NE1: Group Unions Act (Law)

[cinyc]

Group Marriages Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Deus naturae

Debate on this bill will remain open for 72 hours, or until around 8:30 PM on March 15, unless modified or extended.  The sponsor, Rep. Deus, is encouraged to speak on behalf of the bill within the next 36 hours.  If he does not, the bill will be tabled, as there is other legislation pending in the proposed legislation thread.

The floor is open for debate.

[Napoleon]

My first question is should we even use the term marriage if its "not an actual marriage"? I know that its the old text but kight as well use the civil union term.

I'd also like to, for the rights of the married section, say "including but not limited to" because I think there are rights beyond what we have listed.

[TNF]

I encourage the NE to pass this bill.

[Napoleon]

I'm concerned about group divorce too, if someone could explain it to me. I suppose one of the bigger issues might be a child forced to live with a divorcee not biologically related to the child and whether that is right

[Deus Naturae]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill simply grants equity to group marriages with regards to legal divorce proceedings, registration, etc. If we have have any programs that provide benefits to legally recognized unions, this will ensure equity in that area as well. I'm not sure how federal civil union law works in Atlasia, but I would assume that this would also allow group unions to qualify for applicable federal benefits. Ideally, I'd like to just get rid of government licensing and legal recognition for marital unions and just allow individuals to set the terms of a marriage, but I didn't think that would be able to pass so I proposed this bill so as to minimize government preference of any kind of marital arrangement.

@Napoleon: I agree with your proposed amendment and will offer it shortly, but I couldn't actually find any other laws relating to marriages/civil unions in the Statute. If you know of any others you should probably present them, so that we can address any potential conflicts.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm concerned about group divorce too, if someone could explain it to me. I suppose one of the bigger issues might be a child forced to live with a divorcee not biologically related to the child and whether that is right

How about children stay with the group, unless it is one of the biological parents of the child who is divorcing him/herself from the marriage? In the case of a biological parent divorcing, we can either make it so the child decides or the court determines who is more competent. Which do you think is a better idea?

[Napoleon]

I'm concerned about group divorce too, if someone could explain it to me. I suppose one of the bigger issues might be a child forced to live with a divorcee not biologically related to the child and whether that is right

How about children stay with the group, unless it is one of the biological parents of the child who is divorcing him/herself from the marriage? In the case of a biological parent divorcing, we can either make it so the child decides or the court determines who is more competent. Which do you think is a better idea?

I'm open to those options but I don't have a particular preference. Ideally I would want the kid(s) to have the right to make that decision but for younger children that could prove costly.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

Niece is spelled wrong in section 3(iii).

I oppose this bill and any attempt to define marriage as between multiple persons.  Polygamy is simply wrong.  As a practical matter, it leads to too many issues when trying to dissolve the union. What happens if the husband and 3 wives are happy, but the 4th wife wants out?  Under the bill as drafted, the whole union would have to dissolve.  And how do you deal with things like inheritance and, in the case of a union of a woman or women and multiple males, rights to raise children after a divorce?  Who is the father or are there multiple fathers even though the child is biologically the son of only one?

[sentinel]

I agree w/ Cinyc. I will oppose this bill. In addition, I think even if one party in a marriage agreement wants a divorce, he or she should be able to get one. No one should be married against his or her will.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SWE]

I fully support this bill

[sentinel]

I still won't support this bill. The demand for such a law is neglible at best and the wording in your amendment strips the person leaving the marriage of all property rights unless the divorce is agreed to by the other people in the marriage.

Pretty much like this:

3 Poor Blokes decide to get married, lets call them Larry, Moe and Curly. All three are poor at the time of marriage. Larry works hard and becomes filthy rich and falls out of love with Moe and Curly.  Larry wants a divorce but the other two do not. If Larry divorces the other two --without the consent of Moe and Curly --Larry loses the right to all that he has earned.

Unacceptable.

[Napoleon]

I think we are making progress on this bill. I will be honest and state my opposition to polygamy as a practice but my point of view has long been that individuals should be free to develop their relationships as they see fit. Remember when Charlie Sheen had his two goddesses or whatever? Its a bit creepy but I don't know if the government should restrict our freedom to assemble to this extent.

I am offering an amendment to change all mentions of "marriage (s)" to "union (s)".

[Napoleon]

I still won't support this bill. The demand for such a law is neglible at best and the wording in your amendment strips the person leaving the marriage of all property rights unless the divorce is agreed to by the other people in the marriage.

Pretty much like this:

3 Poor Blokes decide to get married, lets call them Larry, Moe and Curly. All three are poor at the time of marriage. Larry works hard and becomes filthy rich and falls out of love with Moe and Curly.  Larry wants a divorce but the other two do not. If Larry divorces the other two --without the consent of Moe and Curly --Larry loses the right to all that he has earned.

Unacceptable.

The amount of lawyering up these arrangements would require would pretty much make this impossible for "three poor blokes" but point taken. We ought to work to establish ways of separation/prenups/etc though because its unfair to deny these unions rights such as hospital visitations.

[cinyc]

I am offering an amendment to change all mentions of "marriage (s)" to "union (s)".

What is the sponsor's view of this amendment?  Is it friendly?

[Deus Naturae]

Napoleon's amendment is friendly.

I will propose an amendment addressing Sirnick's concerns regarding post-divorce division of property shortly.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

I think we are making progress on this bill. I will be honest and state my opposition to polygamy as a practice but my point of view has long been that individuals should be free to develop their relationships as they see fit. Remember when Charlie Sheen had his two goddesses or whatever? Its a bit creepy but I don't know if the government should restrict our freedom to assemble to this extent.

Freedom to assemble is different than putting the government's stamp on a relationship, giving the participants legal rights.  Nobody in the Northeast is stopping Charlie Sheen from dating two goddesses, entering into a contract with those goddesses or anything similar.

If your concern is making sure someone can visit a patient in the hospital, we can always pass a law allowing people put in writing which non-relatives can visit in the event they are incapacitated.

[sentinel]

Still agree w/ Cinyc.

Also, isn't this like the third wheel of tax deductions?

I'd be fine with changing the word "marriage" to "civil union" across the board, but lets be honest about this. The point of a civil union is to promote the state and is an incentive to the individual because of the tax benefits. Does extending tax benefits to groups (3+) really have a state interest?

[Napoleon]

Marriage/civil unions should not (and may not) provide tax incentives.

[Deus Naturae]

I don't think our current regional tax code affords any benefits to married couples/civil unions.

[sentinel]

I don't think our current regional tax code affords any benefits to married couples/civil unions.

The game doesn't simulate state and municipal codes which IRL do. Thats the public policy incentive to get married, tax credits.

[Napoleon]

I don't think our current regional tax code affords any benefits to married couples/civil unions.

The game doesn't simulate state and municipal codes which IRL do. Thats the public policy incentive to get married, tax credits.

Why would someone form a group marriage for tax benefits when it would be easier to form a normal marriage for tax benefits?

[cinyc]

Why would someone form a group marriage for tax benefits when it would be easier to form a normal marriage for tax benefits?

Because it increases the number of people entitled to tax benefits.  For example, a spouse can inherit her other spouse's property without having to pay estate tax.  If you increase the number of spouses, each spouse could theoretically inherit property tax-free, increasing the number of people entitled to do so.  Property can be passed down to more than one person tax free, whereas that wasn't possible before.

And that's just the beginning of the myriad of inheritance issues created due to multiple marriages.  It's a bad idea.