NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[Costa Alegria]

Wait, agreeable marriage age? Should there be like an age limit or something?

[Vietnam]

Seconded.

Thirded.

Eh, I'll go third.

Edit: Fuck it, fourth.

I wish to ask the honourable Senators what exactly they are approving, as there was no motion up for approval at the time.

Your beautiful voice, Senator.

[Vietnam]

Wait, agreeable marriage age? Should there be like an age limit or something?

Right now it's 16 with permission of parents/legal guardians, 18 without.

[Revolution Land]

Wait, agreeable marriage age? Should there be like an age limit or something?

Consult clause 2

[Costa Alegria]

Wait, agreeable marriage age? Should there be like an age limit or something?

Right now it's 16 with permission of parents/legal guardians, 18 without.

Wouldn't it be easier having just one age or am I really making an issue out of nothing.

I wish to ask the honourable Senators what exactly they are approving, as there was no motion up for approval at the time.

Your delicious space brownies, sir.

[Oneracon]

Senator Revolution Land, may I ask your rationale behind the proposed clause 4?

I must admit that to me it seems rather redundant to define marriage and then end the act by stating that marriage is defined to be how we defined it.

[Revolution Land]

Senator Revolution Land, may I ask your rationale behind the proposed clause 4?

I must admit that to me it seems rather redundant to define marriage and then end the act by stating that marriage is defined to be how we defined it.

Forgive me for not being clear.

I included Clause 4 in an attempt to allow all couples who hope to get married the ability to due so, without denial from any religious institutions or the like. The state, assuming this legislation is passed, will be the one who makes the definition for marriage. This is susceptible to change.\

Without it, some religious groups could block people from getting married. With it, t he state is the only one who officially recognizes marriages.

[Oneracon]

Senator Revolution Land, may I ask your rationale behind the proposed clause 4?

I must admit that to me it seems rather redundant to define marriage and then end the act by stating that marriage is defined to be how we defined it.

Forgive me for not being clear.

I included Clause 4 in an attempt to allow all couples who hope to get married the ability to due so, without denial from any religious institutions or the like. The state, assuming this legislation is passed, will be the one who makes the definition for marriage. This is susceptible to change.\

Without it, some religious groups could block people from getting married. With it, t he state is the only one who officially recognizes marriages.

Thank you for your clarification.

In that case I fully support the amendment.

Are there any Senators who disagree?

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Senator Revolution Land, may I ask your rationale behind the proposed clause 4?

I must admit that to me it seems rather redundant to define marriage and then end the act by stating that marriage is defined to be how we defined it.

Forgive me for not being clear.

I included Clause 4 in an attempt to allow all couples who hope to get married the ability to due so, without denial from any religious institutions or the like. The state, assuming this legislation is passed, will be the one who makes the definition for marriage. This is susceptible to change.\

Without it, some religious groups could block people from getting married. With it, t he state is the only one who officially recognizes marriages.

I motion to adopt said amendment to the proposal.

[Oneracon]

Forgive me for not being clear.

I included Clause 4 in an attempt to allow all couples who hope to get married the ability to due so, without denial from any religious institutions or the like. The state, assuming this legislation is passed, will be the one who makes the definition for marriage. This is susceptible to change.\

Without it, some religious groups could block people from getting married. With it, t he state is the only one who officially recognizes marriages.

I motion to adopt said amendment to the proposal.

Seconded.

[Vietnam]

In support.

[Chetssaland]

I motion to adopt said amendment to the proposal.

Seconded.

Fourthed (Since Arum said he agreed)

[Evraim]

Senator Revolution Land, may I ask your rationale behind the proposed clause 4?

I must admit that to me it seems rather redundant to define marriage and then end the act by stating that marriage is defined to be how we defined it.

Forgive me for not being clear.

I included Clause 4 in an attempt to allow all couples who hope to get married the ability to due so, without denial from any religious institutions or the like. The state, assuming this legislation is passed, will be the one who makes the definition for marriage. This is susceptible to change.\

Without it, some religious groups could block people from getting married. With it, t he state is the only one who officially recognizes marriages.

The fact that we're in the process of passing a bill that already recognizes marriage as a government contract means that this amendment is unsubstantial and repetitive. Our actions and the text of the resolution imply that marriage is a secular institution legitimized by the state. Opposed.

Thank you for your clarification.

In that case I fully support the amendment.

Are there any Senators who disagree?

Yes. It's not a salient concern.

[Vietnam]

Right now it's 16 with permission of parents/legal guardians, 18 without.

Wouldn't it be easier having just one age or am I really making an issue out of nothing.

I wish to ask the honourable Senators what exactly they are approving, as there was no motion up for approval at the time.

Your delicious space brownies, sir.

No idea, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.

[Crata]

Seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Revolution Land has been passed.

I am introducing a friendly amendment, making the conditional clause 4 the operational clause 2.

The proposed Act now reads:

Marriage Freedom Act

Urgency: High

Drafted by: Regnum Dominae, Sibirsky, Napkiraly, Vietnam

The government of our yet to be named nation:

For the purposes of this bill, DEFINES:
(1) "Marriage" as a contract between two or more persons of marriageable age, who have all given informed consent,
(2) "Marriageable age" as 18 years old and above, as well as 16 years old and above on condition of informed consent from the legal guardians of all involved parties,
(3) "Informed consent" as acceptance of this contract out of one's own free will, free of pressure from other parties, and with knowledge of the terms of the contract,

AFFIRMS:
that the race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, citizenship, religious or political background and/or number of the involved parties shall not be a factor in the recognition by the government of a marriage, or of the legal benefits that are given to the persons involved in a marriage;

FURTHER AFFIRMS THAT:
"Marriage" will herein remain a "contract between two or more consenting persons of marriageable age" by law and all other definitions of said marriage will not be recognized by the state unless further legislation is acted upon.

-- Changed through amendments by Crata, Revolution Land and Regnum Dominae (Friendly Amendment)

We are now debating on the Act as a whole, unless any further amendments are on the floor.

[Geilinor]

I recognize the validity of your assertions, Senator. I was challenging the entire premise of our colleague's argument.


Do you apply the same standard to all marriages which might produce offspring with genetic abnormalities - and often at a much higher rate than incestuous marriages?

Such as?

Such as carriers for genetic diseases producing offspring.

[Geilinor]

May I motion a compromise?

This act will not explicitly allow or deny incestual marriages, and the issue of said marriages will be amended to this act or decided upon in a future act.

Perhaps an act proposed by Senators Vietnam or Evraim.

Two acts on marriage?

[Geilinor]

Forgive me for not being clear.

I included Clause 4 in an attempt to allow all couples who hope to get married the ability to due so, without denial from any religious institutions or the like. The state, assuming this legislation is passed, will be the one who makes the definition for marriage. This is susceptible to change.\

Without it, some religious groups could block people from getting married. With it, t he state is the only one who officially recognizes marriages.

I motion to adopt said amendment to the proposal.

Seconded. I don't think they use thirded or fourthed.

[Revolution Land]

Seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Revolution Land has been passed.

I am introducing a friendly amendment, making the conditional clause 4 the operational clause 2.

The proposed Act now reads:

Marriage Freedom Act

Urgency: High

Drafted by: Regnum Dominae, Sibirsky, Napkiraly, Vietnam

The government of our yet to be named nation:

For the purposes of this bill, DEFINES:
(1) "Marriage" as a contract between two or more persons of marriageable age, who have all given informed consent,
(2) "Marriageable age" as 18 years old and above, as well as 16 years old and above on condition of informed consent from the legal guardians of all involved parties,
(3) "Informed consent" as acceptance of this contract out of one's own free will, free of pressure from other parties, and with knowledge of the terms of the contract,

AFFIRMS:
that the race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, citizenship, religious or political background and/or number of the involved parties shall not be a factor in the recognition by the government of a marriage, or of the legal benefits that are given to the persons involved in a marriage;

FURTHER AFFIRMS THAT:
"Marriage" will herein remain a "contract between two or more consenting persons of marriageable age" by law and all other definitions of said marriage will not be recognized by the state unless further legislation is acted upon.

-- Changed through amendments by Crata, Revolution Land and Regnum Dominae (Friendly Amendment)

We are now debating on the Act as a whole, unless any further amendments are on the floor.

I move to close debate on this piece of legislation.

[Geilinor]

Agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Revolution Land has been passed.

I am introducing a friendly amendment, making the conditional clause 4 the operational clause 2.

The proposed Act now reads:

Marriage Freedom Act

Urgency: High

Drafted by: Regnum Dominae, Sibirsky, Napkiraly, Vietnam

The government of our yet to be named nation:

For the purposes of this bill, DEFINES:
(1) "Marriage" as a contract between two or more persons of marriageable age, who have all given informed consent,
(2) "Marriageable age" as 18 years old and above, as well as 16 years old and above on condition of informed consent from the legal guardians of all involved parties,
(3) "Informed consent" as acceptance of this contract out of one's own free will, free of pressure from other parties, and with knowledge of the terms of the contract,

AFFIRMS:
that the race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, citizenship, religious or political background and/or number of the involved parties shall not be a factor in the recognition by the government of a marriage, or of the legal benefits that are given to the persons involved in a marriage;

FURTHER AFFIRMS THAT:
"Marriage" will herein remain a "contract between two or more consenting persons of marriageable age" by law and all other definitions of said marriage will not be recognized by the state unless further legislation is acted upon.

-- Changed through amendments by Crata, Revolution Land and Regnum Dominae (Friendly Amendment)

We are now debating on the Act as a whole, unless any further amendments are on the floor.

I move to close debate on this piece of legislation.

I support this motion.

[Crata]

Honourable Senator Geilinor,

the second-degree amendment striking out ancestry has already been passed, as has the amendment concerning clause 4 by Revolution Land. As stated, we are now debating on the entire Act unless the friendly amendment made by me is challenged.

And yes, the Senate may pass two laws on marriage, as long as they do not conflict each other.

[Crata]

I move to close debate on this piece of legislation.

Third.

OOC: Do we have to wait for the OP to open voting phase?

[Bernese Oberland]

Right now it's 16 with permission of parents/legal guardians, 18 without.

Wouldn't it be easier having just one age or am I really making an issue out of nothing.

Easier? Of course. And, as I've said, allowing children to marry is both an act of perversion and incompetence on the authors' parts.

I would support this proposal if clauses one and two were amended to prohibit more than two individuals and anyone below the age of majority from marrying, respectively.

[Vietnam]

Wouldn't it be easier having just one age or am I really making an issue out of nothing.

Easier? Of course. And, as I've said, allowing children to marry is both an act of perversion and incompetence on the authors' parts.

I would support this proposal if clauses one and two were amended to prohibit more than two individuals and anyone below the age of majority from marrying, respectively.

How different is an 18-year old from a 17 years and 364 days old person? And what is your argument for prohibiting polygamy?

[Geilinor]

OK, incesteous marriages can be debated later. I support the act.