Federal Marriage Amendment (Tabled)

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Cassius


You have 24 hours to begin advocacy here, Senator.

[Sopranos Republican]

Senator Cassius, if I may ask a question. Why do you h8te freedom?

[SWE]

mah regional rights

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

For the record, I think having such different marriage laws at a regional level opens up a gigantic hive of problems. Polygamy everywhere or polygamy nowhere.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

mah regional rights

Actually this is the opposite of regional rights, since this neanderthalic piece of trash (the bill in question) would forbid us from recognizing other unions (unless I'm misreading something here.)

Anywho,

[SWE]

mah regional rights

Actually this is the opposite of regional rights, since this neanderthalic piece of trash (the bill in question) would forbid us from recognizing other unions (unless I'm misreading something here.)
[quote]
No, regional rights was my argument against this bill.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

My thinking is that since the federal government (ie the senate) can make laws regarding marriage that he can propose said amendment. It's within senatorial purview. I oppose this because I want to change this part of the Constituition to give that power to the regions.

See Article 1 Section 5 Clause 5

To establish uniform rules of Naturalization and Alienation, Marriage and Divorce, and Adoption and Emancipation of Minors throughout the Republic of Atlasia.

[Cassius]

Basically, I've introduced this constitutional amendment to try and put an end to efforts (coming most notably from a certain region), to legalise polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages. There a widespread societal and religious taboos, as well as legal restrictions (in most western countries) against these things, for very good reason. Polygamy has been correlated with poverty, crime, abuse of women and problems when it comes to raising children (bear in mind that the vast majority of these studies have been carried out in third-world nations; however, the fact that polygamous relationships abound mainly in those areas of the world is another good reason not to legalise polygamy). Of course, incestuous unions, as most people are aware, are liable to produce severely disabled children, and thus I don't think its a good idea to legitimise incest by enabling incestuous 'couples' to marry. I should also note that it is quite possible that legalising incestuous marriages (and thus by default incest) could well help to legitimise intra-familial sexual abuse.

Basically, I feel that the current conception of marriage, as a monogamous union between two persons, is perfectly suitable, and indeed is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the population as being right and proper. Allowing for the legalisation of polygamous and incestuous marriages is the thin end of the wedge; its proponents claim that it is all about protecting 'minorities' and letting 'a thousand flowers bloom', or something like that. In reality, given time, enabling such marriages will begin to greatly alter society, and in a way that I believe (and I'm sure many others believe) to be totally undesirable.

Senator Cassius, if I may ask a question. Why do you h8te freedom?

I'm British. We don't do freedom

[DemPGH]

It won't cross my desk, but I am no fan of polygamy and no fan of group marriages or whatever term we're using to describe them for a number of sociological reasons - NOT for the reason that that I find it personally distasteful. Setting that aside, there are sociological issues that I have. However, do we want to put something like this in the Constitution? I'll be keenly watching this one.

I would absolutely oppose making marriage rights and marriage issues a totally regional matter. You could conceivably have polygamy and child porn in one region run by libertarians who have run amok and a ban on SSM in another region run by people who want a theocracy, so that positively opens up the potential for a lot of problems.

[Cranberry]

You know, I personally oppose polygamy and incestous marriages, and whatever kind of marriages the Northeast has legalized over the last months. The problem however I see with this is, who are we that we can deny people the exercise of what they want, as long as they don't harm anyone in turn. This is my main problem with this - is it really government's job to deal with such matters? Shouldn't it be left with the individuals? I will have to think about this a bit before I can give my ultimate answer.

[DemPGH]

Incest is a public health matter, though. There's a high degree of risk that children will be brought into the world that are severely handicapped.

There are a host of problems with incest, and it's interesting because if you look that the states in the USA in which it is banned and in which it is legal, there's no real ideological pattern. I strongly suspect that reasonable people will not find fault with incest bans when someone actually brings it up as an issue, the question is whether to use a federal law (preferred) or write it into the constitution (probably not preferred).

If a federal law landed on my desk that banned incest (like this), I would sign it.

[Simfan34]

Banning incest is a public health matter. This is easy.  Polygamy has been legalised without any consideration what's over of the legal and tax purposes, and potential for fraud. It is so infernally complicated that we are better off ending recognition of marriage rather than attempting to deal with it. I hope the Senate sees sense and passes this.

If it fails this session I imagine the next session would be more amenable to it.

[TNF]

Motion to table this crap.

[Deus Naturae]

For the record, I think having such different marriage laws at a regional level opens up a gigantic hive of problems. Polygamy everywhere or polygamy nowhere.

...such as?

[Deus Naturae]

Banning incest is a public health matter. This is easy.  Polygamy has been legalised without any consideration what's over of the legal and tax purposes, and potential for fraud. It is so infernally complicated that we are better off ending recognition of marriage rather than attempting to deal with it. I hope the Senate sees sense and passes this.

Northeastern married individuals can no longer receive benefits as a result of their married status, so that's mute. IIRC in the group marriage bill we required all polygamous married couples seeking legal recognition to sign a prenup so that should settle any legal issues. This was decided after extensive discussion in the Assembly. Regardless, why pass a Constitutional amendment at the Federal level in order to prevent one Region's tax and legal issues?

[Cassius]

Incest is a public health matter, though. There's a high degree of risk that children will be brought into the world that are severely handicapped.

There are a host of problems with incest, and it's interesting because if you look that the states in the USA in which it is banned and in which it is legal, there's no real ideological pattern. I strongly suspect that reasonable people will not find fault with incest bans when someone actually brings it up as an issue, the question is whether to use a federal law (preferred) or write it into the constitution (probably not preferred).

If a federal law landed on my desk that banned incest (like this), I would sign it.

I have a couple of reasons for pushing this as a constitutional amendment, rather than as a simple law. Firstly, I felt that since marriage plays such an important role in society (for legal as well as social reasons), I thought it perfectly proper for the constitution to say something about it and to define it. Secondly, given that Atlasia has a bizzarely strong pro-polygamy and pro-incest lobby, I felt that a constituional amendment would make it more difficult for this lobby (which does have friends in the Senate) to rush in and attempt to legalise either or both on a national level. Rather, if an amendment was in place, it would give more time for an attempt to repeal it to be considered in detail, and would give a chance for the citizenry to reject the bill in a vote. What I fear is that a federal law would be vulnerable to a 'hit and run' repeal and replacement with a bill legalising polygamy and incestuous marriages, one which did not take into account the potential ramifications of doing so.

[Deus Naturae]

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

[Simfan34]

Banning incest is a public health matter. This is easy.  Polygamy has been legalised without any consideration what's over of the legal and tax purposes, and potential for fraud. It is so infernally complicated that we are better off ending recognition of marriage rather than attempting to deal with it. I hope the Senate sees sense and passes this.

Northeastern married individuals can no longer receive benefits as a result of their married status, so that's mute. IIRC in the group marriage bill we required all polygamous married couples seeking legal recognition to sign a prenup so that should settle any legal issues. This was decided after extensive discussion in the Assembly. Regardless, why pass a Constitutional amendment at the Federal level in order to prevent one Region's tax and legal issues?

Then what's the point of having the government recognise it at all?

[Dr. Cynic]

Being a Northeasterner, I'm not going to vote for this. Even though I have always had misgivings about polygamy, I can't see why it's within the scope of a government to tell someone who or how many people they can love. So, either way, I'm voting against this.

[DemPGH]

I think my PM scores are a little off, particularly social, or reversed. But it is Atlasia.

Alright, if it gets to referendum, I'll vote in favor. I see the point about wanting to avoid a legal kerfuffle over incest. 'Tis Atlasia.

[bore]

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 )

[Cassius]

I understand why some people are cautious about the government telling people whom they can love. However, in response to that, I say that in some cases it is a positive good for the government to tell people that they should not do things, and yes, that extends to the realm of love. However, as a corollary to that, I would say that this bill is not about love, but about marriage, an area in which most of us would agree the government is perfectly competent at legislating in.

As to this not being an issue for the Senate, again, I can see why some might think this a rather divisive amendment and one that would be better handled at a regional level. On the other hand, I feel that this issue is best solved at a federal level, for the sake of simplicty. After all, if regions can make their own laws regarding marriage, why stop there? Why not allow counties to do so too? A complex patchwork of laws regarding marriage is not in my view a desirable situation, so I do think it is right and proper for the Senate to legislate on this important matter. Secondly, whilst it is true that this bill will upset some, that is true of every almost every bill. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of legal polygamy and legal incestuous marriage, whether for the social implications that they entail or for reasons of personal morality, I urge you to vote in favour of this amendment, because, if you vote it down, it won't make the issue go away, and at some point you may well have to vote on a bill making polygamy and incestuous marriage legal. I ask you to think on it.

[Lumine]

This is one issue that is probably going to cause a flame war, but I feel tempted to side with Cassius on this one. I opposed the legalization of incest when the Northeast passed it, and while in most cases I would support the government staying out of most relationships, there are genuine concerns against polygamy and incest that do not apply to a monogamous relationship. Besides, the Constitution does give the power to the Senate to establish uniform laws regarding marriage and divorce, and the President has a point when he addresses the danger of having regions with vastly different marriage laws (considering the extremes this could bring).

Like it or not, incest has a very negative effect in public health and very grim consequences, and polygamy brings massive conflicts with it, and that's without mentioning that it also has it dangers. It was published about a month ago that we had the first group divorce in the Northeast, and in all fairness I don't want to consider the legal nightmare that is... and you just have to picture that extended through the nation to understand the point.

[Dr. Cynic]

I tell you what, if you put it to a national referendum. Settle the issue that way. I am just not about to overturn a law that I voted to allow a few months ago because if I could not find a reason to legally oppose it then, I sure as hell cannot now.

[Simfan34]

Can we please stop using the inane euphemism "group marriage"? It makes my blood boil. That is all.