Federal Marriage Amendment (Tabled)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:48:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Federal Marriage Amendment (Tabled)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Federal Marriage Amendment (Tabled)  (Read 6708 times)
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 31, 2014, 03:13:14 PM »

As I said when the northeast was originally considering group marriages I oppose them, but I'm not convinced this is the senate's job.

A Federal law requiring Regions to make changes to their marriage laws would also be unconstitutional under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7.

It almost certainly wouldn't. Or rather, it might, depending on which way the court was feeling on the morning it decided the case.

As I've said before, the constitution is so poorly worded that the senate can make a case for any law it passes as falling under it's powers, and this is no different.

Perhaps more interestingly, could you not make an argument that there can't be variation between regions on marriage because the point of the senate is to establish uniform ones?

Thankfully JCL is here to solve this dilemma with the catch all solution of devolving the power to the regions, in a similar way to the moderate heroes who proclaim their solution to any problem to be leaving it to the states (I personally feel that legalising murder is morally repugnant but it should be left up to the states Smiley )


@Bore, the federal government should've never been given power regarding this matter. As a matter of my personal views regarding marriage, they are known quite clear and they are not well liked in Atlasia. That would include many Federalists being in profound dissent with my view. I'm no moderate hero. I once had Cassius's view for a federal marriage amendment banning SSM. In the past few years I realized a centralized way is not the most effective way to go about preserving or changing laws regarding wedge social issues. That doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to Cassius's view because I once held it.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 01, 2014, 09:31:25 PM »

Is this really something we want to add to our federal constitution?
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2014, 10:44:48 PM »

As I said when the northeast was originally considering group marriages I oppose them, but I'm not convinced this is the senate's job.

A Federal law requiring Regions to make changes to their marriage laws would also be unconstitutional under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7.

It almost certainly wouldn't. Or rather, it might, depending on which way the court was feeling on the morning it decided the case.

As I've said before, the constitution is so poorly worded that the senate can make a case for any law it passes as falling under it's powers, and this is no different.
My point has nothing to with the powers of the Senate enumerated in Article I, Section 5. Article I, Section 6, Clause 7 expressly states that the Federal government does NOT have the power to require the Regions to not take a certain action.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The Senate has no "point." It has powers, which it may or may not exercise. However, to exercise the power you reference in the manner that this bill does would violate another part of the Constitution.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That's a rather poor example considering that murder laws are handled by State governments IRL.

Logged
Anti Democrat Democrat Club
SawxDem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2014, 10:52:51 PM »

I am strongly opposed to this bill as well, and funnily enough agree with Senator JCL. Regulating marriage is not the federal government's business and should be left to the regions to decide.
Logged
PPT Spiral
Spiral
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,522
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2014, 11:28:26 PM »

Decentralization is the way to go on these social issues. The Northeast polygamy bill is one that I have moderate personal reservations against, although I don't think I would have opposed it had I been in the Assembly then. Taking it to the regions and having the citizens and their representatives work out what's best for them is the best course of action, and in the case of the Northeast, their laws haven't given them much trouble, it appears.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 02, 2014, 01:58:37 AM »

Is this really something we want to add to our federal constitution?
I guess that's my main point of concern with this bill. I really do not want to have that in the constitution. Maybe as a law? But surely not as an amendment.
Hence, call ma Moderate Hero, I will side with JCL on this - leave it to the regions.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2014, 08:44:53 AM »

Constitutional literalism is stupid enough in the real life US, let alone a political stimulation game.

As I said when the northeast was originally considering group marriages I oppose them, but I'm not convinced this is the senate's job.

A Federal law requiring Regions to make changes to their marriage laws would also be unconstitutional under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7.

It almost certainly wouldn't. Or rather, it might, depending on which way the court was feeling on the morning it decided the case.

As I've said before, the constitution is so poorly worded that the senate can make a case for any law it passes as falling under it's powers, and this is no different.

My point has nothing to with the powers of the Senate enumerated in Article I, Section 5. Article I, Section 6, Clause 7 expressly states that the Federal government does NOT have the power to require the Regions to not take a certain action.

Seriously? Did you actually read it? It states:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The senate pretty clearly has the power to force the region's not to do something. Now, it may be up for debate what exactly falls under the rights of the senate or the rights of the people but that there are situations where that clause is voided is not up for discussion.

(Side note, what are the differences between the rights of the senate and the powers of the senate, because that's not made clear in the constitution.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The Senate has no "point." It has powers, which it may or may not exercise. However, to exercise the power you reference in the manner that this bill does would violate another part of the Constitution.[/quote]

Maybe, although the clause you keep thrashing about says it has "rights", not powers. If it has the lone right to establish uniform marriage laws then it must also be able to stop the regions having there own.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That's a rather poor example considering that murder laws are handled by State governments IRL.[/quote]

I really don't think you've read that correctly.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2014, 09:10:12 AM »

I would like to note that I have already filed a motion to table this bill. If any of the Senators who have concerns about this would like to join me in calling for its tabling, we can begin a vote to do just that.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2014, 03:55:20 PM »

I second the motion to Table. Though generally I hate tabling bills, I don't see any way in which I would support this.

(Must've missed it)
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2014, 04:27:41 PM »

I mean, this is incredible. Apologies, but it's RL seeping in. Polygamy is illegal in all fifty states and incest definitions / prohibitions exist in many largely because it's not really come up as an issue. No one would argue in FAVOR of incest! If you want to have sex with your sister or your first cousin, I suppose that's your choice, but in terms of legally allowing a marriage, I protest. It's completely off-the-wall bananas to say that something like that should be technically legal.

As to polygamy, polygamy disenfranchises women (almost always) and increases the possibility of inbreeding. I just don't know what some people are thinking (they're not thinking).

Well, if a law passes that bans incest and polygamy (probably won't), I'll sign. There are too many people here who do not understand how unhealthy it is to have a person reproducing with their first cousin or their sibling to enact an amendment, evidently.   
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2014, 04:38:08 PM »

As it is I urge the fine people of the Northeast to rescind the law that has forced a law like this to even considered. Incest and Polygamy are two serious health risks and should be dealt with.
Logged
#CriminalizeSobriety
Dallasfan65
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,859


Political Matrix
E: 5.48, S: -9.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 03, 2014, 12:11:13 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I find this positively baffling. Ought we pass this retrograde amendment simply because the American political consensus would agree with it? I'm acutely aware of the fact that my political beliefs wouldn't pass muster with an overwhelming majority of the public, but that doesn't mean argumentum ad populum is appropriate here.

Some trot out the concern that polygamous unions are associated with domestic abuse. However, we're a first-world nation. There isn't much of a control for first-world nations with legal polygamy. I would posit the opposite point: if we're truly concerned about domestic abuse, then granting legal recognition would be a great avenue for the abused party(ies) in question to seek legal redress.

As for incestuous marriages, I don't find that the line of argument about birth defections carries much weight with me. As I've written before, this is 2014, not 1814 - we know now that inbreeding can be fraught with difficulty. I don't expect many members of this body to be familiar on a first-hand basis with contraceptives, but they do exist and can help prevent pregnancies. Does anybody expect that in the rare instance that one might be attracted to their sister, a lack of legal recognition would actually prevent coitus? Wouldn't parents of the alleged defective children be more in need of legal benefits and recognition given the expenses of special education? Does it seem either logistically feasible or humane to actually criminalize incestuous relations between two consenting adults?

Lastly, if the crux of the argument against incestuous marriages is the problems with procreation, how does the Senate feel about a tarheel-leftist compromise only legalizing same-sex incestuous marriages?
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 03, 2014, 12:41:34 AM »
« Edited: September 03, 2014, 12:43:15 AM by Mechaman »

If you want to talk about RL seeping in Dem, I would also like to point out that almost no one in RL America would argue in favor of a 20 hour work week.  Hell Dennis Kucinich might be in favor of a 28 hour work week, and that is only so he would have enough time to look for UFOs.

Hey, I'm just saying!
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 03, 2014, 07:51:34 AM »

I agree with dallasfan's point that argumentum ad populum is a bad one. I support a NHS and really really tight gun control, despite both being radical in the US. The argument needs to stand on it's own merits.

Also, it's something said by anti gay marriage campaigners, but is true that the arguments used for SSM and being pro choice and legalising drugs logically conclude with allowing incestuous and polygamous marriages. If you are a libertine about other social issues you are compelled to support this. Any argument you make against it is flawed and hypocritical. If marriage is about love between people, and people should be given autonomy over all other rights, I don't see how you can argue against this.

The reason I oppose incest and group marriage (although not to the extent of making them illegal, just not recognizing them via the government) is because I disagree with the second principle, not the first. I don't buy that absolute freedom is desirable.  For one thing I don't think  it can exist for everyone, it's not absolutely zero sum, but it is a little bit. While I may not feel the right to intervene by reducing paracetamol sizes to stop a man's free choice to kill himself (although I probably do because I'm an awful nanny statist Tongue) given that he might have children who depend on him, a mother who loves him, friends who enjoy his company, I'm quie comfortable doing that.

Which leads me to why I oppose incest and group marriage, because I don't think that our society is one at the moment where we can trust people to be allowed to marry their children or have 5 wives. In a perfect world I would be a fine with it. But this is not a perfect world. Legitimizing it, may, and will, harm a few genuine brother sister pairs, or a few groups who love each other, but it will also stop many more abuses, IMO.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 03, 2014, 11:51:42 AM »

A vote on the motion to table the Federal Marriage Amendment is now open. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2014, 11:52:05 AM »

AYE
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2014, 12:42:13 PM »

Nay
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2014, 12:46:04 PM »

Nay.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2014, 01:13:44 PM »

Aye
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2014, 01:14:36 PM »

I urge the Senate to reject this tom foolery. This is an area where regional rule is a must.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2014, 01:19:31 PM »

Aye

As I said I don't want it in the constitution, plus this:
This is an area where regional rule is a must.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2014, 01:25:18 PM »
« Edited: September 03, 2014, 02:13:53 PM by Senator bore »

Aye

I've said before that I oppose both incest and polygamy, and that I find the "it's a regional matter" a form of moral cowardice. But this is a game, not real life. And to be fun as a game there have to be things the regions alone deal with.
Logged
PPT Spiral
Spiral
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,522
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2014, 04:12:07 PM »

Aye
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2014, 04:29:47 PM »

I agree with Spiral for the reasons bore stated.


However, I am reluctant to continuing to table legislation, not something I like to do a lot. This appears already to have enough votes to fail a final vote regardless.

Abstain

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2014, 04:30:27 PM »


I've said before that I oppose both incest and polygamy, and that I find the "it's a regional matter" a form of moral cowardice. But this is a game, not real life. And to be fun as a game there have to be things the regions alone deal with.

Except this, I don't agree with this. Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.