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: Divorce Legalization Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Telamon Royalist 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: February 2288
Description[?]:
| Currently, the laws of the Commonwealth allow for divorce only in situations of abuse or other criminally intolerable situations. It is the opinion of the Royalist Party that mandating that people live in conditions which have grown intolerable for themselves is itself criminal. For this reason, we propose changing our nation's divorce policy to one more in line with a 23rd century outlook on life. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:46:25, September 23, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Divorce Legalization Act |
| Message | Opposed. Divorces on demand will undermine our country and destroy the sanctity of a beautiful institution. "Till death do us part" means just that. |
| Date | 03:30:40, September 23, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Patriots' Bloc | To | Debating the Divorce Legalization Act |
| Message | Divorces should never be legal. |
| Date | 13:11:12, September 23, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Divorce Legalization Act |
| Message | In are opinion 'Till death do us part' can indeed mean just that in the case of religiously sanctioned marriage. However, that is peoples private beliefs and has nothing to do with the state. The state is here to provide services and to ensure that all citizens can live together in relative harmony - it is not a moral guardian. It is our belief that 'marriage' and 'civil union' are two different things. Marriage should be seen as a religiously defined union between a man and a woman through a religious ceremony. Civil union therefore should be the recognition by the state of that union or indeed the union between any two people who are committed to each other. Should that union break down, people should be able to annul it. Obviously from a religious point of view it is a matter of personal concience and has nothing to do with the state |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 104 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 196 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "To the youth of America, I say, beware of being trivialized by the commercial culture that tempts you daily. I hear you saying often that you're not turned on by politics. The lessons of history are clear and portentous. If you do not turn onto politics, politics will turn on you." - Ralph Nader |