Talk Elections

For my second piece of legislation, an idea whose time has come:

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that no citizen shall be denied the ability to enter into the marriage contract or enjoy any of the benefits thereof on account of sex.

I vote yea.

I figured I might as well get the major social issues out of the way before I introduce my omnibus economic plan.

What exactly is this bill supposed to do?  While some radical social theorists recognize additional sexes that aren't deteremined solely on the basis of the hardware, US law )and hece Atlasia which uses US law except where we've directly chosen how to change it) recognizes only two sexes, male and female.  As far as I know both allowed to marry; in fact, in most places it takes one of each.

As far as I can tell this is a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

We do already have the Civil Unions Act, passed by a previous Senate and signed by a previous President.

That may be the intent, but it certainly isn't the wording.

No thanks, I'll be voting to keep marriage exactly as it has been since it was started.

You already have civil unions and the benefits, which is what the argument is about anyway.

Ummm, we effectively already have this with the Civil Unions Acted that the Senate passed months ago. The only difference this would make is to change the name from "civil union" to "marriage". Is there really any point in changing it?

Yes there is. Some might be chuffed that we are now separate but equal, but I am unwilling to accept that we have been treated as second-class citizens by civil unions, the Plessy v. Ferguson of sexual orientation. I dare you to veto this, John. If you do, we know whose side you're on.

Migrendel, don't make assumptions, they make an ass out of u (you). I have never once stated I oppose homosexual marriages, in fact, as far as I can recall I have only ever made statements in SUPPORT of them. If you had spent more time around the fantasy boards you would know that I was the original proposer of the civil unions act, it is called sensible steps, rather than giant leaps.

You seem to see things as clear cut, us and them, black and white. You seem to fail to understand, however, the different shades of grey.

Also, note that Supreme Court decisions in the United States of America have no relevance in the United States of ATLASIA. So, explain to me what the point of changing the name from "civil unions" to "marriage" is, because so far you haven't given me a reason, you have just said that a different name makes you second-class citizens. Explain exactly why.

If civil unions and marriages are the same, then why do they have different names? The reason why is that marriage is treated as a bulwark of traditionalism, and something we are not allowed to participate in. Because they are on a technical level not marriage, civil unions can never acquire the same respect from society that marriage has. Symbolic, yes, but a crucial distinction. As a citizen who fulfills all the responsibilites of citizenship, I expect to enjoy all of its privileges.

I would now like you to provide me a legitimate reason for only allowing civil unions, other than mollifying social conservatives.

These are the same arguments i made when it came up originally.

Incredibly false. Same-Sex marriages have been recognized in many cultures. Go go migrendel!

I support this bill.

I oppose this act.

I fully support this bill.

What cultures would those be?

Even Greece never institutionalized homosexual love.

I, for one, cannot think of one society that legitimized homosexual relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships.  There is certainly no great civilization in history that ever viewed homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.  Not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and certainly not the Muslims.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/qid=1095144461/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/104-0020664-2653502?v=glance&s=books
Is a good one for Europe. I can't name them off the top of my head, but several Native American groups as well., as well as aboriginal Africans. The status of Greek homosexual relationships isn't 100% decided on either way. In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies.

History is something that shouldn't have blanket statements applied to it. Statements like "Something has always been this way" or "No culture does this" are usually false.

It's funny when people say that homosexuality is normal. It just cracks me up because if it was normal we could reproduce that way, which means guys could have babies coming out of their asses. :)

I guess it depends on your definition of normal. Something that happens in nature and has been documentedly occuring in humans for thousands of years would seem so.

Regardless of how civilization has viewed this in the past, I see no reason why we need to repeat their mistakes. The time for a new concept of marriage is at hand. Our Senate can deny this, and live in the past, but the world will change without us.

That's true, the Greek did not view homosexual relationships as equal.

They viewed them as superior.

Well, I'll be.

*double take*

:o

No, they used man-boy relationships for educational purposes.

It was neither equal nor unequal to, but rather was seperate from, marriage.

No offense, Migrendel, but the redaction on this is terrible. You are not legalizing gay marriage, to that you would need to make a law to change the definition of marriage. THis is a law to garantuee the right of the people not to be discriminated by sex into entering an heterosexual marriage.

Yes, exactly.  This simply says that men and women are both free to enter a marriage.

Perhaps this would be better:

It shall be the stated policy of the forum that the definition of marriage shall not be construed to deny a person the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person of the same gender nor enjoy any of the benefits thereof.

So I presume you're withdrawing the old version and introducing this one in its stead?

Yes. My old version would do exactly what I said it would if interpreted correctly. The alternate interpretations are utterly grammatical and narrow, and certainly not in keeping with the wording of the law. But I have decided to change the bill to make it wayward judge proof.

So do you want to start a new week of debate, or just go by the date you first proposed the bill?

I'd be comfortable to have a vote based on the date I put the version out for review.

In that case, we'll commence voting on the Marriage Equity Act, which reads:

It shall be the stated policy of the forum that the definition of marriage shall not be construed to deny a person the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person of the same gender nor enjoy any of the benefits thereof.

All in favor, vote aye.  All opposed--vote nay

Nay.

Aye.

This was not the bill that was introduced for a vote in the senate.  And as the original bill has not ever been amended by a vote of the senate, the bill above has no business being voted on by the senate.

I ask senator Harry to immediately remove this bill from consideration until the senate sees fit to amend migrendel's original bill to more closely reflect this bill.  Of course, this bill could be introduced as a seperate bill from migrendel's original bill, but that would have to be in another thread.

I followed a precedent we've set several times, that if the author of the bill wants to amend it himself, he is free to do so.  You've not spoken up to complain in the past.

As there has been a question raised as to the validity of the the amendment made by Senator Migrendel to this act, the Attorney General has decided to issue an advisory opinion.

Article I Section 5 Clause 1 of the Constitution clearly gives the Senate authority to determine its own rules of procedure.  It did so with the Senatorial Procedure Act.  Said Act provides no rule of procedure to be used with amendments to bills.  As such, the question of what procedure is to be used with amendments is a question for the presiding officer of the Senate to determine, subject to being overruled by the Senate.  Since the amendment is clearly a clarifying one, the main question that was left unresolved by the decision to quickly begin voting was whether said amendment sufficiently clarified it.  As one of those stuffy grammarians that Senator migrendel complained about, let me point out that as presently worded, the proposed Act would allow the regions to deny people the right to enter into a marriage contract with the opposite gender.  While it is extremely unlikely that any region would do so, it seems inconsistent that while protecting a new form of marriage, that the Senate would not also protect traditional marriage to the same degree.

In conclusion, let me state that I wish that the Senate would amend the Senatorial Procedure Act so as to clearly give the procedures to be used to amend a bill.

   Attorney General Ernest

I vote nay.

Yea

Aye.

Aye.

Aye

5-2, in favor of Yea.

Senators Hughento, Nation, and King have yet to vote.

A STRONG nay on this bill.

Aye

NAY x1000

6-4, Yeas favor! Hurrah!

I may not see the point in this after we had the civil unions act......but I will still sign it.

John F. Kennedy

I thank the administration for not bowing to political pressure and recognizing equal rights under the law.