PA: The Second amendment act.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor:Never.
Does this Amendment work Governor?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

I have the suspicion that polygamy represses women's and children's rights, which is my main reason for advocating banning it in the Pacific Region. Nevertheless, if the pushback against banning polygamy has enough merit, then I suppose this Council  would be well-served to consider scaling down the proposed amendment to just banning incestuous unions in their entirety.

Maybe instead of out right banning polygamy, we could require the consent of both parties?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

A ban on incestuous marriages I can understand, but why a ban on polygamy?

I have the suspicion that polygamy represses women's and children's rights, which is my main reason for advocating banning it in the Pacific Region. Nevertheless, if the pushback against banning polygamy has enough merit, then I suppose this Council  would be well-served to consider scaling down the proposed amendment to just banning incestuous unions in their entirety.

Maybe instead of out right banning polygamy, we could require the consent of both parties?

That is doable; I'm curious to see how your particular wording on that would look so we might restructure the polygamy language in the bill.

I am not so good with the legal speak. Maybe something like "In order to have a polygamous marriage, both parties must agree to,and show full understanding of the concept"?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Polygamy, while there are concerns about the rights of women and children, is a much larger issue than that. You cannot go "moderate hero" and just heavily regulate polygamy.

The axiom that social libertarians operate under of "it doesn't hurt you" isn't valid here. Polygamous and incestuous marriages pose very large social risks to our Region. The social structure that has been proven effective time and time again in the arena of child raising is a stable, two-parent home home, regardless of the sex of the parents. Polygamous marriages pose a very real threat to a very valuable social resource. Legal polygamy will have disastrous consequences for children in the Pacific.

As a public health and financial issue, legal incest is disastrous. The children of incestuous couples are more likely to have special needs and a heightened demand for medical care. The wave of legally sanctioned special needs children will push our social structures and our schools to the brink. Incestuous couples will be, with all knowledge of the risks, bringing children into the world that are more likely to suffer as a result of their decisions. Knowingly increasing the chances of medically harming a child is a crime against children.

The legal aspect of legalizing polygamy is also concerning. Our government and economy do not have the structures in place to effectively allow for plural marriage. Insurance, especially, will become a very complicated legal matter. Tax benefits become unclear and the role of marriage in government, society, and the economy is called directly into question.

The social health of this country hinges on families. People do better when they have a more stable family background than they do otherwise. Legal incest and polygamy are, in our politics today, two of the most direct threats to the foundation of society.

I would ask the council not to try to mushy-moderate there way out of this one. Don't "legalize and regulate." I ask the council to pass this amendment as it is written. It is imperative we do so quickly, to avoid the legal catastrophe of Northeastern polygamous and incestuous couples moving into the Pacific and demanding recognition of their lifestyle.

Honestly I doubt the amendment would pass in its current state.  Also out of curiosity do oyu think it's wrong for one guy to live with, and date multiple girls? Or do oyu just have an issue with them being married?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

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.

Sorry I will work on that.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Councillors a vote on this amendment is now open. AYE

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

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

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Are there any objections to the amendment?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Motion to table.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Alright a vote on the amendment is open. AYE

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

The amendment proposed by Never?

Yes.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Ok, know I understand this. Don't the honorable gentlemen believe that this shouldn't be part of our Constitution?

Yes, we are voting on the amemdment, to the amendment. It's confusing.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor:Never.
Does this Amendment work Governor?