Purity of the Union Act

  • Article I: Purposes and definitions

    Section I: The purpose of this act is to rid Europe of the homosexual sin that is creeping its way into our cultures, it needs to be rid in its entirety. This act also looks to protect the innocence of children, and other groups by regulations specified later.

    Section II: For the purpose of this act, we define the following as,

    (i) Same Sex Marriage- Marriage between two people of the same sex or gender

    (ii) Adoption- The act of legally becoming the parent or guardian of a child which does not have any biological relation to either parent

    (iii) Traditional Marriage- The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

    Article II: Regulations of this act

    Section I: This act hereby bans the institution of Same-Sex marriage in all EU member states, and territories. The act now defines marriage as between consenting adults who are of the opposite sex. One man, and one woman only. For the purposes of this act, genders will be based off physical features. In short, this act requires member states to only allow Traditional marriages in their purity.

    Section II: This act hereby restricts the adoption of any child, based on the age of minors within respective nations, to only those who are single or part of a traditional marriage.

    Section III: This act also restricts the ability of those who practice Same-Sex(Gender) relationships to argue publicly for the support of their sinful cause. This is to protect the innocence of child, and as such other publications which may be purchased by adults may have depictions of these relationships. Anyone caught giving these publications will be jailed in their member state for no less than one year.

    Article III: Enforcement of this Act

    Section I: All member nations of the European Union are required to harmonise their national law(s) with this Act in 1 months of time from its approval by the European Council.

    [i]Section III[i]: Violations of this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.

    Debate Ends: 10:50, October 24th
    Amendment Voting begins: 10:50, October 26th
    Voting Ends: 10:50 October 29th

  • "Disgusting. That's all I can say right now. I will have to take a rest before 'seriously' debating this utterly ridiculous bill"

    Ralph Jaevons

  • "This is a horrible disgrace and a impertinent misuse of the European Commission. The people of Poretos are utterly repulsed by such an idea of the European union passing something so disgusting. Should this pass there must be an added section taking Poretos straight to the European Court as PORETOS WILL NOT ADOPT THIS, WE WILL NOT PERMIT THIS. This is almost as disgusting as Bulgarian attacks on their own citizens."

    **James Tournay **

  • I just want to say that this is blasphemy against our lord and savior the flying spaghetti monster and groot-belgie would never accept this

  • I can confirm that should this act be passed, Davishire will not implement such
    disgusting regulations. This is a prime example as to why Davishire bombed you.

  • May I remind you that the bombings were started before bulgaria tried to pas this bill?

  • "As me and my colleagues have expressed, should this bill pass, Inimicus will not follow it. Before I continue, I would like to make clear that I am here on behalf of the Emperor of Inimicus, not the Prime Minister or the recently-formed coalition agreement. I, therefore, will always argue in favour of same-sex marriage.
    Now that we have that out of the way, let's try to counter this act with rational aspects, not just the emotional ones that I, too, feel very strongly. First of all, as I and my predecessors have said oftentimes, marriage is not an issue that should be decided by the European Union. Whether or not states allow same-sex marriage is entirely up to national legislatures. The European Council has no business deciding key national issues like these, as populations can be heavily divided and one can never please all European peoples by making either decision.
    That said, I think this bill is revolting. I know Inimicus and Bulgaria are formally still at war, yet despite this, and despite the reaction my government has given to the worrying internal issues in Bulgaria, I would like to set this all aside and respond rationally, without hatred.
    Inimicus was famous for being sceptic about same-sex marriage, yet I am sure you have all heard the welcome news that a referendum shall be held on the issue on November 1st. It is therefore yet undecided whether or not Inimicus will allow same-sex marriage. However, since I am here on behalf of my Majesty, Emperor Artabanos, I cannot express my sheer disgust at this act enough. Is not the point of the modern-day society we are all so proud of that all men and women are created equal? Then how can we deny lesbians and gays the right of adoption and marriage? These rights are fundamental, and, even if they should be taken away, it should not happen in this disgusting and dishonouring way.
    I shuddered when I read the first line: "The purpose of this act is to rid Europe of the homosexual sin that is creeping its way into our cultures, it needs to be rid in its entirety." You know what, my Bulgarian friend? My Emperor, one of the most able politicians in this Union, is part of this 'homosexual sin'. I will not have him or any other lesbian or gay spat on in this horrible way. I would simply ignore this bill, if not for the fact that this lunatic from Bulgaria sitting in this council actually means this. Vote against, I say to all sane councillors, we cannot allow a slimy piece of rubbish like this to find a place amongst passed European Acts.

    Also, on a final note, I would like to make a personal statement to the Bulgarian Councillor, Satan have him: you pathetic, miserable, homophobic, insulting pipsqueak of a man."

    Ralph Jaevons

  • I support the view of my Inimican Counterpart. I also believe that this proposal is unconstitutional breaking the following sections of the declaration of human rights.

    Article 3
    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 6
    Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law

    Article 12
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
    correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to
    the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    Article 16
    1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or
    religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal
    rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. All marriages,
    regardless of race, nationality, religion, and sex have the right to pursue a family, be
    it through traditional forms of conception, in vitro fertilization, adoption, etc.

  • Poretos further argues along side her colleagues that,

    Not only is it the choice of the government residing over any given province or nation within the European Union but the church that said nations are affiliated with whether this is possible. In most legal areas the religious side is a grey area however if the National Church, including that of Poretos , has sanctified this then where is the EU to intervene.

    Even on the scale of non religious services where the religious leader does not agree, it is the governments right - nay its duty to respect the wishes of a growing minority within their borders instead of, as is implied by this bill, segregating them from the rest of society.

  • That dictator in the capital of bulgaria has to be brought down!

  • My honourable colleague from Groot-Belgie, this is the place to discuss the utter atrocity of this proposal. Not to slander our fellow nations. That is for the private halls of Europilis and National Summits.

  • yes, but now that uy knows whats coming

  • First off I'll like to address the times of debate we've been given, as I imagine they will cause some confusion. Debate does in fact begin on the 24th, rather than end. A simple typo I'm sure. In this vein, I'd also like to request an extension to the debate period, so we can give this the time of day, rather than dismiss it with insults as some seem to have done.

    Well this interesting, isn't it. I have to say to my colleagues from Davishire and Groot Belgie, and to a lesser extent Poretos, that this chamber is supposed to be a beacon for peaceful cooperation, not a venue for threats and hints of armed conflict. While I disagree with the Bulgarian councillor, I recognise his right to speak in this Council without other members hurling personal insults. Councillor Heaven seems fond of quoting the constitution, so I'll join her: "All views, no matter how radical or conservative, can be voiced in the European Council". We may disagree, but we should all calm down and look at this bill as we would any other, despite its questionable content. If we could also cease the childish "I don't like the rules so I'm not going to follow them" that we've seen today. This organisation is not a la carte. Should an act be passed, even if we strongly disagree with it, it must be followed. Simply refusing to implement an act on the grounds you don't like to very much sets a dangerous precedent.

    I'd also like to add for Councillor Heaven's benefit that it is highly debatable that the Bill violates most of the articles of the constitution that you have outlined. It doesn't take an expert to notice that it doesn't directly break Articles 3 and 6. The only real leg you have to stand on in this line of debate is Article 16. However, if we're going to go down that road the ECoJ better clear it's schedule for the next decade. A substantial number of member states break that Article, Halsberg being among them. Does Councillor Heaven propose to haul my government to court over this? Indeed, does she propose to bring a case against half the European Union? Of course she doesn't. At least, I hope for her sake she doesn't. I'd also like to point out that the UDoHR is currently under review, with a new document ready to be presented to this Council in the very near future. I'd imagine that this fact would render any arguments around the Constitutional aspect of the bill to be rather moot.

    Now, to the bill itself. I'm not a particular fan of this kind of broad, sweeping legislation, as I hope I've made clear in previous debates. Our Union is one of many cultures and viewpoints, so I don't invisage this bill passing. My main problem is of course the clear violation of national sovereignty that it represents, as I'm sure you've all guessed. My personal views on the subject matter are somewhat irrelevant, although I would say that I am no fan of gay marriage. It is on these grounds that I must vote against the bill when the time comes.

    In closing, I would point out that we have had bills like this before, where instead if banning gay marriage throughout the Union, we were asked to legalise it completely. I don't remember opponents of same sex marriage being so rabid in their criticism during those debates, and as such I would ask certain councilors to treat my Bulgarian colleague with a bit more respect.

    John Walters

  • the councillor stood up and directed himself to commisioner walters from halsberg and simply stated

    Your mother is so fat, mister walters that her blood group is Nutella!

  • Mr Speaker, that kind of behaviour in the European Council is outrageous and unacceptable. I would say I'm shocked and suprised by the councillor's childish outburst, but truthfully I'm not. I sincerely hope something is done about this and we can swiftly move on to more mature discussion which Groot Belgie's councillor seems incapable of doing.

  • I was only making a sttement on your mothers health sir!

  • I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Do you know what homophobe is backwards? It's ebohpomoh. That doesn't even make sense - just like your views. It's a real shame you have to be so bigoted and stupid, frankly I think you're just immature and the route of homophobia lies in how it emasculates men. There seems to be nothing more fragile than male masculinity. There you go. Something short for you.

    Pamela Winchell

  • Voting is now open for this act!

  • I, Marianne Linden, on behalf of Empress Victoria of the Imperial Prussian State vote very strongly vote AGAINST this act.

  • Admin

    I, Acwellan Devoy, on behalf of the Duxburian Union, vote AGAINST the bill.

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.