Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, in which the Members of the Congress propose bills and debate them. The Second Chamber is where they are eventually voted. Despite the two-chamber system, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see this.

As prescribed by Article 6 of the Constitution, all Lovian citizens "may write and propose motions to the Federal Law", that "are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber." The MOTCs' duty is to "read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of a majority of Members of the Congress, changes may be proposed in the First Chamber." If a majority is likely to be found, the proposer will move the bill to the Second Chamber for a vote.

The First Chamber is not a popular assembly where all citizens can express their personal interests. Polling the population ought to happen outside of Congress.

2013 Congress
Welcome again, MOTCs, to the 2013 Congress! First on our agenda is forming a government, followed by an election of the Speaker of the Congress. Afterward, we should aim to create a tax code, pass more laws relating to the economy, and possibly reform the states.

It appears that Ilava has won the informal vote to become Prime Minister, so I would like to invite him to propose a government. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:43, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Speaker.  Happy65   Talk CNP   09:22, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

He just said the Speaker still had to be elected. :P 77topaz (talk) 09:32, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well, he was speaker before the elections, and he technically remains speaker until the elections are done. Therefore he is still speaker :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:26, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

So, Oos, can you propose your government? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:02, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Have we decided on the list? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:05, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you can still propose one. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:06, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, we need the ministry of Family, Youth and Elderly :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:09, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Okay :P But I'd also like Education --> Education and Research and Agriculture --> Food, Agriculture, (and Fisheries?). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:12, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, including the fishery part :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:18, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

So. . . are you going to propose one? ;) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:52, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, later today :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:01, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a proposal here yet. :P 77topaz (talk) 02:32, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, forgot it and there was noone in my time zone to remind me of it :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:40, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Prime Minister
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries
 * Charles Alexander Bennett
 * Ministry of Commerce
 * Dave Leskromento
 * Ministry of Culture
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Defense
 * Lukas Hoffmann
 * Ministry of Education and Research
 * William Krosby
 * Ministry of Energy and Resources
 * Charles Alexander Bennett
 * Ministry of Environment
 * Nicholas Sheraldin
 * Ministry of Family, Youth, and Elderly
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Finance
 * William Krosby
 * Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 * Justin Abrahams
 * Ministry of Health
 * Taiyō no Eisei
 * Ministry of Justice
 * Dave Leskromento
 * Ministry of Labour
 * Marcus Villanova
 * Ministry of Tourism and Sport
 * Nicholas Sheraldin
 * Ministry of Transportation
 * Jhon Lewis
 * Speaker of the Congress
 * Semyon Breyev

Looks nice overall, but I don't like the "Comestibles" part of the new name for Agriculture much. In addition, Kunarian didn't sign up for the Education post at the sign-up forum, and I made User:TimeMaster/Education, so I would really like to have that post. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:54, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * See: . --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:16, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Woop, there's even more discussion :| So, the problematic points are:
 * Health: Is Eisei suitable as his views on health care seem to differ from the general views.
 * Education: Is Krosby willing to include Religious and Special-needs education?
 * Speaker: I think Semyon should get this. He doesn't have anything right now while he is one of our top politicians. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:19, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on religious education (I will not actively support or oppose it, but will obey Congress) and pro on special-needs education. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:22, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd really rather have health. And i'd say Time should be in education, as he has shown a lot of interest. HORTON11 : •  13:35, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I think Semyon should be Speaker, but I definitely want to keep health as I wouldn't get any other position, because my other choice was defense, but Kunarian only signed up for defense, and he has more political power than me. As far as I'm concerned, put Semyon in Speaker and that would be good. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:56, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

With Health I support QZ for his respect for the process of government, I feel that some others may simply use the position just to push their ideas through rather than look at the options and let the governors (preferably) or government decide on what happens. I feel that an impulsive Minister in this position could cause problems due to them viewing the position as one of power rather than responsibility, and for that reason I'd hope we could choose someone not in the big camps and who would therefore be more impartial and from my point of view QZ fits that. I fear Horton would end up deciding that because he had been allocated the position that it is his position to choose the health policy. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 23:08, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I toowant to have the Health position. I have good ideas and will be cooperative with the others to create the programs. Granero (talk) 23:57, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

This has turned into a "I want" "I want to create" scenario. Just propose this, it seems fine to me most people don't do squat with there position anyway :I Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:24, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

We could possibly have some deputy ministers. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:14, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

It seems pointless, in a government with no opposition who cares if there's a deputy, to question or hold accountable when most Primary ministers do nothing or minimal work anyway :/ Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Granero, you aren't too active though... This decreases your likeliness of getting the ministry, and you don't have any unique views on the health care system from what I know. I want health because I actually have knowledge on the subject (in lots of these other ministries I don't), and I have unique view points. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather it just stay as "Ministry of Agriculture". Fishries, which seek to make a real living are ethier praticing Aquaculture or mass fishing (nets and such) are still considerd "... is the cultivation of  animals ,  plants ,  fungi, and other life forms for  food ,  fiber ,  biofuel  and other products used to sustain human life." Which would still be straight forward with just saying 'Agriculture.' Now if its for simply game, that would go under Tourism & Sport or Enviormental ministries. -Sunkist- (talk) 03:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I'm gonna propose. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:52, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

001. Notice
I, acting for and on behalf of HRH Dimitri I, as Speaker of the Congress, hereby declare this congressional term open. From now until the inauguration of its successor government, according to the Constitution, the Second Ilava Government shall be the supreme executive body in the Kingdom of Lovia. --Semyon 17:20, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, arguably not, but it's not my fault the constitution is so ambiguous. :P --Semyon 17:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Supreme executive body. Anyway, I'm going to archive the negotiations. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:29, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thing that was what I said, then. :P --Semyon 17:35, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:50, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

002. Voting Reform
I propose that the current system of voting in Federal Elections, with one major vote, one minor vote, and one support vote, be replaced with a system of five equally-ranked votes. Thoughts? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:08, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... Doesn't that increase the number of seats given to inactive users? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:05, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Would this system allow giving more than one vote to a single user? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, Oos, but we could also put a protection against inactive users running. And you wouldn't be able to give more than one vote to one candidate. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:10, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very much contra that (they are citizens too). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:32, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not what I'm proposing. Besides, it would still reduce their ability to slam down the major votes on famous old people who are the only people they know. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:47, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think this would spread votes too much actually. I would have on vote for me, one for Nathan, and then three between CCPL, Semyon, CNP. More than likely Nathan wouldn't have any seats, and I would have 1 maybe 2. People will just vote within their party if their party is big, and if their party is small they won't get very many seats. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 18:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, that's kind of the point. To refuse self voting, so if your support comes from only two people, you will receive few seats, but if from many, you will receive more. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

New users wouldn't get into Congress though, and I don't think it would represent the votes as accurately. It would force people to vote for people that they don't like very much or only semi-support.--Quarantine Zone (talk) 19:42, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think the system works ok actually. A lot of people were panicking (including me? no... :P) about 'rotation' but in the end the results we got were broadly acceptable. I think we just have to be pragmatic and accept that if we want to keep the OOC users voting for IC politicians thing (which I hope we do) that it has some inherent flaws, which result in some users receiving seats out of proportion to their contribution to the site. --Semyon 22:13, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think that the same flaw that semyon mentioned about out of proportion seats would appear in the new system as well. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:32, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

the current system ain't broke. It's the best defense against inactives, even though it alows some inactives in. Don't become a nickclegg liberal trying to reform everything :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:14, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I must say I'm a bit surprised about how no one supports this even though 2/3 of people in chat a month ago did. :/ Also, Marcus, this would be the "best defense against inactives", as they can't just slam down major votes on the only people they know (the effect is diluted), and can't self-vote and get into Congress if no-one else supports them. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:16, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but with five equal votes people like Oos and Hoffman who maybe work for there seats and are active will become marginalised against people from the LMP or MCP, who are barely active. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:22, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

003. Weapons and Hunting Act
I'm bringing this back! Woohoo! Hopefully we can get this passed through. I've made a little bit of revision, and if anyone has any suggestions just drop them below. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:59, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I'll be very honest with you the orginal law was written by a centrist liberal but was very appealing to me, and as a peace activist I really want to see no change to the law. I find it to be near perfect. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:20, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Concealed weapons licenses must be obtained in order to own sheathed knives over 6 inches in length, guns under 12 inches in length (including knife guns), and ballistic knives.
 * 2) All owners must be 24 years of age.
 * 3) Ballistic knives and sheath knives are not considered fire arms.
 * 4) Licenses can only be granted to hunters who are of 12 years of age, but all firearms used by anyone under the age of 18 must be legally registered to their legal parents and/or guardians.
 * 5) Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns of .50-calliber or fewer, rifles of .50-caliber or fewer, shotguns of 10-gauge and greater, cross bows, hunting bows, and spears are allowed.
 * 6) All automatic weapons are illegal, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
 * 7) Switchblade knives are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, buy, and own.
 * 8) Bayonets are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, and buy.
 * 9) Bullets containing poison, napalm, toxins, and explosives are illegal to manufacture, trade, buy, sell, and own, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
 * 10) In the case of an official government, military, militia, or police, soft chemical explosives are still illegal.
 * 11) Hunters are legally bound to register with the Ministry of Defense annually to renew their hunting license. Once licenses are renewed, said hunters are legally aloud to hunt for the year.
 * 12) Hunters may only hunt a total of 24 times a year.
 * 13) Hunters must register with the Ministry of Defense at least 36 hours in advance in order to go hunting.
 * 14) All hunters are required to wear a bright orange hat. If the color of the hat is challenged to not be bright orange, a court case may be held to determine this.
 * 15) The fine for this will be 200 Lovian dollars. If they hat is orange, but deemed not bright orange, the fine will be 90 Lovian dollars.
 * 16) Newly manufactured items that have a similar look or use to firearms are required to have orange tips to signify that they are not legally firearms.
 * 17) This includes but is not limited to water guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, pellet guns, BB guns, and model guns.
 * 18) The following sections of Article 3 of the Criminal Law Book are repealed:
 * 19) Section 1.2.2.2 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted."
 * 20) Section 1.2.2.6 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed."
 * 21) Section 1.2.6 "Hunters are legally bound to register with the Minister of Defense, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month."

What about the loopholes? Bayonets and switchblades were legal, and fake guns look just like real ones? Don't those pose as legitimate problems to you? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:34, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

it was  a "firearms" act not weaponry act. If you want bayonets and switchblades to be regulated (which I support) go for it. But the fake guns yeah just add a provision to the existing act. We do disagree on this issue you being conservative and me more on the left. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:17, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I got this changed to Weapons and Hunting Act

Still doesn't change my objection :P Wait is this to replace the current act or add to it...? Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:01, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

This is in addition to the old act, with the exceptions to the three parts that I suggested be repealed, but the parts that I repealed were replaced by other things in the act. Like 1.2.2.6 of the original is replaced by 2.1 of the new one. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:17, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

"Licenses can only be granted to hunters who are of 12 years of age." I have to disagree with this. 16 or 18 I'd say. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:32, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

The mental maturity of children who are 12-18 isn't much different actually. It wouldn't be that much of a difference in the end. The hunting accidents aren't caused by 12 year olds (in America 10). The law also specifies that they must hunt with their parents and with their parents gun, and their parents have to be 24 to own the guns, so there are precautions in there. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 16:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Though the mental maturity might not be so much different according to you, the mental being is still way more easily influencable, and therefore I'd prefer to have as little exposure to guns until a legal age. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:17, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what about all the people who enjoy hunting as a hobby? They won't be able to hunt until they are 18. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:44, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah well, smoking is my hobby too and I officially couldn't get cigarettes until I was 16 è :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:31, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

But smoking is bad for your health especially at a young age; whereas, allowing 12 year olds to hunt with their parents who are over 18, both of which have hunting licenses, isn't going to hurt anyone. If you were to smoke when you were 12, your health would be drastically affected. Hunting at 12 isn't hurting the hunter or other people. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:27, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

That's ignoring hunting accidents. :P 77topaz (talk) 21:46, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Topaz, if you read what I said earlier, you would know that hunting accidents are rarely ever caused by youths. Hunting accidents are caused by people being ignorant and stupid. Just to top it off though, on average, about 100 people die in hunting accidents per year in the U.S. and there are about 800 total accidents. This is far less than injuries than in any common sport, and 1,500 people die while swimming per year on average. (Both of those are straight of the DNR.) The whole argument of safety on this is ludicrous. The majority of Lovian community doesn't understand this because the majority of the community doesn't hunt, and/or fails to do any research on hunting statistics. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:48, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

004. Marriage Act: 2013 Rewrite
As a concerned Lovian, I propose to change our Marriage Act in subtle ways to make it more open-minded. Lovians - progressives and conservatives alike - are open-minded people, who care deeply about liberty, but also equality, justice, and harmonious living. I found that the Marriage Act was well-written, but did not account for a few things, and had a few very old-fashioned and liberty-restricting elements.

The rewrite I propose is not a radical overhaul. My own politics are those of radical overhaul, but with this proposal, I just want to bring minor, beneficial change to Lovia. I hope it shows I am serious about politics, and that I care about coalitions, alliances, and goodwill in politics.

The original text can be found in the Federal Law.

Proposed version Marriage Act

 * 1) Marriage is an understanding between two adult people, referred to as parties, who voluntarily agree to take up certain rights and duties.
 * 2) The spouses have the duty to live in harmony with each other, offering each other respect, affection, consolation, and care, and treating each other in fairness.
 * 3) The spouses have to duty to communicate with each other and make informal agreements concerning both the personal and professional, including work, the household, sex, parenting, and finances, and to verbally resolve any conflicts. Considering the possibility that the spouses cannot come to an agreement on their own terms, it is the duty of both spouses to counsel for advice from a third party.
 * 4) The spouses have the right to retain their autonomy within their marriage, including the right to choose and perform the profession of their liking, the right to keep personal finances, and the right to individually see and meet people.
 * 5) The spouses share the responsibility to take care of their children or others in their custody, as well as of their possessions and properties.
 * 6) Both spouses share the liability to all expenses made for the benefit of the spouses’ child or children, which can be proven to be essential to the well being of the child.
 * 7) While the spouses have the right to make any informal or formal arrangement as to whom pays what, the law can enforce the shared liability of expenses of the above-described type, in the case conflict arises and the existing arrangement is fundamentally unfair to either of both spouses.
 * 8) Each spouse must bear the marital burdens in accordance to his or her capital and provide the partner with the vital.
 * 9) Marriage can only be solemnized if all of the following conditions are met:
 * 10) Each of the parties is at least 18 years old, or 16 given the parents or custodians of the less than 18-year-old party fully consent with the marriage;
 * 11) Each of the parties agrees with the marriage on a voluntary basis;
 * 12) None of the parties is already in a standing marriage under Lovian law or under similar law in the country where the marriage was carried out;
 * 13) The parties are not genetically related in the first or second degree, ruling out marriages between parents and children, brothers and/or sisters, aunts and/or uncles, and nephews and/or nieces, and cousins.
 * 14) The solemnization of a marriage is carried out in public before a representative of the law.
 * 15) A representative of the law is the Governor of the State in which the marriage is solemnized, a person appointed by that Governor, or any person who is in public service in the federal or state government.
 * 16) No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met, unless he or she conscientiously objects to the solemnization, in which case he or she shall report his objections to a Deputy Governor or another representative of the law, who must then contact the parties to arrange for solemnization to take place under his or her supervision. The government is legally bound to solemnize any marriage that conforms to the demands set forth by the law.
 * 17) The parties sign a marriage contract at the public solemnization, agreeing to the conditions laid out by the law. The representative of the law acts as a witness and validates the contract by signing it as well.
 * 18) A marriage is considered terminated in each one of the following cases:
 * 19) If the marriage is proven to not have been legally solemnized;
 * 20) If one of the spouses obtains a cancellation of the marriage contract;
 * 21) A spouse can cancel a marriage through a lawsuit, if he or she proves that the other spouse has neglected his or her duties as a spouse;
 * 22) In this case, the neglecting spouse can be sanctioned to provide financial support to the neglected spouse.
 * 23) In this case, the judge must decide upon an arrangement concerning raising the spouses’ child or children, taking into account the opinions and wishes of both spouses, as well as of the children concerned.
 * 24) Unless one of the spouses is considered an immediate threat to the health and security of a child, every person has the right to have regular contact and communication with his or her child.
 * 25) Every arrangement decided upon by a judge must take into account the health, security, and happiness of the child, and the spouses’ ability to provide for those.
 * 26) If both spouses agree upon the termination of their marriage, effectively cancelling the marriage contract in the presence of a representative of the law.
 * 27) Upon the death of one of the spouses, or both, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.
 * 28) One year after one of the spouses has been reported as missing, and has not been found, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.

Proposed changes
In the proposed version, some of the terminology has been changed, either to increase uniformity and clarity, or to reflect a more open-minded spirit. No mention is made of homosexuality, though: our law already allows for same-sex marriage.

The duties and rights of married people change, so that they are no longer obliged to actually live together (it is possible to be married harmoniously and live in separate places) and are no longer legally obliged to be sexually faithful to each other. Instead, extra emphasis is put on the emotional duties of married couples. Also expanded is the section on how to resolve marriage conflicts, including those with children.

The age at which marriage can be solemnized is lowered to 16, given the parents' consent.

The solemnization is simplified. A couple in want of a marriage only needs a representative of the law, more broadly defined now: the governor, someone appointed by him/her, or anyone else representing Lovian government. The "announcement" period is no longer needed.

The law explicitly states that "No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met". At the urging of Ooswesthoesbes, a provision is included to allow for conscientious objection by the representative of the law. A simple but efficient procedure is included to arrange for such cases.

Termination of the marriage contract by a single party, through a lawsuit, is rewritten. Provisions are included on what the judge can decide, financially and in the matter of children. The stress is on making harmonious arrangements and looking after the child's interests. A divorce should not be a war, and the child should never be its victim.

Thank you for your consideration. Punarbhava (talk) 17:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Well done on taking the time to write such a long article.  Happy65   Talk CNP   19:52, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the law is fairly well written. There are some punctuation errors and typos that need to be fixed. There are a few things that I think should be changed though. I think that marriage before 18 isn't responsible. Marriage is very serious, and getting married at 16 would be very stressful and 16 year olds could be hasty and marry someone too early. Even if their parents agree it could still be irresponsible. Also, this law doesn't outlaw marriage between cousins. Even marriage between cousins causes deformation and health diseases in children VERY quickly. Even cases with 2nd cousins has been known to commonly cause deformation and health diseases. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:00, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points. I will specifically add cousins to the list. Punarbhava (talk) 06:54, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I do believe, however, that some 16 year olds are mature enough to engage in a serious, lasting relationship. If anything, Lovia has shown that young people can achieve great things. (Is it not the king and the political elite who were only teenagers when they begun this nation?) With the provision of the parents' full consent, I think we can build in a safety. I do not believe the right to marry will be used by many minors when this law takes effect. But if it does, it will be by mature, consenting young (near-)adults, with their parents' consent, and with the legal protection of the law. Punarbhava (talk) 06:54, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Barring people over 18 from marrying people under 18 might avoid some problems. 77topaz (talk) 06:59, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will. Marriages with people that have great age differences would just occur when the other party reaches 18, and the smaller age differences (16 & 18, 17 & 19, 17 & 18) would not be able to marry. In addition, I really don't consider 18 to be a much more mature stage of development than 16. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:39, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points TM has made. Being an adult does not just happen the day the planet has made exactly 18 turns around the sun since you left the uterus. 18, just as 16, is an arbitrary age. Of course, legally, we need some sort of benchmark. 18 is a good one, I believe, but it won't hurt to make it more gradual. So those who are exceptionally mature, and are in a stable relationship that enjoys the approval of the parents, can enjoy the legal status other (possibly less or more mature) couples have. Punarbhava (talk) 14:36, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to draw a line somewhere though. I could use exactly the same arguments to say - well, some fourteen year-olds are mature enough to get married, so we'll let them if they're exceptionally mature for their age. Also, the fact that parents approve doesn't indicate anything about the 'maturity' of the couple or the 'stability' of the relationship. Personally I think it better to have a single and simple distinction: those above 18 can marry, those below can't. @TM: I find 18 year-olds to be significantly more mature than 16 year-olds, though that's very possibly due to expectations of society rather than a natural thing. --Semyon 12:27, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, we should draw a line. We have drawn a line. It's at 18. We would, however, include a provision that would allow for some exceptions. Why? Because some people really want to get married. And I understand that. I know what love is like and I know that sometimes, you just don't want to wait one or two more years. And why should they? If they consider themselves ready for marriage, who are we to say no? What's the harm, anyway? In fact, the new law would actually push the marrying parties towards greater cooperation, harmony, communication, etc.
 * The parents' approval is just to make sure there is no abuse. We don't want 16 year old girls or boys marrying someone abusive under any circumstances. Punarbhava (talk) 13:20, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is that you draw the line at 18, but then say 'No, we'll let people who really want to and are 'mature' to get married if they're younger' when the criterion that your using to decide whether people love each other enough or are mature enough is whether their parents agree - something which isn't related at all. --Semyon 21:00, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. There is no way to test maturity, except the willingness of the parties to commit. The law does provide various safeties to give weight to the commitment: age, duties, parental approval, etc. That's about as much any law can do. Punarbhava (talk) 21:40, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, even though I believe 16 to be too young, it is an improvement of the older law, which didn't specify any age (a 5-year old could marry a 14-year old if they'd have permission of the parents and a legal advisor; not likely, but theoretically possible). The announcement thing - yeah.. I think it is necessary though. You can't expect the Government to be ready for any marriage any time. Now you could just kick in the door and claim your marriage. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:33, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * The new version eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy. You do have a good point. This is how I see it. Since Lovia has no actual administration - marriages are solemnized by an individual who represents the government - it is self-evident that the two parties must contact a representative themselves (as is the case in every country) and can only see their marriage solemnized as soon as a government official is available. If the person contacted is not online, or temporarily very busy, they'll have to wait a bit. If the representative is present, finds that the conditions are being met, and does not object, then it's done. Simple as that. Considering activity can be very fleeting on a wiki, direct accomplishment is the best way to deal with these things. Punarbhava (talk) 16:42, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think this can be moved to the Second Chamber. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:47, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Oos! I now confide this bill to you, as I have no voting rights yet . (By the way, could you arrange for my citizenship? For some reason, I have not been registered yet.) Punarbhava (talk) 07:54, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I added you to this list. Consider yourself citizen now :)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have time to do that until Saturday. So, if nobody else will move it, it'd have to wait. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:01, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Could I do it? Punarbhava (talk) 09:53, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it, but do we really need to mention each spouse's must duties in the marriage? People should be allowed to decide for themselves. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:01, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * And they are. If they want no duties, and don't care about the protection they offer (which is their good right), then legal marriage is nothing for them. If they do, that's what this law is for. Punarbhava (talk) 14:36, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then doesn't this make arranged marriages illegal? HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 15:25, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? I don't see how this relates. Punarbhava (talk) 15:45, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Arranged marriages being illegal is not necessarily bad. :P 77topaz (talk) 19:18, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Arranged marriages are not the subject of this act. It should be clear, however, that marriage (as defined by this law, but also by the previous version) comes with duties and rights, and commitments. Emotional, financial... Preventing arranged marriages, if Lovia considers that a priority, should be done by raising public awareness. Maybe a media campaign? Punarbhava (talk) 21:40, February 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this in addition to the old marriage act or replacing it? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Replacement. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:13, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think at this point theres some nitpicking going on, what was set out was to define marraige as two praticipants, clearing the vauge law. I think we've added more in and should get it to the second chamber soon. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:04, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Has spelling and grammar been checked by a native now? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:11, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

2013 Jobs and Highway


I think we all know government can improve the lifes of citizens, help buisnesses grow and create growth in our economy. We were sent here to improve the opportunity to sucess and I would like to start this year with a jobs bill that will help the hard hit areas of Train Village and promote growth in Charleston.

Let's look at the areas this will affect: But I also included new construction for the north: How will this be paid? Any ideas/comments? Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:05, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * Western Sylvania: 4.89 million dollars will be poured into the areas to repair roads connect and to create the new highway, create 350 jobs and allow companies in Charleston and Train Village to connect their services and have a chance to faster transportation. Two lanes going both ways will be able to create new opportunites to the future and with courtesy to nature, will go around scenic routes and leave nature alone.
 * Seven: Highway 6 is a great highway connecting the two most populated islands of Seven. Still in this act I add in another 1.42 million dollars of funding to create an extra connection to east kinley and another branch going into Amish kinley. The construction shows we have a commitment to all citizens of Lovia and wanting to improve travel speeds at any cost.
 * With taxes and a budget coming up hopefully, with this being pre-approved it will be covered to promote transporation and labour across the coutnry.
 * Noble City Area: Until 2015 we will add in two polls in the outer area and inner area. The poll will be 0.75 lovian dollars and will allow access through the the other polls for the rest of the day. So if you need to go to work through even two of the polls, both ways it will only cost .75 for the entire day. By 2016 I plan that we lower the poll to .50 and keep it there.


 * I would like to protest! Invest heavily in constructing new highways? Even more cars, more pollution... Please NO. Think about alternatives: clean and fast railways, investing in better public transit. Punarbhava (talk) 18:14, February 23, 2013 (UTC)