The Record-Courier
TNF hits the re-election campaign, discusses civil rights bill
Senator discusses self-determination for ethnic minorities as he campaigns for re-election.
Yesterday, Senator TNF made a speech promoting his Civil Rights bill while stumping for re-election. The bill would allow for certain groups of people to petition for Independence. That perked up many ears in the Lakota Reservations in South West South Dakota, which have for years, had residents push for the Republic of Lakota. "We are confused on how exactly the independence will be achieved, in terms of territory allowed to break away, but we are excited," said a supporter of the RoL. Others were critical of the move, "setting aside the whole independence issue for one second, which I oppose, "said an elderly lakota woman, "only allowing areas where 50% of that group live to break away is not ideal. Now for us, it could make sense, sense probably a majority of us live around here, but what about other ethnic groups, they are scattered across Atlasia." This also sparked some talk in Hawai'i, "I don't think this bill will be helpful," a local Vietnamese-Atlasian storeowner said, "first off, lumping all Asian-Atlasians into one group is, well, silly. Furthermore, say the Hawai'ian Asian population wants to break away, not only would we potentially be combatting our Native Hawai'ian brothers and sisters, who may propose a referendum, but we may not get Independence here in Hawai'i, since we don't comprise 50% of all Asian-Atlasians. This new country could very well be the China Towns of most Atlasian cities on the mainland, not how is that going to make sense?"
New Polling shows that the Regional Senator and PPT facing trouble in his re-election bid. The poll showed TNF trailing Serene Representative GAworth 69%-31%-0%, trailing RR1997 54%-38%-8%, and trailing Foucaulf 69%-23%-8%.
Interview with Cassius
We sat down with Senator Cassius earlier this week. We asked him the following questions and below are his responses.
1. Do you believe that the Governor was correct in resigning?
2. Why did you introduce the Marriage Amendment to the Senate?
3. Do you believe that libertarianism is a threat to Atlasia?
4. What do you plan on introducing to the Senate this term?
5. What plans do you have for the near future?
We thank the Senator for sitting down with us.
"1. Well, in this particular case, I do believe that Governor Riley Keaton was correct in choosing to resign. Whilst I respect him for his service and for the ideas that he brought to the table, he clearly had more important things to do in his life outside Atlasia, which, in my opinion, should take priority, especially when it means that you'll have less time to fufill the functions of the job you've been elected to. Nonetheless, I still wish him well in his new job at the head of Keaton House.
2. The Federal Marriage Amendment, in my view, is intended to clear up the current patchwork of differing laws on marriage, mostly created by recent moves by the Northeast to legalise polygamy and incestuous marriage. To me, and I'm sure to most Atlasians, marriage is an essentially monogamous contract, and this amendment will ensure that it remains that. In addition of course, there are plenty of good practical reasons not to legalise and legitimise polygamy and incestuous marriages, from the legal difficulties that will arise from polygamy to the public health concerns that legitimising incest in this way will create. So, this amendment is intended to firmy clarify just what marriage is, and to prevent efforts to expand the institution in an irresponsible manner.
3. No, I do not believe that libertarianism is a threat to Atlasia. Most libertarians, I'm sure, are perfectly good and honest people who want to see Atlasia flourish, and I cannot begrudge them developing a different opinion to my own.
However, I am not a libertarian, and I don't believe that libertarian policies are neccessarily the best ones for Atlasia, since I myself am inclined towards the view that the state needs to play an active role in creating a stable and ordered society. That doesn't mean, of course, that I have no points of agreement with libertarians (indeed, 'libertarianism' is a broad brush which covers a number of different viewpoints); indeed, I hold some beliefs in common with libertarians. Where I agree with them, I will work with them and where I don't, I hope we can simply agree to disagree.
4. At the moment, I am focused on advocating in favour of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and so I don't have any particular plans for introducing any new legislation at present. Circumstances do change however, and should any pressing issues arise that need to be dealt with by new legislation, I may well draw up and submit new bills to the Senate. Furthermore, should anyone outside of the Senate wish to submit legislation, I would be happy to sponsor it provided that I feel it is good legislation.
5. Well, I've just announced my bid for re-election to the Mideast regional seat, so I hope that I'll be staying in the Senate for some while yet (provided of course that I get re-elected). Should I be called to fill some other position, then I probably would not decline, if I was viewed as being the best man for the job. But, for the moment, I'm happy where I am.
Thanks for the interview."
Editorial Section: Federal Marriage Amendment
Editorial from PPT TNF"On March 8, 2014, the Senate voted 6-4 to pass the
Regional Recognition of Marriages and Civil Unions Act. Voting in favor of the amendment were conservative Federalists, a libertarian Democratic-Republican, and a sole left-winger, a Laborite who broke ranks with his party to endorse the devolution of defining marriage to the Regions. I was that Senator who broke ranks and joined conservatives and libertarians, but while my colleagues may have voted they way that they did out of particularly held views concerning regional rights, I did not. I voted my conscience in March, and I'll be voting my conscience when the
Federal Marriage Amendment comes to a final vote.
I voted for the
Regional Recognition of Marriages and Civil Unions Act because of the possibilities that it opened up for Regional legislators and executives to experiment, to pry open the restrictions placed upon the free association of persons, to launch an assault on bourgeois morality and the sacred 'family unit' we are all supposed to bow down to in reverence for no other reason than it was the particular social structure imposed upon the lot of us by the rising bourgeoisie. The government of the Northeast responded in kind by introducing legislation to recognize group marriages, a move that I praised as progressive and as a blow against the very 'morality' that none of us chose to observe, but that was imposed upon us from without by the bourgeoisie and their sycophants in the media and in the pulpit.
The proposed
Federal Marriage Amendment is a reaction of those forces that are opposed to the heightening of the contradictions beneath the firmament of bourgeois 'morality'. It is a step toward counterrevolution and reaction, an attack upon the democratic process in the Northeast, and an attack upon all of our polyamorous comrades.
Beyond these observations, it's simply a poor idea to add to our constitution an
amendment that will define marriage. Even if you do not accept the validity of group marriages in the here and now, one cannot help but look to the decade past, wherein the possibility of a real life amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage was actually discussed. At that juncture, public opinion was clearly on the side of such an amendment; homophobia was rampant and the right of LGBTQ persons to choose to live out their lives with their partners, raising families, and going about their daily business, was not (and is still not, in present day America) fully recognized.
How backward, how utterly wrong may we all look in a decade from now, should this amendment go forward! To add such a backward, reactionary amendment to our constitution is to void all promises of equal rights contained in the constitution, to place a black mark upon our society, and to condemn us -- perhaps not in the court of public opinion at the present, but in the court of history, in the future.
I implore the Senate to decisively
reject the
Federal Marriage Amendment."
Editorial Request
This week we will be asking for editorials about the situation in Iraq. Please submit by Thursday 11,2014 at 5:00pm Atlasian Time.