Federal Marriage Amendment (Tabled)

[Cassius]

Basically, I've introduced this constitutional amendment to try and put an end to efforts (coming most notably from a certain region), to legalise polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages. There a widespread societal and religious taboos, as well as legal restrictions (in most western countries) against these things, for very good reason. Polygamy has been correlated with poverty, crime, abuse of women and problems when it comes to raising children (bear in mind that the vast majority of these studies have been carried out in third-world nations; however, the fact that polygamous relationships abound mainly in those areas of the world is another good reason not to legalise polygamy). Of course, incestuous unions, as most people are aware, are liable to produce severely disabled children, and thus I don't think its a good idea to legitimise incest by enabling incestuous 'couples' to marry. I should also note that it is quite possible that legalising incestuous marriages (and thus by default incest) could well help to legitimise intra-familial sexual abuse.

Basically, I feel that the current conception of marriage, as a monogamous union between two persons, is perfectly suitable, and indeed is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the population as being right and proper. Allowing for the legalisation of polygamous and incestuous marriages is the thin end of the wedge; its proponents claim that it is all about protecting 'minorities' and letting 'a thousand flowers bloom', or something like that. In reality, given time, enabling such marriages will begin to greatly alter society, and in a way that I believe (and I'm sure many others believe) to be totally undesirable.

Senator Cassius, if I may ask a question. Why do you h8te freedom?

I'm British. We don't do freedom

[Cassius]

Incest is a public health matter, though. There's a high degree of risk that children will be brought into the world that are severely handicapped.

There are a host of problems with incest, and it's interesting because if you look that the states in the USA in which it is banned and in which it is legal, there's no real ideological pattern. I strongly suspect that reasonable people will not find fault with incest bans when someone actually brings it up as an issue, the question is whether to use a federal law (preferred) or write it into the constitution (probably not preferred).

If a federal law landed on my desk that banned incest (like this), I would sign it.

I have a couple of reasons for pushing this as a constitutional amendment, rather than as a simple law. Firstly, I felt that since marriage plays such an important role in society (for legal as well as social reasons), I thought it perfectly proper for the constitution to say something about it and to define it. Secondly, given that Atlasia has a bizzarely strong pro-polygamy and pro-incest lobby, I felt that a constituional amendment would make it more difficult for this lobby (which does have friends in the Senate) to rush in and attempt to legalise either or both on a national level. Rather, if an amendment was in place, it would give more time for an attempt to repeal it to be considered in detail, and would give a chance for the citizenry to reject the bill in a vote. What I fear is that a federal law would be vulnerable to a 'hit and run' repeal and replacement with a bill legalising polygamy and incestuous marriages, one which did not take into account the potential ramifications of doing so.

[Cassius]

I understand why some people are cautious about the government telling people whom they can love. However, in response to that, I say that in some cases it is a positive good for the government to tell people that they should not do things, and yes, that extends to the realm of love. However, as a corollary to that, I would say that this bill is not about love, but about marriage, an area in which most of us would agree the government is perfectly competent at legislating in.

As to this not being an issue for the Senate, again, I can see why some might think this a rather divisive amendment and one that would be better handled at a regional level. On the other hand, I feel that this issue is best solved at a federal level, for the sake of simplicty. After all, if regions can make their own laws regarding marriage, why stop there? Why not allow counties to do so too? A complex patchwork of laws regarding marriage is not in my view a desirable situation, so I do think it is right and proper for the Senate to legislate on this important matter. Secondly, whilst it is true that this bill will upset some, that is true of every almost every bill. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of legal polygamy and legal incestuous marriage, whether for the social implications that they entail or for reasons of personal morality, I urge you to vote in favour of this amendment, because, if you vote it down, it won't make the issue go away, and at some point you may well have to vote on a bill making polygamy and incestuous marriage legal. I ask you to think on it.

[Cassius]

Nay