PA: The Second amendment act.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor:Never.
Does this Amendment work Governor?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

[Never]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

I have the suspicion that polygamy represses women's and children's rights, which is my main reason for advocating banning it in the Pacific Region. Nevertheless, if the pushback against banning polygamy has enough merit, then I suppose this Council  would be well-served to consider scaling down the proposed amendment to just banning incestuous unions in their entirety.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

I have the suspicion that polygamy represses women's and children's rights, which is my main reason for advocating banning it in the Pacific Region. Nevertheless, if the pushback against banning polygamy has enough merit, then I suppose this Council  would be well-served to consider scaling down the proposed amendment to just banning incestuous unions in their entirety.

Maybe instead of out right banning polygamy, we could require the consent of both parties?

[Never]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

I have the suspicion that polygamy represses women's and children's rights, which is my main reason for advocating banning it in the Pacific Region. Nevertheless, if the pushback against banning polygamy has enough merit, then I suppose this Council  would be well-served to consider scaling down the proposed amendment to just banning incestuous unions in their entirety.

Maybe instead of out right banning polygamy, we could require the consent of both parties?

That is doable; I'm curious to see how your particular wording on that would look so we might restructure the polygamy language in the bill.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

I have the suspicion that polygamy represses women's and children's rights, which is my main reason for advocating banning it in the Pacific Region. Nevertheless, if the pushback against banning polygamy has enough merit, then I suppose this Council  would be well-served to consider scaling down the proposed amendment to just banning incestuous unions in their entirety.

Maybe instead of out right banning polygamy, we could require the consent of both parties?

That is doable; I'm curious to see how your particular wording on that would look so we might restructure the polygamy language in the bill.

I am not so good with the legal speak. Maybe something like "In order to have a polygamous marriage, both parties must agree to,and show full understanding of the concept"?

[Never]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

I have the suspicion that polygamy represses women's and children's rights, which is my main reason for advocating banning it in the Pacific Region. Nevertheless, if the pushback against banning polygamy has enough merit, then I suppose this Council  would be well-served to consider scaling down the proposed amendment to just banning incestuous unions in their entirety.

Maybe instead of out right banning polygamy, we could require the consent of both parties?

That is doable; I'm curious to see how your particular wording on that would look so we might restructure the polygamy language in the bill.

I am not so good with the legal speak. Maybe something like "In order to have a polygamous marriage, both parties must agree to,and show full understanding of the concept"?

That's just fine. Were there any other points in the originial propsoal that you thought could use some improvement?

[Potus]

Polygamy, while there are concerns about the rights of women and children, is a much larger issue than that. You cannot go "moderate hero" and just heavily regulate polygamy.

The axiom that social libertarians operate under of "it doesn't hurt you" isn't valid here. Polygamous and incestuous marriages pose very large social risks to our Region. The social structure that has been proven effective time and time again in the arena of child raising is a stable, two-parent home home, regardless of the sex of the parents. Polygamous marriages pose a very real threat to a very valuable social resource. Legal polygamy will have disastrous consequences for children in the Pacific.

As a public health and financial issue, legal incest is disastrous. The children of incestuous couples are more likely to have special needs and a heightened demand for medical care. The wave of legally sanctioned special needs children will push our social structures and our schools to the brink. Incestuous couples will be, with all knowledge of the risks, bringing children into the world that are more likely to suffer as a result of their decisions. Knowingly increasing the chances of medically harming a child is a crime against children.

The legal aspect of legalizing polygamy is also concerning. Our government and economy do not have the structures in place to effectively allow for plural marriage. Insurance, especially, will become a very complicated legal matter. Tax benefits become unclear and the role of marriage in government, society, and the economy is called directly into question.

The social health of this country hinges on families. People do better when they have a more stable family background than they do otherwise. Legal incest and polygamy are, in our politics today, two of the most direct threats to the foundation of society.

I would ask the council not to try to mushy-moderate there way out of this one. Don't "legalize and regulate." I ask the council to pass this amendment as it is written. It is imperative we do so quickly, to avoid the legal catastrophe of Northeastern polygamous and incestuous couples moving into the Pacific and demanding recognition of their lifestyle.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Polygamy, while there are concerns about the rights of women and children, is a much larger issue than that. You cannot go "moderate hero" and just heavily regulate polygamy.

The axiom that social libertarians operate under of "it doesn't hurt you" isn't valid here. Polygamous and incestuous marriages pose very large social risks to our Region. The social structure that has been proven effective time and time again in the arena of child raising is a stable, two-parent home home, regardless of the sex of the parents. Polygamous marriages pose a very real threat to a very valuable social resource. Legal polygamy will have disastrous consequences for children in the Pacific.

As a public health and financial issue, legal incest is disastrous. The children of incestuous couples are more likely to have special needs and a heightened demand for medical care. The wave of legally sanctioned special needs children will push our social structures and our schools to the brink. Incestuous couples will be, with all knowledge of the risks, bringing children into the world that are more likely to suffer as a result of their decisions. Knowingly increasing the chances of medically harming a child is a crime against children.

The legal aspect of legalizing polygamy is also concerning. Our government and economy do not have the structures in place to effectively allow for plural marriage. Insurance, especially, will become a very complicated legal matter. Tax benefits become unclear and the role of marriage in government, society, and the economy is called directly into question.

The social health of this country hinges on families. People do better when they have a more stable family background than they do otherwise. Legal incest and polygamy are, in our politics today, two of the most direct threats to the foundation of society.

I would ask the council not to try to mushy-moderate there way out of this one. Don't "legalize and regulate." I ask the council to pass this amendment as it is written. It is imperative we do so quickly, to avoid the legal catastrophe of Northeastern polygamous and incestuous couples moving into the Pacific and demanding recognition of their lifestyle.

Honestly I doubt the amendment would pass in its current state.  Also out of curiosity do oyu think it's wrong for one guy to live with, and date multiple girls? Or do oyu just have an issue with them being married?

[Simfan34]

IT would be helpful if the Speaker could keep the formatting of the original proposal intact. A good deal is lost by his doing otherwise. Furthermore I am not the sponsor of this piece of legislation- Never is.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

IT would be helpful if the Speaker could keep the formatting of the original proposal intact. A good deal is lost by his doing otherwise. Furthermore I am not the sponsor of this piece of legislation- Never is.

Sorry I will work on that.

[Cassius]

Although I'm not a Pacifican (so its not my place really), I nonetheless strongly urge the Council to pass the original text of this bill. Legal polygamy is not a good idea on so many levels, and this, hopefully, would guard against it.

[Cranberry]

I stated my opposition to this as an amendment already in the main thread, but again, I urge the council to vote against this! As I said, I guess I would have no probelm with it as a law, but there is no place for this in our constitution!

[Never]

IT would be helpful if the Speaker could keep the formatting of the original proposal intact. A good deal is lost by his doing otherwise. Furthermore I am not the sponsor of this piece of legislation- Never is.

Sorry I will work on that.

Polygamy does have inherent disadvantages that give good reason for banning it. I just want to make sure that I am accurately gauging support overall for this amendment; if at all possible we need to insure that the language banning incest does not fail as a result of individuals not wanting to support the wording banning polygamy that is part of the original writing of the amendment.

[Simfan34]

I want to reproduce the original text of the proposed legislation, for the sake of clarification.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 3. ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS

1. The Legislative Council resolves to rigorously enforce the provisions of the amendment approved by this Act. [/quote]

Now, I will admit I had intended to do some... things with the amendment that are not (and were not meant to be) immediately apparent, and after some reflection I think that it's best if we not do those... things. So I would like to suggest (As governor I cannot formally propose amendments) the following amendment be made:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 3. ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS

1. The Legislative Council resolves to rigorously enforce the provisions of the amendment approved by this Act. [/quote]

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Councillors a vote on this amendment is now open. AYE

[Cranberry]

Councillors a vote on this amendment is now open. AYE

Lol


Regarding your "thing" Simfan, "the name that was first given too" is I guess the most wooly euphemism for "traditional marriages" as you would call them, and I don't think (and hope) that it would have had absolutely no legal consequences, despite your blatant opposition to "non-traditional" marriages of any kind, to say it that way.

[Never]

If we're voting on the amendment in its original language, I will naturally support this.

[Never]

Aye.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

We are. This has passed, and shall be sent to the voters.

[Never]

We are. This has passed, and shall be sent to the voters.

Perhaps it was not a good idea to begin voting so soon. I should have paid better attention to the amount of time it had been since this act was introduced for debate. According to the Rules of Order relating to this, our Council is supposed to have debate for at least 48 hours, and it has not been that amount of time since debate began. In other words, we can't really say the amendment has passed, because we haven't reached the time that we can vote on it yet.

[Simfan34]

We are. This has passed, and shall be sent to the voters.

Perhaps it was not a good idea to begin voting so soon. I should have paid better attention to the amount of time it had been since this act was introduced for debate. According to the Rules of Order relating to this, our Council is supposed to have debate for at least 48 hours, and it has not been that amount of time since debate began. In other words, we can't really say the amendment has passed, because we haven't reached the time that we can vote on it yet.

Since debate is still ongoing, would the honorable Member of the Legislative Council be so kindly inclined as to propose my "suggested" amendment?

Regarding your "thing" Simfan, "the name that was first given too" is I guess the most wooly euphemism for "traditional marriages" as you would call them, and I don't think (and hope) that it would have had absolutely no legal consequences, despite your blatant opposition to "non-traditional" marriages of any kind, to say it that way.

Actually, and I suppose thankfully, that wasn't what I was trying to do, indeed, it had nothing to do with amendment's stated purpose at all. I'll just say I realised that what I was trying to do, besides being "hidden" in a completely unrelated constitutional amendment, was not particularly desirable in the first place, and certainly not through deceptive means.

I would like to hear more on why you think this does not belong in our constitution, however. Would you support the general aims of the amendment, to "to prohibit the formation of incestuous or polygamous martial unions in the interests of maintaining the public and genetic health of the citizenry and the capacity of the Region to carry out its laws", or would you be opposed to them in the first place? If you're not opposed to those aims- and I don't get the impression you are opposed (however, correct me if I'm wrong)- then why do you feel this would not have a place in our constitution?

I personally feel that such things are so categorically undesirable and fundamentally unworkable in a society that has even a passing resemblance to ours, from a social, legal, biological, or any other perspective, that we cannot allow any kind of foothold for such things to be established. Sure, this Legislative Council might pass an Act with the same effect as this Amendment, but remember it was not that long ago we had a Council vote to abolish the region. I feel that such a fundamental matter should not be subjected to the whims of the members of the Legislative Council at a given time but should be placed beyond their easy reach- which is why I would support a constitutional amendment.

But I am interested in hearing your view.

[Cranberry]

Good to hear that this was not your intention.

I am personally opposed to both polygamy and incest, yet I just don't like that in the constitution. It's just, the constitution is part of our democracy, and I don't feel this should be part of it...
Sorry for the short answer, I'm waiting for the bus...

[Never]

We are. This has passed, and shall be sent to the voters.

Perhaps it was not a good idea to begin voting so soon. I should have paid better attention to the amount of time it had been since this act was introduced for debate. According to the Rules of Order relating to this, our Council is supposed to have debate for at least 48 hours, and it has not been that amount of time since debate began. In other words, we can't really say the amendment has passed, because we haven't reached the time that we can vote on it yet.

Since debate is still ongoing, would the honorable Member of the Legislative Council be so kindly inclined as to propose my "suggested" amendment?

Yes, I do think it would be a good idea to propose your suggested amendment. Does the clock for debate restart on this, or should it be viewed as a revision to the original document as a result of earlier discussion?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 3. ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS

1. The Legislative Council resolves to rigorously enforce the provisions of the amendment approved by this Act.

[/quote]

[Simfan34]

If you are proposing the amendment I wrote, you have to see if there are any objections. The Rules of Order don't specify how long you have to wait for objections to be made, which is an oversight that should be corrected, but use your good judgment. If no one objects you may adopt the amendment.  Otherwise you would hold a 24 hour long vote. You may at your discretion continue debate without an additional motion for a maximum of 72, which would means we can continue until 8:30 on Saturday before you would have to make a motion to extend debate.