Federal Marriage Amendment (Tabled)

[bore]

As I said when the northeast was originally considering group marriages I oppose them, but I'm not convinced this is the senate's job.

A Federal law requiring Regions to make changes to their marriage laws would also be unconstitutional under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7.

It almost certainly wouldn't. Or rather, it might, depending on which way the court was feeling on the morning it decided the case.

As I've said before, the constitution is so poorly worded that the senate can make a case for any law it passes as falling under it's powers, and this is no different.

Perhaps more interestingly, could you not make an argument that there can't be variation between regions on marriage because the point of the senate is to establish uniform ones?

Thankfully JCL is here to solve this dilemma with the catch all solution of devolving the power to the regions, in a similar way to the moderate heroes who proclaim their solution to any problem to be leaving it to the states (I personally feel that legalising murder is morally repugnant but it should be left up to the states )

[bore]

Constitutional literalism is stupid enough in the real life US, let alone a political stimulation game.

As I said when the northeast was originally considering group marriages I oppose them, but I'm not convinced this is the senate's job.

A Federal law requiring Regions to make changes to their marriage laws would also be unconstitutional under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7.

It almost certainly wouldn't. Or rather, it might, depending on which way the court was feeling on the morning it decided the case.

As I've said before, the constitution is so poorly worded that the senate can make a case for any law it passes as falling under it's powers, and this is no different.

My point has nothing to with the powers of the Senate enumerated in Article I, Section 5. Article I, Section 6, Clause 7 expressly states that the Federal government does NOT have the power to require the Regions to not take a certain action.

Seriously? Did you actually read it? It states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The senate pretty clearly has the power to force the region's not to do something. Now, it may be up for debate what exactly falls under the rights of the senate or the rights of the people but that there are situations where that clause is voided is not up for discussion.

(Side note, what are the differences between the rights of the senate and the powers of the senate, because that's not made clear in the constitution.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Senate has no "point." It has powers, which it may or may not exercise. However, to exercise the power you reference in the manner that this bill does would violate another part of the Constitution.[/quote]

Maybe, although the clause you keep thrashing about says it has "rights", not powers. If it has the lone right to establish uniform marriage laws then it must also be able to stop the regions having there own.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a rather poor example considering that murder laws are handled by State governments IRL.[/quote]

I really don't think you've read that correctly.

[bore]

I agree with dallasfan's point that argumentum ad populum is a bad one. I support a NHS and really really tight gun control, despite both being radical in the US. The argument needs to stand on it's own merits.

Also, it's something said by anti gay marriage campaigners, but is true that the arguments used for SSM and being pro choice and legalising drugs logically conclude with allowing incestuous and polygamous marriages. If you are a libertine about other social issues you are compelled to support this. Any argument you make against it is flawed and hypocritical. If marriage is about love between people, and people should be given autonomy over all other rights, I don't see how you can argue against this.

The reason I oppose incest and group marriage (although not to the extent of making them illegal, just not recognizing them via the government) is because I disagree with the second principle, not the first. I don't buy that absolute freedom is desirable.  For one thing I don't think  it can exist for everyone, it's not absolutely zero sum, but it is a little bit. While I may not feel the right to intervene by reducing paracetamol sizes to stop a man's free choice to kill himself (although I probably do because I'm an awful nanny statist ) given that he might have children who depend on him, a mother who loves him, friends who enjoy his company, I'm quie comfortable doing that.

Which leads me to why I oppose incest and group marriage, because I don't think that our society is one at the moment where we can trust people to be allowed to marry their children or have 5 wives. In a perfect world I would be a fine with it. But this is not a perfect world. Legitimizing it, may, and will, harm a few genuine brother sister pairs, or a few groups who love each other, but it will also stop many more abuses, IMO.

[bore]

Aye

I've said before that I oppose both incest and polygamy, and that I find the "it's a regional matter" a form of moral cowardice. But this is a game, not real life. And to be fun as a game there have to be things the regions alone deal with.

[bore]

I've said before that I oppose both incest and polygamy, and that I find the "it's a regional matter" a form of moral cowardice. But this is a game, not real life. And to be fun as a game there have to be things the regions alone deal with.

Except this, I don't agree with this.

I didn't mean every instance of this, for instance I can certainly see how someone might think that planning law, or healthcare is better legislated at closer to the ground. But when it comes to moral issues IRL saying it's a regional matter ducks the question for me.

[bore]

You've forgotten about goldwater

[bore]

I'm confused. JCL said he didn't support this bill, it obviously will not pass the senate, and yet he wants it reintroduced?