PA: The Second amendment act.

[Simfan34]

IT would be helpful if the Speaker could keep the formatting of the original proposal intact. A good deal is lost by his doing otherwise. Furthermore I am not the sponsor of this piece of legislation- Never is.

[Simfan34]

I want to reproduce the original text of the proposed legislation, for the sake of clarification.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 3. ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS

1. The Legislative Council resolves to rigorously enforce the provisions of the amendment approved by this Act. [/quote]

Now, I will admit I had intended to do some... things with the amendment that are not (and were not meant to be) immediately apparent, and after some reflection I think that it's best if we not do those... things. So I would like to suggest (As governor I cannot formally propose amendments) the following amendment be made:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 3. ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS

1. The Legislative Council resolves to rigorously enforce the provisions of the amendment approved by this Act. [/quote]

[Simfan34]

We are. This has passed, and shall be sent to the voters.

Perhaps it was not a good idea to begin voting so soon. I should have paid better attention to the amount of time it had been since this act was introduced for debate. According to the Rules of Order relating to this, our Council is supposed to have debate for at least 48 hours, and it has not been that amount of time since debate began. In other words, we can't really say the amendment has passed, because we haven't reached the time that we can vote on it yet.

Since debate is still ongoing, would the honorable Member of the Legislative Council be so kindly inclined as to propose my "suggested" amendment?

Regarding your "thing" Simfan, "the name that was first given too" is I guess the most wooly euphemism for "traditional marriages" as you would call them, and I don't think (and hope) that it would have had absolutely no legal consequences, despite your blatant opposition to "non-traditional" marriages of any kind, to say it that way.

Actually, and I suppose thankfully, that wasn't what I was trying to do, indeed, it had nothing to do with amendment's stated purpose at all. I'll just say I realised that what I was trying to do, besides being "hidden" in a completely unrelated constitutional amendment, was not particularly desirable in the first place, and certainly not through deceptive means.

I would like to hear more on why you think this does not belong in our constitution, however. Would you support the general aims of the amendment, to "to prohibit the formation of incestuous or polygamous martial unions in the interests of maintaining the public and genetic health of the citizenry and the capacity of the Region to carry out its laws", or would you be opposed to them in the first place? If you're not opposed to those aims- and I don't get the impression you are opposed (however, correct me if I'm wrong)- then why do you feel this would not have a place in our constitution?

I personally feel that such things are so categorically undesirable and fundamentally unworkable in a society that has even a passing resemblance to ours, from a social, legal, biological, or any other perspective, that we cannot allow any kind of foothold for such things to be established. Sure, this Legislative Council might pass an Act with the same effect as this Amendment, but remember it was not that long ago we had a Council vote to abolish the region. I feel that such a fundamental matter should not be subjected to the whims of the members of the Legislative Council at a given time but should be placed beyond their easy reach- which is why I would support a constitutional amendment.

But I am interested in hearing your view.

[Simfan34]

If you are proposing the amendment I wrote, you have to see if there are any objections. The Rules of Order don't specify how long you have to wait for objections to be made, which is an oversight that should be corrected, but use your good judgment. If no one objects you may adopt the amendment.  Otherwise you would hold a 24 hour long vote. You may at your discretion continue debate without an additional motion for a maximum of 72, which would means we can continue until 8:30 on Saturday before you would have to make a motion to extend debate.

[Simfan34]

So we should we consider this as a law instrad?

[Simfan34]

The amendment proposed by Never?

[Simfan34]

You are too late, I'm afraid, it has been a week, as per the Rules of Order the speakership has fallen vacant.

[Simfan34]

Standard debate time has now ended.

I would like to see an amendment made that turns the provisions of this legislation into statute as opposed to a constitutional amendment, for the reasons indicated by members of the Legislative Council and our honourable Senator.

In this vein, I move to extend debate until otherwise motioned. If no objections to this motion are made within 12 hours, it will be considered carried.

[Simfan34]

Standard debate time has now ended.

I would like to see an amendment made that turns the provisions of this legislation into statute as opposed to a constitutional amendment, for the reasons indicated by members of the Legislative Council and our honourable Senator.

In this vein, I move to extend debate until otherwise motioned. If no objections to this motion are made within 12 hours, it will be considered carried.

It seems that this is the case. I believe also that I'm failing with my responsibilities. I'm considering to resign and leave this office for someone better than me :/

Please don't delay if you think this best.

[Simfan34]

It need some more editing, but it is on the floor.