NS Parliament Chamber [IC]

[New Lindale]

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."

Madame speaker, I think the purpose of this bill was primarily for legal reasons and providing the benefits of those who chose to marry. While on this topic, I think we need to find some reform to the institution itself, considering how common divorce has become today.

[Kowani]

“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."

“Hear, Hear!”

[Crylante]

“Madam Speaker, in my opinion, voting against this bill because it only forbids the marriage of incestuous couples and not outright banning their relationships is absurd. This bill is clearly established to be about setting up guidelines for what marriages shall be legally recognised. In many ways the prohibition on incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages is just a carryover from the Swedish laws already in place. The only difference is that this bill allows couples of the same-sex to be able to have their marriages legally recognised. Thus, if one supports same-sex marriage, I fail to see how one cannot support this bill; it merely carries over existing marriage laws yet extends them to couples of the same sex. If the honourable member seeks other changes to the marriage laws then I recommend he approve this bill first and then seeks to make these changes.”

[Rebels and Saints]

“Madam Speaker, in my opinion, voting against this bill because it only forbids the marriage of incestuous couples and not outright banning their relationships is absurd. This bill is clearly established to be about setting up guidelines for what marriages shall be legally recognised. In many ways the prohibition on incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages is just a carryover from the Swedish laws already in place. The only difference is that this bill allows couples of the same-sex to be able to have their marriages legally recognised. Thus, if one supports same-sex marriage, I fail to see how one cannot support this bill; it merely carries over existing marriage laws yet extends them to couples of the same sex. If the honourable member seeks other changes to the marriage laws then I recommend he approve this bill first and then seeks to make these changes.”

"Madame Speaker, I choose not to support this bill because it is too strict. The government has no business banning anyone from marriage."

[New Lindale]

“Madam Speaker, in my opinion, voting against this bill because it only forbids the marriage of incestuous couples and not outright banning their relationships is absurd. This bill is clearly established to be about setting up guidelines for what marriages shall be legally recognised. In many ways the prohibition on incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages is just a carryover from the Swedish laws already in place. The only difference is that this bill allows couples of the same-sex to be able to have their marriages legally recognised. Thus, if one supports same-sex marriage, I fail to see how one cannot support this bill; it merely carries over existing marriage laws yet extends them to couples of the same sex. If the honourable member seeks other changes to the marriage laws then I recommend he approve this bill first and then seeks to make these changes.”

"Madame Speaker, I choose not to support this bill because it is too strict. The government has no business banning anyone from marriage."

Madame speaker, I agree with my colleague, and the state should no longer be involved with marriages. The fact of the matter is of how common divorce has become, and how to take over of lawyers has destroyed people's lives. I believe we should leave marriage to the religious institutions, and rather the state should provide civil partnerships instead, since the purpose of the state in regard to marriage in this era, is for qualifications for needed benefits, such as with taxation.

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, I choose not to support this bill because it is too strict. The government has no business banning anyone from marriage."

Madame speaker, I agree with my colleague, and the state should no longer be involved with marriages. The fact of the matter is of how common divorce has become, and how to take over of lawyers has destroyed people's lives. I believe we should leave marriage to the religious institutions, and rather the state should provide civil partnerships instead, since the purpose of the state in regard to marriage in this era, is for qualifications for needed benefits, such as with taxation.

"Madame Speaker, the Honorable Member misconstrues my words. Marriage should absolutely be under the authority of the government, but should be given to any two people who wish for it, regardless of gender, sexuality, number of spouses, or relation."

[Agarntrop]

“Madam Speaker, in my opinion, voting against this bill because it only forbids the marriage of incestuous couples and not outright banning their relationships is absurd. This bill is clearly established to be about setting up guidelines for what marriages shall be legally recognised. In many ways the prohibition on incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages is just a carryover from the Swedish laws already in place. The only difference is that this bill allows couples of the same-sex to be able to have their marriages legally recognised. Thus, if one supports same-sex marriage, I fail to see how one cannot support this bill; it merely carries over existing marriage laws yet extends them to couples of the same sex. If the honourable member seeks other changes to the marriage laws then I recommend he approve this bill first and then seeks to make these changes.”

"Madame Speaker, I choose not to support this bill because it is too strict. The government has no business banning anyone from marriage."

"Madame Speaker, if the member actually supported legalising gay marriage he would vote for this bill then propose an amendment."

[Nova Anglicana]

"Madame Speaker, I choose not to support this bill because it is too strict. The government has no business banning anyone from marriage."

Madame speaker, I agree with my colleague, and the state should no longer be involved with marriages. The fact of the matter is of how common divorce has become, and how to take over of lawyers has destroyed people's lives. I believe we should leave marriage to the religious institutions, and rather the state should provide civil partnerships instead, since the purpose of the state in regard to marriage in this era, is for qualifications for needed benefits, such as with taxation.

“Hear, hear!”

[Agarntrop]

Madame speaker, I agree with my colleague, and the state should no longer be involved with marriages. The fact of the matter is of how common divorce has become, and how to take over of lawyers has destroyed people's lives. I believe we should leave marriage to the religious institutions, and rather the state should provide civil partnerships instead, since the purpose of the state in regard to marriage in this era, is for qualifications for needed benefits, such as with taxation.

“Hear, hear!”

"Madam Speaker, the member is making multiple self-contradictions. First they claim that marriage should be legally kept between a man and woman and want to preserve traditional law, now they claim that they want to drastically change traditional law by abolishing the state-sponsored institution. They are making mutually exclusive statements in order not to give Gay and Lesbian people equal rights."

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, I choose not to support this bill because it is too strict. The government has no business banning anyone from marriage."

"Madame Speaker, if the member actually supported legalising gay marriage he would vote for this bill then propose an amendment."

"Madame Speaker, saying I am lying about my views is hardly respectable. I would like to inform the Honorable Member that I fully support the rights of the LGBT community. This bill just comes with too many nonsense strings attached."

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Well as of right now LGBTQ+ is legal so if this bill fails they would still have all of their rights.”

[Agarntrop]

“Well as of right now LGBTQ+ is legal so if this bill fails they would still have all of their rights.”

"Point of order, madam speaker, ye member must address ye speaker when he makes his statements to ye Parliament!"

[New Lindale]

“Hear, hear!”

"Madam Speaker, the member is making multiple self-contradictions. First they claim that marriage should be legally kept between a man and woman and want to preserve traditional law, now they claim that they want to drastically change traditional law by abolishing the state-sponsored institution. They are making mutually exclusive statements in order not to give Gay and Lesbian people equal rights."

Madame speaker, I would like to clarify to my colleague, that my statement is for all couples regardless of sexuality, but that we apply civil partnerships to them, and have religous institutions provide marriage if that is what they seek. Regardless if I continue to get this achieved, the fact of the matter is, we need to find out why so many couples are getting divorced, or we need to find a way to keep lawyers out of it. Whenever the divorces go to court, things usually get worse, and we want to try and ensure only cases that really nead suits are taken to court.

[Rebels and Saints]

“Well as of right now LGBTQ+ is legal so if this bill fails they would still have all of their rights.”

"Madame Speaker, the LGBT community does not hold the right to engage in marriage. That's a right they need to be awarded."

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Well as of right now LGBTQ+ is legal so if this bill fails they would still have all of their rights.”

"Madame Speaker, the LGBT community does not hold the right to engage in marriage. That's a right they need to be awarded."

“Madam Speaker, they do under Swedish law which we now follow

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, the LGBT community does not hold the right to engage in marriage. That's a right they need to be awarded."

“Madam Speaker, they do under Swedish law which we now follow

"Very well, Madame Speaker. Then it is up to us to make sure they maintain that right."

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madam Speaker, they do under Swedish law which we now follow

"Very well, Madame Speaker. Then it is up to us to make sure they maintain that right."

“Madam Speaker, no one is suggesting we take it away. By voting against the bill the honorable member would not take away LGBTQ rights.”

[Rebels and Saints]

"Very well, Madame Speaker. Then it is up to us to make sure they maintain that right."

“Madam Speaker, no one is suggesting we take it away. By voting against the bill the honorable member would not take away LGBTQ rights.”

"Madame Speaker, I know this. If voting against it would take away LGBT rights, I would vote for it. I'm voting against it still because of the other parts of the bill I disapprove of. I say we strike down this bill and write a new bill protecting LGBT marriage."

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madam Speaker, no one is suggesting we take it away. By voting against the bill the honorable member would not take away LGBTQ rights.”

"Madame Speaker, I know this. If voting against it would take away LGBT rights, I would vote for it. I'm voting against it still because of the other parts of the bill I disapprove of. I say we strike down this bill and write a new bill protecting LGBT marriage."

“Madam Speaker, while I urge the honorable member to vote for the bill, voting against it would not take away LGBTQ rights.”

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, I know this. If voting against it would take away LGBT rights, I would vote for it. I'm voting against it still because of the other parts of the bill I disapprove of. I say we strike down this bill and write a new bill protecting LGBT marriage."

“Madam Speaker, while I urge the honorable member to vote for the bill, voting against it would not take away LGBTQ rights.”

"Madame Speaker, I understand this. Still, it is our responsibility as a Parliament to ensure that legislation is passed explicitly permitting LGBT marriage and making sure that marriage is under the control of the government, so that no attempts to ban LGBT marriage or bring marriage under the control of religious institutions succeed. Just not this legislation."

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, might I question the author of the bill as to the actual purpose of parts 1d through 1j of the legislation at hand?"

[Crylante]

"Madame Speaker, I would like to point out a few things.

The first thing I would like to point out is that St Hilda gained legislative independence long before same-sex marriage was a thing in Sweden. We have not passed anything making it legal. Thus, same-sex marriage is not legal in St Hilda at the moment: this bill if passed will make it legal. By voting against it, you are stopping same-sex marriage from becoming legal in St Hilda.

Secondly, I would like to say I find it very concerning that multiple law makers for this nation are unaware of this crucial piece of information about the marriage laws of our country.

Thirdly, I would like to address that 1d through to 1j carry across the old Swedish laws making incestuous marriage illegal."

[Rebels and Saints]

"Madame Speaker, I would like to point out a few things.

The first thing I would like to point out is that St Hilda gained legislative independence long before same-sex marriage was a thing in Sweden. We have not passed anything making it legal. Thus, same-sex marriage is not legal in St Hilda at the moment: this bill if passed will make it legal. By voting against it, you are stopping same-sex marriage from becoming legal in St Hilda.

Secondly, I would like to say I find it very concerning that multiple law makers for this nation are unaware of this crucial piece of information about the marriage laws of our country.

Thirdly, I would like to address that 1d through to 1j carry across the old Swedish laws making incestuous marriage illegal."

"Madame Speaker, on the first point presented by the Honorable Member, voting against it does not forever prevent LGBT marriage. It only postpones it until we can create a proper peace of legislation to deal with the issue.

On the second point, it is indeed concerning. I initially thought that what you say to be true is true, but I was informed by one of my honorable colleagues differently. Apparently I was informed incorrectly.

On the third point, I have an objection to this: Why would any rational nation ban incestuous or polygamous marriage?"

[Martune]

“Well as of right now LGBTQ+ is legal so if this bill fails they would still have all of their rights.”

"Point of order, madam speaker, ye member must address ye speaker when he makes his statements to ye Parliament!"

“The point is taken and the member is warned.”

[Martune]

“Order! The reading has concluded. The question is shall this bill pass the chamber and be sent for assent by the Governor General. Begin the division and lock the doors!”

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.

Code: Select all

[color=green]Aye:[/color] [ ]
[color=red]No:[/color] [ ]
[color=grey]Abstain:[/color] [ ]