Constitutional Amendment to Federal Marriage Powers

[MasterJedi]

I'm starting to lean toward voting yet but I'm still very undecided.

[The Duke]

If it was a settled issue, it wouldn't be on the Senate floor, and it wouldn't have the support of the biggest liberal in the Senate.

The biggest liberal in the Senate is Gabu, who is not a liberal but a moderate, and there are no members of liberal parties in the Senate.

[Alcon]

Again, I worry about the idea of flipping back and forth - if there's an area with a close vote (as the Southeast and maybe Midwest might be, leaning yes and no respectively) and it keeps flipping back and forth, what happens? We can't leave peoples' lives in limbo like that. It's cruel.

[Colin]

I oppose this ammendment.  Personally, I think that this issue has absorbed entirely too much of our time.  With terrorists trying to kill our citizens and a looming international crisis with the Chinese government, I fail to see how the issue of whether or not citizens of this country are allowed to affirm their bonds through civil union, is in the least bit worthy of the time of our government, esspeciallt since this matter has already been settled once before.

There are people out there who are dying, because they need better access to health care and we are devoting our energies to blocking gays from the court houses.  Please....

We talk about our rights, but for no real apparent reason, we block certain of our citizens from execising theirs.  What is it that we are affraid of, anyway?  That seeing gay couples wondering the streets will make us gay too?

In the time it has taken me to type this, hundreds of babies have been slaughtered in the abortion mills of our country.  Why aren't we doing something about that.  Why not, worry about that, instead of whether or not our child's friend is a homosexual?

If some of those of us were as concerned about life as they claimed, they would be working on opening up our society.  Droping our fears and bigotry and making life easier for our citizens, instead of slamming doors in their faces.

I truely find it sad, how obssesed some of my otherwise, fine collegues are with this issue.

Applause from the rafters.  Sorry to shed any pretense of GM nonpartisanship, but...

Gay marriage is a settled issue in Atlasia.  I did not agree with the judgement we made, but it was made by the people in a democratic fashion, and should be respected.  We have rendered several verdicts on the issue, all coming out the same.  The idea that the secessionists have actually gotten this garbage onto the Senate floor is shameful in itself.

I agree and stand by the statements of Senator Supersoulty and GM Ford. Gay marriage is a settled issue here in Atlasia. Why is the status quo such a bad thing? My distinguished colleague Senator Supersoulty is right in asserting that their are more important things to do in the Senate besides rehash an arguement about stupid wedge issues like Gay Marriage. I see this as nothing more than a bringing in of American politics into Atlasian political life by a few people. Instead of talking about Gay Marriage the Senate could do much more important things like start cutting spending a trying to achieve a balanced budget, reform the tax code, or enumerate Atlasia's position on the crisis in Uzbekistan.

[jokerman]

If it was a settled issue, it wouldn't be on the Senate floor, and it wouldn't have the support of the biggest liberal in the Senate.

[12th Doctor]

If it was a settled issue, it wouldn't be on the Senate floor, and it wouldn't have the support of the biggest liberal in the Senate.

That just proves that this is not a partisan issue.

[Peter]

There have been no substantive comments on the amendments as offered for two days; I have made a textual correction to the first of these amendments by deleting the word "the".

§ 2. Any marriage consecrated within a region in the Republic of Atlasia that allows such a marriage shall be recognised by the federal government regardless of the residency now or in the future of those concerned.

---

§ 3. Once adopted by a parent or parents in one Region, a child shall be considered the legal child of this parent or parents by all Regions of Atlasia and the federal government.

---

§ 4. Until such time as a Region shall make rules concerning marriage, then the provisions of the Marriage Equity Act, as they stood at the time of submission of this Amendment by the Senate to the Regions, shall be in effect in the Region concerned.

---

§ 5. This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

I call the vote on these amendments to order.

All Senators, please vote Aye/Nay/Abstain on these amendments.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[MasterJedi]

Aye to all

[Sam Spade]

Correction:  (whoops I forgot to notice these were separate amendments, silly me)

change my vote to...

Aye to all the amendments.

[King]

Aye for 2,3,4; Abstain on 5.

[Colin]

Aye on all amendments.

[Gabu]

Aye to all.

[MAS117]

Aye to all

[DanielX]

Aye to all.

[jokerman]

Aye to 2,3 Nay to 4, Abstain to 5

[Gabu]

With eight, eight, seven, and six in favor to none, none, one, and none against, and with none, none, none, and two abstaining, respectively, the amendments have passed.

[Sam Spade]

Bumping this for potential debate.

If there's not any in 24 hours (won't be here then), I move that Gabu or Peter brings this thing to a vote.

[Gabu]

I oppose this ammendment.  Personally, I think that this issue has absorbed entirely too much of our time.  With terrorists trying to kill our citizens and a looming international crisis with the Chinese government, I fail to see how the issue of whether or not citizens of this country are allowed to affirm their bonds through civil union, is in the least bit worthy of the time of our government, esspeciallt since this matter has already been settled once before.

There are people out there who are dying, because they need better access to health care and we are devoting our energies to blocking gays from the court houses.  Please....

Addressing this specific concern does not preclude us from addressing others.

I feel that the term "concern" is an appropriate one; a decision has been made on this matter before, yes, but given that we nearly collapsed into civil war over this matter, I don't agree that it's a settled matter.

We talk about our rights, but for no real apparent reason, we block certain of our citizens from execising theirs.  What is it that we are affraid of, anyway?  That seeing gay couples wondering the streets will make us gay too?

Nothing in this amendment alone says that gay marriage is made illegal.  All it says is that the regions can decide for themselves.  To reverse your argument, you talk about rights, but you want to remove the right of the regional governments to decide matters that can be handled at a level lower than the federal one.  I personally think that this is the sort of matter that regions should have the right to decide for themselves.  I didn't introduce this amendment to ban gay marriage; I introduced it because I felt that there seemed to be enough concern among the population that marriage should not be an issue for the federal government.

Additionally, the argument over whether or not marriage is a fundamental right for all people, regardless of the sexes of those wanting marriage, is by far a closed one.  Rather, it continues to loom as one of the largest debate points.  I personally think that gay marriage is, just as you do, but I see no reason why my opinion that it is a right should somehow automatically overrule those who think it isn't.

In the time it has taken me to type this, hundreds of babies have been slaughtered in the abortion mills of our country.  Why aren't we doing something about that.  Why not, worry about that, instead of whether or not our child's friend is a homosexual?

If some of those of us were as concerned about life as they claimed, they would be working on opening up our society.  Droping our fears and bigotry and making life easier for our citizens, instead of slamming doors in their faces.

I truely find it sad, how obssesed some of my otherwise, fine collegues are with this issue.

So, it is in your opinion that abortion is bad and that, consequently, the federal government should ban it, same as with your opinion that gay marriage is a right.

Here's a question I have for you: why do you feel that your personal opinions are more valuable than the opposing opinions and, consequently, that yours should be written into federal law, instead of letting the people at large decide for themselves?  Personally, I see no reason why gay marriage cannot function without federal legislation on the matter, and as such, see no reason why we need federal legislation on the matter.

You can call it a human right, but as I said before, that is not exactly accepted by 100% of the population.  It seems to me that it would be quite easy to give "it's a human right" as a reason for just about anything.  I know that there are certainly those who feel that abortion is a human right - does that mean that we should make federal legislation legalizing abortion everywhere?  This idea, I imagine, you would oppose because you disagree with the idea that abortion is a human right - just as others disagree with the idea that gay marriage is a human right.

[12th Doctor]

States once decided for themselves who was considered to be a human being and who was not.  Should we go back to that?

[PBrunsel]

Aye to all

[Sam Spade]

States once decided for themselves who was considered to be a human being and who was not.  Should we go back to that?

In all honesty, that has nothing to do with the present bill, in terms of logical consistency.

There are other, better ways of defending the present system if need be.

[12th Doctor]

So, it is in your opinion that abortion is bad and that, consequently, the federal government should ban it, same as with your opinion that gay marriage is a right.

Here's a question I have for you: why do you feel that your personal opinions are more valuable than the opposing opinions and, consequently, that yours should be written into federal law, instead of letting the people at large decide for themselves?  Personally, I see no reason why gay marriage cannot function without federal legislation on the matter, and as such, see no reason why we need federal legislation on the matter.

If I didn't think that my ideals were right, then I would have no business preaching them in the public square.

Besides, I will accept the eventual ruling fo the Seante, unlike some of my collegues, but for now, I will be as vocal as possible.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, I thought that I would be without Internet access, but have managed to find some at this godawful hour of morning.  Can't promise that I'll have the same opportunity tomorrow, though. 

Considering it's been 24 hours since the last meaningful debate, I move that we bring this bill to a vote, so it either passes, fails, whatever, so we can move on to other legislation.

[Gabu]

Well, I don't have much more to say, so I guess I'll open voting on this amendment.

Its final form is as follows:

Restriction of Definitions Amendment

§ 1. The text "Marriage and Divorce, and Adoption" is hereby stricken from section 5, clause 5 of the Constitution.

§ 2. Any marriage consecrated within the a region in the Republic of Atlasia that allows such a marriage shall be recognised by the federal government regardless of the residency now or in the future of those concerned.

§ 3. Once adopted by a parent or parents in one Region, a child shall be considered the legal child of this parent or parents by all Regions of Atlasia and the federal government.

§ 4. Until such time as a Region shall make rules concerning marriage, then the provisions of the Marriage Equity Act, as they stood at the time of submission of this Amendment by the Senate to the Regions, shall be in effect in the Region concerned.

§ 5. This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

---

Aye.  This will probably fail, but I'm glad we debated it nonetheless.