ceremonies. Correct me if I am wrong but, the fact that a secular marriage may occur isn't that a proof that wedding is not a necessarily religious affair? The thing is that if we don't clearly state that every consenting adults has the right to marry they might be some serious rights infringments. Like local government or provincial government could decide that they would make gay marriage illegal or they could make the wedding of some particular groups illegal. -Carl Fernandez Senator and former minister of Justice |
| Date | 09:16:32, July 22, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Marriage Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I believe that Senator Fernandez has fallen victim to fallacious thinking and simple historical ignorance. Let us first begin with the fallacious thinking, Senator Fernandez claims that because a secular organization performs a marriage ceremony that it precludes it from being religious. However, there actually is no explicit contradiction in between the statements "Marriage is a fundamentally religious doctrine" and "A private organization performs marriage ceremonies." There isn't even an implicit contradiction, rites and rituals have their foundations in religion but, that doesn't preclude secular organizations from A taking part in them or B developing their own. Secondly, the historical evidence firmly plants marriage in the light of religious tradition. It is inseparable from the majority of religious faiths and the historical evidence even points to a religious beginning not a governmental one or a secular one. Furthermore, there are no legal benefits to marriage in Hutori. So what rights are being denied to minorities or really anyone if the curent legislation stands? Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 254 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 263 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 83 |
| Random fact: When elections in a country are held, all bills in the voting phase are reset to the debate phase. |
| Random quote: "In heaven all the interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche |