Re-Definition of Marriage and Establishment of Civil Unions Bill
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:58:16 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)
  Re-Definition of Marriage and Establishment of Civil Unions Bill
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Re-Definition of Marriage and Establishment of Civil Unions Bill  (Read 4569 times)
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 04, 2005, 07:20:48 AM »

Re-Definition of Marriage and Establishment of Civil Unions Bill

Article 1 – Purposes

The purpose of this legislation is to clarify badly written legislation of past Senates, to establish a clear and careful definition of the term “marriage”, along with prohibitions and rules concerning the contract of marriage and to provide for the establishment, definition and creation of civil unions within the Republic of Atlasia, with all necessary prohibitions and rules regarding the same.

Article 2 – Definition of Marriage with Prohibitions

1.   Marriage is hereby defined as a civil contract between one man and one woman who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

2.   Every marriage entered into in which either the husband or the wife has not attained the age of eighteen years is void except where this section has been waived by the presiding judicial officer of the Region in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity.

3.   Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:

a.   When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage;
b.   When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood, whether by blood or adoption, computing by the rules of the civil law; or
c.   When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.

4.   It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son.

5.   A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another country is not valid in the Republic of Atlasia only if the marriage is prohibited or made unlawful under Section 3 or 4 of this article.

Article 3 – Establishment of Civil Unions in the Republic of Atlasia

Section 1 – Creation and Definition of Civil Unions

1.   A civil union is hereby defined as a civil contract between one man and another man or one woman and another woman, who has each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

2.   For a civil union to be established in the Republic of Atlasia, it shall be necessary that the parties to a civil union satisfy all of the following criteria:

a.   Not be a party to another civil union or a marriage.
b.   Be of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this country.
c.   Meet the criteria and obligations set forth in Article 4 of this legislation.

2.   The following is a list of void and prohibited civil unions:

a.   A woman shall not enter a civil union with her mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister.
b.   A man shall not enter a civil union with his father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother.
c.   A civil union between persons prohibited from entering a civil union in subsection (a) or (b) of this section is void.

3.   Marriages already contracted by the provisions so laid out in the Civil Unions Act and the Marriage Equity Act, that are no longer legal due to the provisions of this legislation, shall henceforth be defined as civil unions, retaining all the rights and privileges afforded to the parties under this legislation, and shall remain valid and legal until such time as both parties wish to dissolve their civil contract, or their contract is dissolved through the occasion of one of the parties’ death.

4.   Marriages already contracted by the provisions so laid out in the Civil Unions Act and the Marriage Equity Act that are no longer legal under the provisions of this legislation either as a “marriage” or as a “civil union” shall no longer be valid and legal within the Republic of Atlasia.  Said parties to marriages defined as such shall no longer retain any of the rights and privileges afforded to marriages or civil unions in the Republic of Atlasia.

Section 2 – Benefits of Civil Unions

1.   Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, whether such benefits, protections and responsibilities are enforced at the state, Regional or federal level, with such exceptions exclusively as shall be stated below.

2.   A party to a civil union shall be included in any definition or use of the terms "spouse," "family," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," and other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law.

3.   Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.

4.   The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance shall apply to parties to a civil union.

5.   The following is a nonexclusive list of legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses, which shall apply in like manner to parties to a civil union, whether such benefits, protections and responsibilities are enforced at the state, Regional or federal level:

a.   laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety (parties to a civil union meet the common law unity of person qualification for purposes of a tenancy by the entirety);
b.   causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status;
c.   probate law and procedure, including nonprobate transfer;
e.   group insurance for federal employees;
f.   spouse abuse programs;
g.   prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
h.   workers' compensation benefits;
i.   laws relating to emergency and nonemergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification;
j.   family leave benefits;
k.   public assistance benefits;
l.   laws relating to taxes imposed by the region, state or a municipality;
m.   laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege;
n.   laws relating to loans to veterans;
o.   state or Regional pay for military service.

6.   The following is a exclusive list of legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses, which shall not apply in like manner to parties to a civil union, whether such benefits, protections and responsibilities are enforced at the state, Regional or federal level:

Any and all adoption law and procedure.

7.   The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child of whom either becomes the natural parent during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child of whom either spouse becomes the natural parent during the marriage.

8.   Parties to a civil union may modify the terms, conditions, or effects of their civil union in the same manner and to the same extent as married persons who execute an antenuptial agreement or other agreement recognized and enforceable under the law, setting forth particular understandings with respect to their union.

Section 3 – Dissolution of Civil Unions

The presiding judicial officer of the Region in which the parties of a civil union reside shall have jurisdiction over all proceedings relating to the dissolution of civil unions. The dissolution of civil unions shall follow the same procedures and be subject to the same substantive rights and obligations that are involved in the dissolution of marriage in accordance with Article 5 of this legislation.

[Continued in next post]
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2005, 07:22:49 AM »

Article 4 – Records and Licenses in Civil Unions

Section 1 - Civil Union Licenses

1.   Upon application in a form prescribed by the department, the chief judicial officer of the presiding Region shall issue a civil union license in the form prescribed by the department, and shall enter thereon the names of the parties to the proposed civil union, fill out the form as far as practicable and retain a copy in the Regional office. Both parties to the proposed civil union shall sign the application attesting to the accuracy of the facts stated.

2.   A civil union license shall be delivered by one of the parties to a proposed civil union, within sixty (60) days from the date of issue, to a person authorized to certify civil unions by Section 3, Clause 1 of this Article. If the proposed civil union is not certified within sixty (60) days from the date of issue, the license shall become void. After a person has certified the civil union, they shall fill out that part of the form on the license provided for such use, sign and certify the civil union. Thereafter, the document shall be known as a civil union certificate.

3.   Within ten days of the certification, the person performing the certification shall return the civil union certificate to the office of the chief judicial officer of the Region from which the license was issued. The officer shall retain and file the original.

4.   An officer who knowingly issues a civil union license without first requiring the applicant to fill out, sign and make oath to the declaration contained therein, shall be fined not more than $50.00 nor less than $20.00.

5.   A person making application to a officer for a civil union license who makes a material misrepresentation in the declaration of intention shall be deemed guilty of perjury.

6.   The chief judicial officer of the presiding Region shall issue a civil union license to all applicants who have complied with the provisions of above-stated clauses of this section, and who are otherwise qualified under the laws of the state to apply for a civil union license.

Section 2 – Restrictions on Civil Unions

1.   An officer shall not issue a civil union license when either party to the intended civil union is:
a.   under 18 years of age;
b.   non compos mentis;
c.   under guardianship, without the written consent of such guardian.

2.   A officer who knowingly violates Clause 7 of this Section shall be fined not more than $20.00. A person who aids in procuring a civil union license by falsely pretending to be the guardian having authority to give consent to the civil union shall be fined not more than $500.00.

Section 3 – Authorization and Certification of Civil Unions

1.   Civil unions may be certified by a supreme court justice, a chief judicial officer of a Region, a superior court judge, a district judge, a judge of probate, an assistant judge, a justice of the peace or by a member of the clergy residing in the respective Region of issuance and ordained or licensed, or otherwise regularly authorized by the published laws or discipline of the general conference, convention or other authority of his or her faith or denomination.

2.   Persons authorized by Clause 1 of this Section to certify civil unions shall require a civil union license of the parties before certifying the civil union. The license shall afford full immunity to the person who certifies the civil union.

3.   A person who certifies a civil union shall be fined not less than $10.00, if such person:
a.   certifies a civil union without first obtaining the license; or
b.   fails to properly fill out the license and, within ten days from the date of the certification, return the license and certificate of civil union to the clerk's office from which it was issued.

4.   A copy of the record of the civil union received from the chief judicial officer of the Region shall be presumptive evidence of the civil union in all courts.

Article 5 – Statement Concerning Recognition of Regional and State Law per Constitutional Responsibilities

1.   The federal government shall continue to recognize and uphold all Regional and state laws and statutes concerning marriage, divorce, adoption and emancipation of minors, marital property law, child custody, alimony, child support or any other subject so covered by Article 1, Section 5, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia that do not directly or indirectly conflict with the laws and statutes so laid out in this legislation and future legislation concerning the above-stated subjects and Constitutional clauses.

Article 6 – Repealed Legislation

1.   The Civil Unions Act is hereby repealed in full.

2.   The Marriage Equity Act is hereby repealed in full.


Sponsor: Sen. Sam Spade
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2005, 07:24:30 AM »

I wholehartedly support this bill but we may have a little trouble with our President.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2005, 07:42:40 AM »

I wholehartedly support this bill but we may have a little trouble with our President.
And also, for that matter, with our Vice President.

Firstly, this bill is one that shocks the conscience, in denying full equality to homosexual couples. This legislation makes clear that a homosexual civil union is considered inferior to a heterosexual marriage. It denies those who enter into civil unions certain rights and privileges of marriage: and these are the rights and privileges associated with adoption.

If the only difference between a marriage and a civil union is the name, if the rights involved are exactly the same, then I would consider the bill more reasonable. But, as it stands, this not just a difference in name: but also a substantive difference in rights and privileges. Hence, I  must voice my opposition to it.

Secondly, the bill retroactively redefines all homosexual marriages as civil unions. In doing so (if I interpret it correctly), it also redefines the rights of these couples. From having the rights of marriage, they would now only have the rights of civil unions, should the bill pass. This retroactive degredation is perhaps unconstitutional, as an ex post facto law. But setting that issue aside, I see a far more pressing one: what happens to children already adopted by such married couples? What is the effect of the degredation of homosexual marriage to civil union, and the corresponding denial of adoption rights, on these children?

And therefore, Honorable Senators, I stand firmly in opposition to this bill.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2005, 08:02:11 AM »

Yeah, while I like taking a tougher stand on incestuous marriages, redefining the rights of homosexual couples that are already married is a step backwards.  I oppose this bill also.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2005, 08:06:45 AM »

Also, this legislation would be better if it worked towards taking marriage out of the government's hands altogether, so all couples would get civil unions.  This current bill, which gives marriage licenses to straight couples and civil unions to gay couples, is needlessly discriminatory.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2005, 08:07:08 AM »

I like that it makes clearer definitions, but dislike the fact that we're moving back and making things unequal after they already have been. My suggestion is merging everything so the government gives only civil unions to everyone, keeping government out of the spiritual aspect of marriage.
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2005, 08:50:32 AM »

I have one quibble with this bill: it more-or-less prohibits those under the age of 18 from marrying. Now, I can understand forbidding a 45 year old from marrying a 15 year old, but among some groups marriage of, say, two 15 year olds, is fairly common - for instance, Hassidic Jews.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2005, 08:52:18 AM »

I'd be suspicious of any two 15 year olds getting married within a religious group as it sounds like an arranged marriage.  Good reason to opppose the legality of underage marriages.
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2005, 08:58:35 AM »

I'd be suspicious of any two 15 year olds getting married within a religious group as it sounds like an arranged marriage.  Good reason to opppose the legality of underage marriages.

The problem is that...

a. Not all marriages of this type (especially when you get into 16-17 year olds) are arranged, or at least not without the consent of the partners;
b. You'd have to, at minimum, recognize marriages from other countries, or else you'd have problems with immigrants. In which case, your arranged-marriage fiends would simply fly the kids of to Vzrglstan to get married, then fly them back.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2005, 09:01:15 AM »
« Edited: August 04, 2005, 09:05:26 AM by Emsworth »

I think that underage marriages, with the consent of the parents, is acceptable, as long as the parties can, upon reaching maturity, nullify it.

This view is not some newfangled idea of mine. To quote from Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England:

Therefore if a [minor] marries, this marriage is only inchoate and imperfect; and, when either of them comes to the age of consent aforesaid, they may disagree and declare the marriage void, without any divorce or sentence in the spiritual court ... If at the age of consent they agree to continue together, they need not be married again.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2005, 09:22:33 AM »

I wouldn't mind allowing 16-17 year olds to marry with parental consent but otherwise I think the bill is fine.

Oh and a note to Emsworth, I just said the President because he could veto it. You of course can try to get it voted down but in the end if it passes we'll have the most trouble from the President. Smiley
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2005, 10:13:42 AM »

All right, i've got another quibble with the law: Marriage isn't normally a Federal issue (or at least it used to not be... Tongue). I'd support a law that gave perogative to the Regions - but this only puts the Feds even further into the fray.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2005, 10:17:32 AM »

All right, i've got another quibble with the law: Marriage isn't normally a Federal issue (or at least it used to not be... Tongue). I'd support a law that gave perogative to the Regions - but this only puts the Feds even further into the fray.

Well, it happened when the Constitution here got the federal government involved. Tongue
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2005, 10:53:49 AM »

I must disagree with this legislation also.  We cannot deny homosexuals the right to marry.  I have a different idea however.  What do people think of calling all marriages civil unions (hetero and homosexual) and leaving the word "marriage" up the church?  If homoesexuals want to start their church, that's fine with me.
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,821


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2005, 12:57:37 PM »

Damn right you'll have problems with the President. Wink

I object heartily to the construction of artificial differences between homosexual and heterosexual marriage. To me, it simply smacks of seperate but equal, which is never been equal.

The following would make sense to me, one option is that you change all marriage to civil unions, and the title marriage is left to religious institutions, but the legal documentation is still required, as it is now. Two is that they're all called marriage, plain in simple. This bill is very well written, and I'm fine with most of the provisions... except for the main one. Oh, and if I remember correctly, a woman and her great-grandmother can get married.

Siege
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2005, 01:04:21 PM »

The following would make sense to me, one option is that you change all marriage to civil unions, and the title marriage is left to religious institutions, but the legal documentation is still required, as it is now.

Thanks for stealing my idea. Smiley

I must disagree with this legislation also. We cannot deny homosexuals the right to marry. I have a different idea however. What do people think of calling all marriages civil unions (hetero and homosexual) and leaving the word "marriage" up the church? If homoesexuals want to start their church, that's fine with me.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2005, 01:08:15 PM »

The following would make sense to me, one option is that you change all marriage to civil unions, and the title marriage is left to religious institutions, but the legal documentation is still required, as it is now.

Thanks for stealing my idea. Smiley

I must disagree with this legislation also. We cannot deny homosexuals the right to marry. I have a different idea however. What do people think of calling all marriages civil unions (hetero and homosexual) and leaving the word "marriage" up the church? If homoesexuals want to start their church, that's fine with me.
Now, to be fair, Senator True Independent has stolen Defense Secretary Ebowed',s idea. Cheesy

Also, this legislation would be better if it worked towards taking marriage out of the government's hands altogether, so all couples would get civil unions.  This current bill, which gives marriage licenses to straight couples and civil unions to gay couples, is needlessly discriminatory.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2005, 01:10:21 PM »

The following would make sense to me, one option is that you change all marriage to civil unions, and the title marriage is left to religious institutions, but the legal documentation is still required, as it is now.

Thanks for stealing my idea. Smiley

I must disagree with this legislation also. We cannot deny homosexuals the right to marry. I have a different idea however. What do people think of calling all marriages civil unions (hetero and homosexual) and leaving the word "marriage" up the church? If homoesexuals want to start their church, that's fine with me.
Now, to be fair, Senator True Independent has stolen Defense Secretary Ebowed',s idea. Cheesy

Also, this legislation would be better if it worked towards taking marriage out of the government's hands altogether, so all couples would get civil unions.  This current bill, which gives marriage licenses to straight couples and civil unions to gay couples, is needlessly discriminatory.

I didn't even see that one.  Wink  Well, we're all idea stealers.
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,821


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2005, 01:19:41 PM »

I'm a politician, if I'm not stealing ideas, I'm stealing votes. Deal with it, Wink

Siege
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2005, 01:31:08 PM »

I'd like to make an amendment (I'm basically rewriting the bill):

Article 1 – Purposes

The purpose of this legislation is to clarify badly written legislation of past Senates, to establish a clear and careful definition of the terms “marriage” and "civil union", along with prohibitions and rules concerning the contract of a civil union and to provide for the establishment, definition and creation of civil unions within the Republic of Atlasia, with all necessary prohibitions and rules regarding the same.

Article 2 – Definition of Civil Unions with Prohibitions

1.   A civil union is hereby defined as a civil contract between one man and one woman, one woman and woman, or one man and one man who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

2.   Every civil union entered into in which either the husband(s) or the wife(s) has not attained the age of eighteen years is void except where this section has been waived by the presiding judicial officer of the Region in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity.

3.   Civil Unions in the following cases are prohibited:

a.   When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such civil union;
b.   When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood, whether by blood or adoption, computing by the rules of the civil law; or

4.   It is unlawful for any man to enter into a civil union his father's sister/brother, mother's sister/brother, daughter/son, sister/brother, son's daughter/brother, daughter's daughter/brother, brother's daughter/son or sister's daughter/son; it is unlawful for any woman to enter into a civil union with her father's brother/sister, mother's brother/sister, son/daughter, brother/sister, son's son/daughter, daughter's son/daughter, brother's son/daughter or sister's son/daughter.

5.   A civil union/marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another country is not valid in the Republic of Atlasia only if the marriage is prohibited or made unlawful under Section 3 or 4 of this article.

Article 3 – Past Law Regarding Marriages and Civil Union in the Republic of Atlasia

1.   Marriages already contracted by the provisions so laid out in the Civil Unions Act and the Marriage Equity Act, that are no longer legal due to the provisions of this legislation, shall henceforth be defined as civil unions, retaining all the rights and privileges afforded to the parties under this legislation, and shall remain valid and legal until such time as both parties wish to dissolve their civil contract, or their contract is dissolved through the occasion of one of the parties’ death.

Article 4 – Benefits of Civil Unions

1.   Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage as provided by past law, whether such benefits, protections and responsibilities are enforced at the state, Regional or federal level, with such exceptions exclusively as shall be stated below.

2.   Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under former law for married persons.

3.   The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance shall apply to parties to a civil union.

4.   The following is a nonexclusive list of legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses, which shall apply in like manner to parties to a civil union, whether such benefits, protections and responsibilities are enforced at the state, Regional or federal level:

a.   laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety (parties to a civil union meet the common law unity of person qualification for purposes of a tenancy by the entirety);
b.   causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status;
c.   probate law and procedure, including nonprobate transfer;
e.   group insurance for federal employees;
f.   spouse abuse programs;
g.   prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
h.   workers' compensation benefits;
i.   laws relating to emergency and nonemergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification;
j.   family leave benefits;
k.   public assistance benefits;
l.   laws relating to taxes imposed by the region, state or a municipality;
m.   laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege;
n.   laws relating to loans to veterans;
o.   state or Regional pay for military service;
p.      adoption of children.

5.   The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child of whom either becomes the natural parent during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple as provided by past law, with respect to a child of whom either spouse becomes the natural parent during the marriage as provided under past law.

6.   Parties to a civil union may modify the terms, conditions, or effects of their civil union in the same manner as provided by past law and to the same extent as married persons as provided by past law who execute an antenuptial agreement or other agreement recognized and enforceable under the law, setting forth particular understandings with respect to their union.

Article 5 – Records and Licenses in Civil Unions

Section 1 - Civil Union Licenses

1.   Upon application in a form prescribed by the department, the chief judicial officer of the presiding Region shall issue a civil union license in the form prescribed by the department, and shall enter thereon the names of the parties to the proposed civil union, fill out the form as far as practicable and retain a copy in the Regional office. Both parties to the proposed civil union shall sign the application attesting to the accuracy of the facts stated.

2.   A civil union license shall be delivered by one of the parties to a proposed civil union, within sixty (60) days from the date of issue, to a person authorized to certify civil unions by Section 3, Clause 1 of this Article. If the proposed civil union is not certified within sixty (60) days from the date of issue, the license shall become void. After a person has certified the civil union, they shall fill out that part of the form on the license provided for such use, sign and certify the civil union. Thereafter, the document shall be known as a civil union certificate.

3.   Within ten days of the certification, the person performing the certification shall return the civil union certificate to the office of the chief judicial officer of the Region from which the license was issued. The officer shall retain and file the original.

4.   An officer who knowingly issues a civil union license without first requiring the applicant to fill out, sign and make oath to the declaration contained therein, shall be fined not more than $50.00 nor less than $20.00.

5.   A person making application to a officer for a civil union license who makes a material misrepresentation in the declaration of intention shall be deemed guilty of perjury.

6.   The chief judicial officer of the presiding Region shall issue a civil union license to all applicants who have complied with the provisions of above-stated clauses of this section, and who are otherwise qualified under the laws of the state to apply for a civil union license.


Article 6 – Statement Concerning Recognition of Regional and State Law per Constitutional Responsibilities

1.   The federal government shall continue to recognize and uphold all Regional and state laws and statutes concerning civil unions/marriage, divorce, adoption and emancipation of minors, marital property law, child custody, alimony, child support or any other subject so covered by Article 1, Section 5, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia that do not directly or indirectly conflict with the laws and statutes so laid out in this legislation and future legislation concerning the above-stated subjects and Constitutional clauses.

Article 7 – Repealed Legislation

1.   The Civil Unions Act is hereby repealed in full.

2.   The Marriage Equity Act is hereby repealed in full.

The one thing I had trouble with was I used the phrase "past law" a lot.  However, this act would repeal those past laws.  Can I still use that phrase.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2005, 01:43:35 PM »

True Indy:

As an acceptable alternative in order to have a chance of receiving passage, I would be fine with the idea of making civil unions the only legally recognized form of union in Atlasia and eliminating marriage from the governmental sphere.

However, the bill needs to be rewritten so that all present legal marriages (regardless of who its between) become civil unions, that the federal government redefines marriage licenses as civil unions licenses and all marriage law as being civil unions law, and that the proclamation of marriage is left up to religious institutions only. 

The true libertarian question will be:  Does the federal government allow religious institutions to discriminate as to who they marry, or does the federal government ensure some legal form of protection forbiding such exclusions.

Anyway, I'll work on something that does this and get back to you tonight.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2005, 01:50:04 PM »

The true libertarian question will be:  Does the federal government allow religious institutions to discriminate as to who they marry, or does the federal government ensure some legal form of protection forbiding such exclusions.
The answer, in my opinion, is this: The government ignores the term "marriage" altogether. Let "civil unions" be defined by the government, and involve legal rights and privileges. Let "marriage" be a term defined by society, and let it carry no legal meaning whatsoever.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2005, 01:52:18 PM »

The true libertarian question will be:  Does the federal government allow religious institutions to discriminate as to who they marry, or does the federal government ensure some legal form of protection forbiding such exclusions.
The answer, in my opinion, is this: The government ignores the term "marriage" altogether. Let "civil unions" be defined by the government, and involve legal rights and privileges. Let "marriage" be a term defined by society, and let it carry no legal meaning whatsoever.

That's what I tried to do in my re-write, but I don't know if I did it correctly.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2005, 02:07:53 PM »

I must say that I agree completely with the analysis and opinion of Vice President Emsworth. I also stand in agreement with Senator True Independent in stating that marriage should be defined by individual churches and society as a whole and that the government should only award Civil Unions to those wishing to be married although I do agree with Senator Spade's call for a re-write of the amendment stating that all current marriages are now considered Civil Unions.
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 0.076 seconds with 11 queries.