Marriage Equity Act

[The Duke]

No thanks, I'll be voting to keep marriage exactly as it has been since it was started.

Incredibly false. Same-Sex marriages have been recognized in many cultures. Go go migrendel!

What cultures would those be?

Even Greece never institutionalized homosexual love.

I, for one, cannot think of one society that legitimized homosexual relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships.  There is certainly no great civilization in history that ever viewed homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.  Not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and certainly not the Muslims.

That's true, the Greek did not view homosexual relationships as equal.

They viewed them as superior.

No, they used man-boy relationships for educational purposes.

It was neither equal nor unequal to, but rather was seperate from, marriage.

[Bono]

For my second piece of legislation, an idea whose time has come:

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that no citizen shall be denied the ability to enter into the marriage contract or enjoy any of the benefits thereof on account of sex.

No offense, Migrendel, but the redaction on this is terrible. You are not legalizing gay marriage, to that you would need to make a law to change the definition of marriage. THis is a law to garantuee the right of the people not to be discriminated by sex into entering an heterosexual marriage.

[KEmperor]

For my second piece of legislation, an idea whose time has come:

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that no citizen shall be denied the ability to enter into the marriage contract or enjoy any of the benefits thereof on account of sex.

You are not legalizing gay marriage, to that you would need to make a law to change the definition of marriage. This is a law to garantuee the right of the people not to be discriminated by sex into entering an heterosexual marriage.

Yes, exactly.  This simply says that men and women are both free to enter a marriage.

[migrendel]

Perhaps this would be better:

It shall be the stated policy of the forum that the definition of marriage shall not be construed to deny a person the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person of the same gender nor enjoy any of the benefits thereof.

[7,052,770]

Perhaps this would be better:

It shall be the stated policy of the forum that the definition of marriage shall not be construed to deny a person the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person of the same gender nor enjoy any of the benefits thereof.

So I presume you're withdrawing the old version and introducing this one in its stead?

[migrendel]

Yes. My old version would do exactly what I said it would if interpreted correctly. The alternate interpretations are utterly grammatical and narrow, and certainly not in keeping with the wording of the law. But I have decided to change the bill to make it wayward judge proof.

[7,052,770]

So do you want to start a new week of debate, or just go by the date you first proposed the bill?

[migrendel]

I'd be comfortable to have a vote based on the date I put the version out for review.

[7,052,770]

I'd be comfortable to have a vote based on the date I put the version out for review.

In that case, we'll commence voting on the Marriage Equity Act, which reads:

It shall be the stated policy of the forum that the definition of marriage shall not be construed to deny a person the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person of the same gender nor enjoy any of the benefits thereof.

All in favor, vote aye.  All opposed--vote nay

[??????????]

Nay.

[migrendel]

Aye.

[StevenNick]

I'd be comfortable to have a vote based on the date I put the version out for review.

In that case, we'll commence voting on the Marriage Equity Act, which reads:

It shall be the stated policy of the forum that the definition of marriage shall not be construed to deny a person the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person of the same gender nor enjoy any of the benefits thereof.

All in favor, vote aye.  All opposed--vote nay

This was not the bill that was introduced for a vote in the senate.  And as the original bill has not ever been amended by a vote of the senate, the bill above has no business being voted on by the senate.

I ask senator Harry to immediately remove this bill from consideration until the senate sees fit to amend migrendel's original bill to more closely reflect this bill.  Of course, this bill could be introduced as a seperate bill from migrendel's original bill, but that would have to be in another thread.

[7,052,770]

I'd be comfortable to have a vote based on the date I put the version out for review.

In that case, we'll commence voting on the Marriage Equity Act, which reads:

It shall be the stated policy of the forum that the definition of marriage shall not be construed to deny a person the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person of the same gender nor enjoy any of the benefits thereof.

All in favor, vote aye.  All opposed--vote nay

This was not the bill that was introduced for a vote in the senate.  And as the original bill has not ever been amended by a vote of the senate, the bill above has no business being voted on by the senate.

I ask senator Harry to immediately remove this bill from consideration until the senate sees fit to amend migrendel's original bill to more closely reflect this bill.  Of course, this bill could be introduced as a seperate bill from migrendel's original bill, but that would have to be in another thread.

I followed a precedent we've set several times, that if the author of the bill wants to amend it himself, he is free to do so.  You've not spoken up to complain in the past.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As there has been a question raised as to the validity of the the amendment made by Senator Migrendel to this act, the Attorney General has decided to issue an advisory opinion.

Article I Section 5 Clause 1 of the Constitution clearly gives the Senate authority to determine its own rules of procedure.  It did so with the Senatorial Procedure Act.  Said Act provides no rule of procedure to be used with amendments to bills.  As such, the question of what procedure is to be used with amendments is a question for the presiding officer of the Senate to determine, subject to being overruled by the Senate.  Since the amendment is clearly a clarifying one, the main question that was left unresolved by the decision to quickly begin voting was whether said amendment sufficiently clarified it.  As one of those stuffy grammarians that Senator migrendel complained about, let me point out that as presently worded, the proposed Act would allow the regions to deny people the right to enter into a marriage contract with the opposite gender.  While it is extremely unlikely that any region would do so, it seems inconsistent that while protecting a new form of marriage, that the Senate would not also protect traditional marriage to the same degree.

In conclusion, let me state that I wish that the Senate would amend the Senatorial Procedure Act so as to clearly give the procedures to be used to amend a bill.

   Attorney General Ernest

[StevenNick]

I vote nay.

[7,052,770]

Yea

[Akno21]

Aye.

[The Dowager Mod]

Aye.

[TeePee4Prez]

Aye

[Akno21]

5-2, in favor of Yea.

Senators Hughento, Nation, and King have yet to vote.

[Nation]

A STRONG nay on this bill.

[Platypus]

Aye

[King]

NAY x1000

[Hermit]

6-4, Yeas favor! Hurrah!

[JohnFKennedy]

I may not see the point in this after we had the civil unions act......but I will still sign it.

John F. Kennedy