NS Parliament Chamber [IC]

[Nova Anglicana]

Aye: [X]
No [ ]
Abstain [ ]

[Zurkerx]

Aye: [ ]
No [ ]
Abstain [X]

[Idzequitch]

Aye: [ ]
No: [X]
Abstain [ ]

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madam Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues in the chamber that sections 3a and 3c contradict each other.”

[Martune]

“Madam Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues in the chamber that sections 3a and 3c contradict each other.”

“Order. Order. There are no statements in the division. If the member has a problem with the bill’s integrity then they should come to the speaker and address me on the matter. You may come the chair if you so wish.”

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madam Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues in the chamber that sections 3a and 3c contradict each other.”

“Order. Order. There are no statements in the division. If the member has a problem with the bill’s integrity then they should come to the speaker and address me on the matter. You may come the chair if you so wish.”

He walked up to the chair.

“Section 3a states that all races must be treated equally in how they are accepted to college, however 3c contradicts that by forcing schools to accept minorities of different races.”

[Martune]

“Order. Order. There are no statements in the division. If the member has a problem with the bill’s integrity then they should come to the speaker and address me on the matter. You may come the chair if you so wish.”

He walked up to the chair.

“Section 3a states that all races must be treated equally in how they are accepted to college, however 3c contradicts that by forcing schools to accept minorities of different races.”

“ I’m sorry but I don’t know if a diversity mandate is enough for the speaker to pull a bill. Frankly, I don’t believe I can nor should pull any bill as speaker. The point is taken and dealt with. The bill shall stand and be voted on.”

[New Lindale]

Approaches the chair
"Madame Speaker, although one of my issues is with 3b being contradictary to 3a, I have reason to believe that 3b is illegal. Even without this bill, Saint Hilda to my knowledge has anti-discrimination measures in place, and in my research, I had discovered that the UK government had ruled the practice of Affirmative Action illegal, under indirect discrimination, or putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair advantage.

[Kowani]

Approaches the chair
"Madame Speaker, although one of my issues is with 3b being contradictary to 3a, I have reason to believe that 3b is illegal. Even without this bill, Saint Hilda to my knowledge has anti-discrimination measures in place, and in my research, I had discovered that the UK government had ruled the practice of Affirmative Action illegal, under indirect discrimination, or putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair advantage.

“My apologies Madam Speaker, but may I ask the honorable member why we should care about what the UK thinks?

[Martune]

Approaches the chair
"Madame Speaker, although one of my issues is with 3b being contradictary to 3a, I have reason to believe that 3b is illegal. Even without this bill, Saint Hilda to my knowledge has anti-discrimination measures in place, and in my research, I had discovered that the UK government had ruled the practice of Affirmative Action illegal, under indirect discrimination, or putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair advantage.

“My apologies Madam Speaker, but may I ask the honorable member why we should care about what the UK thinks?

Approaches the chair
"Madame Speaker, although one of my issues is with 3b being contradictary to 3a, I have reason to believe that 3b is illegal. Even without this bill, Saint Hilda to my knowledge has anti-discrimination measures in place, and in my research, I had discovered that the UK government had ruled the practice of Affirmative Action illegal, under indirect discrimination, or putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair advantage.

“Legality is not for the chair to decide. And we aren’t determining our own laws legality off another nations policies. Please be seated. There isn’t anything else to discuss here.”

[Crylante]

"Madame Speaker, I know full well that during a division we should not be debating, but frankly, I think some ludicrously wrong stuff has been said by my colleagues. The simple fact of the matter is that aiming to increase diversity is not the same thing as affirmative action. Quotas do not need to be used to increase diversity, and that is something I am not personally sure about. The colleague highlights the case of the United Kingdom, yet I must point out that the UK does have efforts to increase diversity in its universities. Oxford and Cambridge both have outreach programs in place where the universities make efforts to try and address underrepresented sectors of society through, for example, working with schools in deprived neighbourhoods to try and get more applicants from deprived backgrounds. The bill could clearly be referring to schemes such as this, which are schemes I very much support."

[Martune]

“Order. The clerks have the tallies.

The Ayes to the right, 10.
The Noes to the left, 3.

The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock!”

[Martune]

“The floor will be open during intermission.”

[Martune]

“Order! The floor is closed to broad statements and intermission is over. I introduce to the chamber the Marriage Act for its official reading. I will begin to be very mindful of language used in this reading and proceeding readings. Begin the reading.”

Marriage Act
Authors: Sven Sköldsvik (R)
Sponsors: Dorgival R. Seč (SDP), Viktoria Ljungstrad (SLP-R), Austin Miller (SHAPC)

---

---

A bill to make provisions for the marriage of same-sex and opposite-sex couples in St Hilda and the rights of religions to perform marriage.

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED, as follows:

---

---

§1 - Definition of Marriage

1. Marriage shall hereafter be defined as a voluntary union between two people over the legal age of marriage.
2. The legality of marriage shall be determined without regard to the gender of its two participants.
3. The legal age of marriage shall be set at sixteen with the consent of the legal guardians of both involved, or eighteen without the requirement for consent.
4. Marriages shall not be valid between any two people that share a parent.
5. Marriages shall not be legal between any two people that share a grandparent.
6. Marriages shall not be legal between a parent and their child.
7. Marriages shall not be legal between a grandparent and their grandchild.
8. Marriages shall not be legal between an aunt or uncle and their niece or nephew.
9. Marriages shall not be legal if entered between more than two persons.
10. A marriage may not be entered by a person if they are already married to another person.

§2 - Recognition of Marriage

• Marriages shall be recognised only if performed in a registry office, recognised religious congregation or a place that has been given the right to perform marriage.
• Religious venues affiliated with the Church of Sweden shall be given the right to perform marriage.
• Any other religious venues shall be given the right to perform marriage if it is given said right by the government.
• A place that is not a registry office or religious venue may be given the right to solemise marriage through local government order.
• A registry office may not discriminate in who it marries so long as the marriage is legally valid.
• Religious venues have the right to discriminate in who they marry under religious freedom.
• Other places may not discriminate in who they marry so long as the marriage is legally valid.
• Marriages may only be legally valid if both parties consent and the marriage is witnessed by two other individuals.

§3 - Implementation

• This act shall be implemented immediately upon its passage.
• This act may be cited as the Marriage Act 2019.

[Kowani]

“Madam Speaker, I would like to enquire whether adopted siblings are prohibited from marrying under this measure.”

[Van Hool Islands]

"Madame Speaker, I am in full support of this act and I encourage every member in this chamber to vote for it. This act is essential in ensuring marriage equality in this nation. As a bisexual woman in a civil partnership, this bill has a great significance to me. We shouldn't be a country that denies it's citizens the right to love who they love."

[Agarntrop]

"Madame Speaker, I am in full support of this act and I encourage every member in this chamber to vote for it. This act is essential in ensuring marriage equality in this nation. As a bisexual woman in a civil partnership, this bill has a great significance to me. We shouldn't be a country that denies it's citizens the right to love who they love."

"Hear hear!"

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, I am in full support of this act and I encourage every member in this chamber to vote for it. This act is essential in ensuring marriage equality in this nation. As a bisexual woman in a civil partnership, this bill has a great significance to me. We shouldn't be a country that denies it's citizens the right to love who they love."

"Madame Speaker, I agree with the Honorable Member in their statement. Members of the LGBT community should absolutely have the right to marry as they see fit. However, I believe we must vote against this bill. The government has no business saying any pair of people may not wed. That is, I would have 1d-1j struck from the bill.

Polygamy can really only be opposed on a moral level, and, as I'm sure the entire Parliament knows, we can hardly legislate based on morality.

Incest may have real consequences, but banning marriage between relatives will hardly do anything about that. The only solution to that issue would be to ban reproductive acts carried out between relatives, and, in my opinion, regulating sex is a sure sign of the government overstepping its boundaries."

[Agarntrop]

"Madame Speaker, I am in full support of this act and I encourage every member in this chamber to vote for it. This act is essential in ensuring marriage equality in this nation. As a bisexual woman in a civil partnership, this bill has a great significance to me. We shouldn't be a country that denies it's citizens the right to love who they love."

"Madame Speaker, I agree with the Honorable Member in their statement. Members of the LGBT community should absolutely have the right to marry as they see fit. However, I believe we must vote against this bill. The government has no business saying any pair of people may not wed. That is, I would have 1d-1j struck from the bill.

Polygamy can really only be opposed on a moral level, and, as I'm sure the entire Parliament knows, we can hardly legislate based on morality.

Incest may have real consequences, but banning marriage between relatives will hardly do anything about that. The only solution to that issue would be to ban reproductive acts carried out between relatives, and, in my opinion, regulating sex is a sure sign of the government overstepping its boundaries."

"Madam Speaker may I inform the member that polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage, if legalised, could be used for fraud by misusing the legal benefits of marriage and could be used to legitimise incestuous reproduction which, in my opinion, ought to be a crime as the victim is the child born of that reproduction which could face several horrific defects as a result of it. I also inform you that if the member was so concerned about sections 1d-1j, he could easily file an amendment once the bill had passed. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I think the member is simply trying to cover up the fact he opposes same-sex marriage."

[Nova Anglicana]

"Madame Speaker, I am in full support of this act and I encourage every member in this chamber to vote for it. This act is essential in ensuring marriage equality in this nation. As a bisexual woman in a civil partnership, this bill has a great significance to me. We shouldn't be a country that denies it's citizens the right to love who they love."

"Madame Speaker, I agree with the Honorable Member in their statement. Members of the LGBT community should absolutely have the right to marry as they see fit. However, I believe we must vote against this bill. The government has no business saying any pair of people may not wed. That is, I would have 1d-1j struck from the bill.

Polygamy can really only be opposed on a moral level, and, as I'm sure the entire Parliament knows, we can hardly legislate based on morality.

Incest may have real consequences, but banning marriage between relatives will hardly do anything about that. The only solution to that issue would be to ban reproductive acts carried out between relatives, and, in my opinion, regulating sex is a sure sign of the government overstepping its boundaries."

“Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague says we cannot legislate based on morality. What is politics if not the argument between different and/or competing moralities? People don’t vote because they think a politician will be the best manager or scientist or data analyst, they vote because that person shares their values. It is absolutely okay to legislate based on morality. This bill is based on morality. I don’t share this bill’s values, but it is based on morality.

I take issue with this bill’s use of the word “marriage.” Marriage, since the use of the word, has historically been reserved in most cultures, including our own, for a union between one man and one woman. It has religious and cultural significance and connotations, and for government to redefine marriage against the values and morals of my constituents and many other St. Hildans is beyond its scope. We should leave marriage to religious and cultural institutions that have traditionally defined it. I don’t object to the government granting certain rights for two individuals who want to be legally linked. Hospital visitation, inheritance, legal authority to make medical decisions, etc. But let’s not call that marriage. Marriage isn’t about legal rights, it’s about symbolically linking a man and a woman in the mind of religious, cultural, or other communities. Let the religious and cultural institutions deal with marriage and let government deal with legal rights. That is the proper role of both institutions.”

[The Archipelago Territory]

"Madame Speaker, I agree with the Honorable Member in their statement. Members of the LGBT community should absolutely have the right to marry as they see fit. However, I believe we must vote against this bill. The government has no business saying any pair of people may not wed. That is, I would have 1d-1j struck from the bill.

Polygamy can really only be opposed on a moral level, and, as I'm sure the entire Parliament knows, we can hardly legislate based on morality.

Incest may have real consequences, but banning marriage between relatives will hardly do anything about that. The only solution to that issue would be to ban reproductive acts carried out between relatives, and, in my opinion, regulating sex is a sure sign of the government overstepping its boundaries."

“Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague says we cannot legislate based on morality. What is politics if not the argument between different and/or competing moralities? People don’t vote because they think a politician will be the best manager or scientist or data analyst, they vote because that person shares their values. It is absolutely okay to legislate based on morality. This bill is based on morality. I don’t share this bill’s values, but it is based on morality.

I take issue with this bill’s use of the word “marriage.” Marriage, since the use of the word, has historically been reserved in most cultures, including our own, for a union between one man and one woman. It has religious and cultural significance and connotations, and for government to redefine marriage against the values and morals of my constituents and many other St. Hildans is beyond its scope. We should leave marriage to religious and cultural institutions that have traditionally defined it. I don’t object to the government granting certain rights for two individuals who want to be legally linked. Hospital visitation, inheritance, legal authority to make medical decisions, etc. But let’s not call that marriage. Marriage isn’t about legal rights, it’s about symbolically linking a man and a woman in the mind of religious, cultural, or other communities. Let the religious and cultural institutions deal with marriage and let government deal with legal rights. That is the proper role of both institutions.”

“Madam Speaker, I agree with the honorable member.”

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, I agree with the Honorable Member in their statement. Members of the LGBT community should absolutely have the right to marry as they see fit. However, I believe we must vote against this bill. The government has no business saying any pair of people may not wed. That is, I would have 1d-1j struck from the bill.

Polygamy can really only be opposed on a moral level, and, as I'm sure the entire Parliament knows, we can hardly legislate based on morality.

Incest may have real consequences, but banning marriage between relatives will hardly do anything about that. The only solution to that issue would be to ban reproductive acts carried out between relatives, and, in my opinion, regulating sex is a sure sign of the government overstepping its boundaries."

"Madam Speaker may I inform the member that polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage, if legalised, could be used for fraud by misusing the legal benefits of marriage and could be used to legitimise incestuous reproduction which, in my opinion, ought to be a crime as the victim is the child born of that reproduction which could face several horrific defects as a result of it. I also inform you that if the member was so concerned about sections 1d-1j, he could easily file an amendment once the bill had passed. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I think the member is simply trying to cover up the fact he opposes same-sex marriage."

"Madame Speaker, I certainly support same-sex marriage. My point is that this bill is effectively useless in restricting incest or polygamy. Regardless of a ban on marriage, sexual relations between persons whom this bill restricts from marriage will persist. The only thing that will change is that such relations will be practiced outside of marriage rather than in marriage, which doesn't seem to be benefitting anyone.

I already directly stated that banning incestuous reproduction is a grave overuse of government power. We should have no say what happens in the bedroom.

I distinctly disagree with your notion that such an act should be illegal, but if you actually want to do anything about it, you would pass a bill that had more teeth to it.

Overall, I say this is a bill filled only with hollow, useless words that aim at a disagreeable objective. The bill has no ability to do anything to solve any actual problems, but if it did, I would fight it even more.

My alternative is this: we shoot down this bill, and then create a new bill providing for the allowance of same-sex marriage, which I will vote for happily. As to the rest of it, I beg the Parliament to either abandon the idea of restriction of marriage and reproduction entirely, or at least write something that actually has some strength to it.

Banning marriage between two people will not halt relations between two people.

I urge the Parliament to abandon this bill and write a new bill for same-sex marriage. I will vote for that, but not for a bill like this that attempts to solve issues that ir doesn't do anything about and shouldn't be trying to do something about. All it does is add unnecessary legal restrictions that Saint Hilda could do without."

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, I agree with the Honorable Member in their statement. Members of the LGBT community should absolutely have the right to marry as they see fit. However, I believe we must vote against this bill. The government has no business saying any pair of people may not wed. That is, I would have 1d-1j struck from the bill.

Polygamy can really only be opposed on a moral level, and, as I'm sure the entire Parliament knows, we can hardly legislate based on morality.

Incest may have real consequences, but banning marriage between relatives will hardly do anything about that. The only solution to that issue would be to ban reproductive acts carried out between relatives, and, in my opinion, regulating sex is a sure sign of the government overstepping its boundaries."

“Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague says we cannot legislate based on morality. What is politics if not the argument between different and/or competing moralities? People don’t vote because they think a politician will be the best manager or scientist or data analyst, they vote because that person shares their values. It is absolutely okay to legislate based on morality. This bill is based on morality. I don’t share this bill’s values, but it is based on morality.

I take issue with this bill’s use of the word “marriage.” Marriage, since the use of the word, has historically been reserved in most cultures, including our own, for a union between one man and one woman. It has religious and cultural significance and connotations, and for government to redefine marriage against the values and morals of my constituents and many other St. Hildans is beyond its scope. We should leave marriage to religious and cultural institutions that have traditionally defined it. I don’t object to the government granting certain rights for two individuals who want to be legally linked. Hospital visitation, inheritance, legal authority to make medical decisions, etc. But let’s not call that marriage. Marriage isn’t about legal rights, it’s about symbolically linking a man and a woman in the mind of religious, cultural, or other communities. Let the religious and cultural institutions deal with marriage and let government deal with legal rights. That is the proper role of both institutions.”

"Madame Speaker, the notion that a marriage ought to be performed by cultural or religious institutions is a notion of the past. So is the notion that marriage should be used only for heterosexual couples. This is a form of discrimination, and while I support the freedom of individual citizens to discriminate if they so choose, I find the idea of government supported discrimination to be despicable.

If we seek to be part of the modern world, marriage can no longer be left to cultural or religious institutions that many citizens do not agree with or belong to. Two people should be allowed to join in marriage regardless of their gender or sexuality, and we cannot deny them that.

I know that I have argued with the Opposition on many a topic, but can they agree with me on this?

'Marriage' can no longer be reserved for heterosexual couples. It should be available for anyone that wishes to have it."

[New Lindale]

"Madame Speaker, I am in full support of this act and I encourage every member in this chamber to vote for it. This act is essential in ensuring marriage equality in this nation. As a bisexual woman in a civil partnership, this bill has a great significance to me. We shouldn't be a country that denies it's citizens the right to love who they love."

"Madame Speaker, I agree with the Honorable Member in their statement. Members of the LGBT community should absolutely have the right to marry as they see fit. However, I believe we must vote against this bill. The government has no business saying any pair of people may not wed. That is, I would have 1d-1j struck from the bill.

Polygamy can really only be opposed on a moral level, and, as I'm sure the entire Parliament knows, we can hardly legislate based on morality.

Incest may have real consequences, but banning marriage between relatives will hardly do anything about that. The only solution to that issue would be to ban reproductive acts carried out between relatives, and, in my opinion, regulating sex is a sure sign of the government overstepping its boundaries."

Madame speaker, I would like to remind my collegue that the bill does not specify sexual acts, but the legal recognition of a union between two citizens.

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, I agree with the Honorable Member in their statement. Members of the LGBT community should absolutely have the right to marry as they see fit. However, I believe we must vote against this bill. The government has no business saying any pair of people may not wed. That is, I would have 1d-1j struck from the bill.

Polygamy can really only be opposed on a moral level, and, as I'm sure the entire Parliament knows, we can hardly legislate based on morality.

Incest may have real consequences, but banning marriage between relatives will hardly do anything about that. The only solution to that issue would be to ban reproductive acts carried out between relatives, and, in my opinion, regulating sex is a sure sign of the government overstepping its boundaries."

Madame speaker, I would like to remind my collegue that the bill does not specify sexual acts, but the legal recognition of a union between two citizens.

"Exactly my point, Madame Speaker. The bill actually does nothing. A marriage is nothing but a name. Two people who love eachother will act the same regardless of whether they are married or not. It's all hollow words. If you want to deal with problems, make a bill with some strength to actually do something. If you don't, stop writing bills that attempt to deal with them. This bill manages to simultaneously be powerless and evil in its intent."