SENATE BILL: Regional Recognition of Marriages and Civil Unions Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: shua

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to commence with and advocacy for this.

[President Tyrion]

Nope. Regions don't have the right to discriminate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Several years ago, the Senate replaced marriages in Atlasia with civil unions, and placed limits on these civil unions. I believe the regions of Atlasia should be able to recognize marriages as a special institution, important for making a commitment between partners and for the nurture and protection of children.   At the same time regions may want to recognize civil unions that may be separate from marriage (i.e. two people that may want to take care of each other and pool their resources apart from a sexual or romantic relationship). 

The recognition of these relationships is most proximately a regional responsibility, so it would make sense for regions to set policy in this area.  If there is concern that regions will not recognize same-sex marriage if this bill passes, consider that right now they are not even allowed to!  However I'll go ahead and offer this amendment so we don't get sidetracked by this issue:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I'm not sure what the point is, at this point, in keeping marriage and/or civil unions around whatsoever. Perhaps we should stop privileging them in the tax code altogether and make no recognition whatsoever?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is a group marriage?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

TNF's amendment is unfriendly.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think removing marriage entirely is a bit too far. While some here may not care about the lable, I think it would be dangerous to remove it entirely since it is still overwhelming used to represent a family structure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment 59:89 has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Goldwater]

NAY

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

NAY

[President Tyrion]

Aye

[bore]

Nay

While I might be able to support polygamy in principle, in practice this will just lead to abuse.

[TNF]

Aye

[bore]

Nay

While I might be able to support polygamy in principle, in practice this will just lead to abuse.

Why would it be any more likely to lead to domestic abuse than monogamous marriages?

Yeah, I didn't phrase that very well. I didn't mean physical abuse, but abuse of the system. With this I can see billionaires buying hundreds of husbands/wives. And I realize that this isn't a strictly logical argument, but I don't want marriage to be like that. I don't want it to be something that is bought and sold and that 50 people can join into.

There are other problems as well (How do you deal with inheritance? What about the children? Has there ever been an example of polygamy where there wasn't severe discrimnation? Does anyone actually even want it?) but that's the main one for me.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If we are really going to do this - demand recognition of group marriages by all regions even though the federal government doesn't even do that now - you can't do it just with this amendment - it will make the law a complete mess. You will need to amend the parts of FL-8 itself that defines federal law on this solely in monogamous terms, as well as specify how this affects custody, divorce, etc. in these cases.

If a region wants to establish recognition of group marriage, then under the present bill - apart from this amendment - they can try doing it, so I suggest that be the way forward.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[DC Al Fine]

Nay

[bore]

Yeah I realise that there is no way of stopping people buying marriage now, we can't make windows into people's souls, but it would be even more common if we allowed polygamy.

I think it's interesting that of the about 1000 societies with some form of polygamy, only 4 are forms where women have multiple men, which shows just how often polygamy leads to discrimination.

I don't doubt that it's possible for children to be raised well in polygamous marriages, but I don't think it's likely.

If 5 or 6 people want to live together and have sex together and raise children together, there is nothing we can do to stop them. But I don't think the government should be encouraging them, because it won't be beneficial for society as a whole.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah I realise that there is no way of stopping people buying marriage now, we can't make windows into people's souls, but it would be even more common if we allowed polygamy.

I think it's interesting that of the about 1000 societies with some form of polygamy, only 4 are forms where women have multiple men, which shows just how often polygamy leads to discrimination.

I don't doubt that it's possible for children to be raised well in polygamous marriages, but I don't think it's likely.

If 5 or 6 people want to live together and have sex together and raise children together, there is nothing we can do to stop them. But I don't think the government should be encouraging them, because it won't be beneficial for society as a whole.

This, although I'd argue it is virtually impossible for children to be raised well in polygamous marriages.

[TNF]

I don't think it's the government's job to make judgements on what kind of relationships people have, regardless of whether or not we'd engage in them/think they're morally repugnant or otherwise perverse. It's none of our business, frankly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 59:92 by TNF:


Aye (2): TNF and TyriontheImperialist
Nay (6): bore, DC al Fine, Goldwater, Mr. X, NC Yankee, and shua
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Talleyrand
Vacant Seats (1): Tmthforu94


The amendment has been rejected.