SB 118-53: Codify This Act - Passed

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Codify This Act

SENATE BILL

to affirm certain inalienable rights and liberties

Be it enacted,

Section I: Rights

1. The Republic of Atlasia affirms the following -

a. Marriage is a basic civil right, and under the Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of any race, sex, or gender identity resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.
i. Marriage between persons of the same sex is a protected right under the Constitution, and the Evergreen-Tmthforu LGBTQ+ Rights Act

Section II: Protections

1. No region, state, or local government may enact a law or regulation that infringes on the right to marry or not marry a person based on race, sex, or gender identity. This shall not be construed to mandate the allowance of polygamous and incestuous marriages or require any religious organization to perform a marriage it disapproves of.

2. No region, state, or local government may enact a law or regulation that infringes on any individual's right to enter upon consensual sexual relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives, including relationships between individuals of the same sex.
a. The above shall not apply to any law or regulation prohibiting forced, polygamous, incestuous, or non-consensual sexual conduct.

3. The Attorney General may commence a civil action on behalf of the Republic of Atlasia against any region, state, or local government that violates, or against any government official that implements or enforces a law or regulation that violates subsections (1) or (2).

Section III: Implementation

1. This act takes effect immediately.

Sponsor: Pyro
Occupying: Slot 12

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Amendment:

Codify This Act

SENATE BILL

to affirm certain inalienable rights and liberties

Be it enacted,

Section I: Rights

1. The Republic of Atlasia affirms the following -

a. Marriage is a basic civil right, and under the Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of any race, sex, or gender identity resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.
i. Marriage between persons of the same sex is a protected right under the Constitution, and the Evergreen-Tmthforu LGBTQ+ Rights Act

b. The state cannot demean individuals’ existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.

Section II: Protections

1. No region, state, or local government may enact a law or regulation that infringes on the right to marry or not marry a person based on race, sex, or gender identity. This shall not be construed to mandate the allowance of polygamous marriages or require any religious organization to perform a marriage it disapproves of.

2. No region, state, or local government may enact a law or regulation that infringes on any individual's right to enter upon consensual sexual relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives, including relationships between individuals of the same sex.
a. The above shall not apply to any law or regulation prohibiting forced, polygamous, or non-consensual sexual conduct.

2. The Attorney General may commence a civil action on behalf of the Republic of Atlasia against any region, state, or local government that violates, or against any government official that implements or enforces a law or regulation that violates subsections (1) or (2).

Section III: Implementation

1. This act takes effect immediately.

Sponsor: Pyro
Occupying: Slot 12

[Pyro]

The Constitutional amendment proposed will protect basic rights concerning marriage and privacy.

I object to the amendment, specifically the carve-out for religious organizations. The whole idea is to protect the right of individuals to marry regardless of race, sex, or gender identity. If we allow discrimination based on religious beliefs, then we're right back where we started.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The language proposed by the amendment will place this on par with the IRL Respect for Marriage Act. A religious organization's refusal to perform a wedding does not prevent a couple from obtaining a civil marriage.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is this like the 5th time this year the left has tried to legalize incest?

Im sure Pyro's mother would be very proud of him.

[Pyro]

Is this like the 5th time this year the left has tried to legalize incest?

Im sure Pyro's mother would be very proud of him.

I have no obligation to answer to traitors of the Republic.

[fhtagn]

Is this like the 5th time this year the left has tried to legalize incest?

Im sure Pyro's mother would be very proud of him.

I have no obligation to answer to traitors of the Republic.

You do have an obligation to answer for why you are attempting to legalize incest, though.

[fhtagn]

The Constitutional amendment proposed will protect basic rights concerning marriage and privacy.

I object to the amendment, specifically the carve-out for religious organizations. The whole idea is to protect the right of individuals to marry regardless of race, sex, or gender identity. If we allow discrimination based on religious beliefs, then we're right back where we started.

Getting married within a religious organization is not a right. Nothing prevents couples wishing to marry from doing so in another church that does allow it, or from having a legally recognized civil marriage. Forcing religious groups to violate their sincerely held beliefs IS a constitutional violation.

And if you choose to do so, you are admitting to violating the oath you swore in on.

[Pyro]

Is this like the 5th time this year the left has tried to legalize incest?

Im sure Pyro's mother would be very proud of him.

I have no obligation to answer to traitors of the Republic.

You do have an obligation to answer for why you are attempting to legalize incest, though.

The definitions in this bill do not protect incest (See Muth v Frank IRL). If you disagree, feel free to propose an amendment to make the language more explicit about it.

[fhtagn]

to build on Wulfric's amendment:

Codify This Act

SENATE BILL

to affirm certain inalienable rights and liberties

Be it enacted,

Section I: Rights

1. The Republic of Atlasia affirms the following -

a. Marriage is a basic civil right, and under the Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of any race, sex, or gender identity cannot be infringed by the state.
i. Marriage between persons of the same sex is a protected right under the Constitution, and the Evergreen-Tmthforu LGBTQ+ Rights Act

Section II: Protections

1. No region, state, or local government may enact a law or regulation that infringes on the right to marry or not marry a person based on race, sex, or gender identity. This shall not be construed to mandate the allowance of polygamous and incestuous marriages, or require any religious organization to perform a marriage it disapproves of.

2. No region, state, or local government may enact a law or regulation that infringes on any individual's right to enter upon consensual sexual relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives, including relationships between individuals of the same sex.
a. The above shall not apply to any law or regulation prohibiting forced, polygamous, incestuous or non-consensual sexual conduct.

2. The Attorney General may commence a civil action on behalf of the Republic of Atlasia against any region, state, or local government that violates, or against any government official that implements or enforces a law or regulation that violates subsections (1) or (2).

Section III: Implementation

1. This act takes effect immediately.

Removed some redundant things, and clarified that incest should not be tolerated.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I will withdraw my amendment in favor of Fhtagn's

[Pyro]

Object. I maintain disapproval of the language concerning religious exclusion.
Also, I see no reason to eliminate Sec1-b.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I will note that churches have always had the right to refuse to marry a couple they disapprove of. This right was not affected by the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v Texas, U.S. v Windsor, or Obergefell v Hodges. This right was also maintained by the Evergreen-Tmthforu LGBTQ+ Rights Act, see Section 7 here: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=240275.0 . Heck, even the proposed IRL Equality Act maintains this right. So, far from "going back to where we started", we are actually upholding current law through the proposed amendment and it is the original version that is reversing things.


The elimination of Sec 1-b is interesting, but ultimately that's not an operative section of the bill so I don't see a reason to care.

A vote is open on the amendment.

Aye

[fhtagn]

Aye

[Vice President Christian Man]

Aye

[Joseph Cao]

Aye.

[reagente]

Aye

[RFayette]

Aye

[Coastal Elitist]

Aye

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

Aye

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Aye

[Pyro]

Nay

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Amendment Adopted 9-1-0-8

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

motion for a final vote

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A final vote is beginning

Aye