Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 00:31:10
Server time: 07:28:49, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 reform

Details

Submitted by[?]: Protectorate 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: June 2198

Description[?]:

A marriage is of no concern to the government. It shall become a contract between those who sign it and enforceable as such. Thus divorce is handled as decided in the contract or as any other breach of contract.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date18:21:46, March 08, 2006 CET
FromSocial Democrat League
ToDebating the Marriage reform
Message1) And what if the husband or wife beats their partner repeatedly, but then refuses divorce? The partner would have to stay married, because it's unlikely the other partner would want a divorce.

2) Either partner should be able to initiate a divorce.

3) OOC: To be honest, I don't really see the difference between these two laws. If the government doesn't involve itself in marriages, does that mean officially no-one is married? Or would this allow people to 'marry' someone without the other person knowing about it?

Date21:06:40, March 08, 2006 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
Message1) divorce terms would be written into the marriage contract, standard terms would be issues like abuse, adultery, etc. Thus both parties must agree to these terms prior to the marriage and then when one violates it the marriage will have a clear ending as well as howthe divorce would proceed.

2) Since terms are written into the contract, only a violation of these terms as determined by a local court would enable a divorce. Thus any party may bring the issue to the court but then the court would decide if a divorce should be granted.

3) Currently the government permits marriage and recognizes such with whatever benefits it grants, such as property transfers. With this change there is no marriage in the eyes of the government, just a contract. Since all parties must agree to the terms we (the government) stay out of it, until there is a breach of contract.

Date21:47:46, March 08, 2006 CET
FromMalivia Democratic Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
Message1. No

2. No, the govt needs to stay out of personal problems between a couple.

3. Then this basically means no one is married. Opposed.

Date22:10:26, March 08, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
Message1. Disagree.
2. Disagree.
3. This law actually means marriage is defined solely by the church. While this may be noble, since there are tax issues, legal issues, etc. involved in marriage, we must oppose.

Date23:25:59, March 08, 2006 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
MessageAny issues of legality will be outlined in the contract of marriage and remain with those getting married.
There is no need to treat a married couple differently then others in the eyes of the law, this results in unfair treatment of one group over another.

The government will be staying out of the affairs of the married with this method. Instead of determining who they can marry, what happens then, what this permits them to do, etc. For example it is a common law for a life insurance policy to be paid to a spouse. By removing government from defining marriage and interfering with it, people are free to set the benefactor to be a child, a aged parent, or others.

Marriage is what those involved wish it to be, not some concept created by the government. This could be religious or otherwise, as long as those involved agree.

Date12:08:33, March 09, 2006 CET
FromFree Progress Alliance
ToDebating the Marriage reform
MessageWe see no need to change the law and we will vote against this bill.

Date17:11:45, March 09, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
MessageExcept if marriage is definible by those involved, certain steps could be taken to avoid many things. IE: I am married to my house so my life insurance benefit will go to pay off my house.

Benefits are given to the spouse for a reason since he/she now is the provider of the household. If she were to die as well, then the benefit would be given to the children in some form of trust fund if they are minors. This is to provide the least transition problems and the most opportunity for the family to get back on their feet after such a loss.

The Protectorates just want to convolute a well working system.

Date19:42:33, March 09, 2006 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
Messagelast we checked a house is not a legal entity that could sign a contract.

Most marriages would not change, only those who wish to do something different or have special circumstances would change the marriage terms. Some couples might only want a marriage for a yr or so, as a trial basis. Others may want to have conditions written in to make issues clear at the start. This would greatly reduce the divorce rate and lead to more stable families.

Again we ask, what buisness is it of the government how people wish to define their marriage?

Date06:31:09, March 10, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
MessageHowever in your own answer you say it must be a contract. A contract is governed by laws governed by the People's Government.

So in essence you are just adding more red tape instead of decreasing it. Don't you see the illusion you have created? You think that this will allow religion to mandate marriage; however, in religion there is no contract signed. Merely a ceremony. Houses can participate in ceremonies, and as such, they can be part of a marriage.

For these reasons, we must urge every party to vote no.

Date17:05:52, March 10, 2006 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
MessageThis has nothing to do with religion and we do not understand why the MMP brings it up.

This is simply a method of removing government from an area it has no buisness in, namely who people wish to spend their lives wish.
So in one sense, yes a person can marry a house if they wish. However if they do there is no benefit under this law.

This law is an attempt to permit people the freedoms they deserve, without fear of refusal by the state. Yet it also prevents exploitation such as the MML suggests. It permits short term marriages, marriages made to be what the people want not the government.

Date21:54:59, March 10, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
MessageYou want to take government out of marriage by turning it into a contract that is governed by the laws the government makes.

If you want to take government out of marriage, then it will only be governed by religion.

If you cannot understand the issue, perhaps it is best that we keep the law the way it is before we do something that is detrimental to the Federation.

Date22:30:53, March 10, 2006 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Marriage reform
Messagelegal aspects of marriage is to be governed by contract tailored to those involved, instead of a one size fits all that we have now.

Currently marriage is a contract only difference is the government wrote the contract and those who get married cannot change it, they just sign it.

religion will be a player but those who are misguided and have no faith can still get "married".

If you cannot understand this perhaps you should abstain and leave it to those who understand the issue. :)

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 52

no
      

Total Seats: 249

abstain
 

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Real-life quotations may be used in Particracy, but the real-life speaker or author should always be referenced in an OOC (out-of-character) note alongside the quotation.

Random quote: "Too bad all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair." - George Burns

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 83