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: Marriages and Separations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Federalist Party
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: December 2215
Description[?]:
| We propose that local governments be left to decide upon matters of marriage and divorce. Doing so will ensure that adequate credence is paid to local opinion and any relevant local traditions or customs. |
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: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are prohibited.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the initiation of divorces (if allowed).
Old value:: Either partner may initiate a divorce.
Current: Either partner may initiate a divorce.
Proposed: Local governments decide who can initiate a divorce.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Current: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Proposed: Civil marriages are defined by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:31:54, April 16, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Marriages and Separations |
| Message | We can agree to such. |
| Date | 22:40:13, April 16, 2006 CET | From | Free Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Marriages and Separations |
| Message | We disagree vehemently. We believe that the deregulation of marrital legality will lead to confusion and irregularity between the states. This will be inefficient. |
| Date | 01:36:01, April 17, 2006 CET | From | Federalist Party | To | Debating the Marriages and Separations |
| Message | In fact quite the opposite is true. It’s the current system of heavily centralised regulation which creates confusion and misunderstanding. Efficiency can not be achieved by means of uniformity or centralisation. The ideal policy for one Province will rarely be the best for another, let alone for an entire nation the size of Malivia. |
| Date | 13:46:47, April 17, 2006 CET | From | Free Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Marriages and Separations |
| Message | Perhaps. But on the grounds of Malivian civil rights, uniformity is the way in creating equality before the rule of law. To have some people afforded rights that others do not have is part of the definition of an unfree society. |
| Date | 21:58:49, April 17, 2006 CET | From | Federalist Party | To | Debating the Marriages and Separations |
| Message | The likelihood is that this bill would have little or no effect upon existing marriage laws. In spite of that we still feel it’s desirable to give local governments the authority to make the decisions themselves. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 162 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 82 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 57 |
| Random fact: Moderation reserves the discretion to declare RP laws invalid if the players supporting them are doing so in an excessively confrontational way. |
| Random quote: "How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it." - Marcus Aurelius |