Child Marriage Act 2020

[Montenbourg]

Child Marriage Act 2020

Proposed by Cllr. Emma Granger (Montenbourg) and Cllr. Edward Firoux ( @Inquista )

---

PREAMBLE
The purpose of this Act is to protect minors and their path to adulthood by prohibiting the marriage or union of young persons.

---

SECTION I - ABILITY TO MARRIAGE OR UNION
I. Persons 15 years of age and younger shall be prohibited to marry, or be in a marriage or civil union.
II. It shall be an illegal and punishable offence to practice services involving the marriage or legal union of persons 15 years of age and younger.

---

SECTION II - IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION
I. Breaches of this Act shall be considered a punishable offense in member states. Failure of member states to enforce this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
II. All member states of the European Union are required to adjust their national law(s) with this Act effective in 6 months time from its approval by the European Council.

[Inquista]

Debate begins NOW and will last until 20:30 GMT on November 22nd, 2020.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Duxburian Union]

15 is the age at which a Duxburian becomes a provisional adult, with many of the rights of full 20 year old adults. They are not minors and they can marry. Prohibiting child marriage by using a country's age of majority as the benchmark would have been fine and received widespread support. Forcing us to change our age of majority to an arbitrary number just to suit your own culture, however, will not fly. We will not comply if this is passed, take us to court. And even then, we will not comply. You've gone too far this time.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[BrumBrum]

@Duxburian-Union said in Child Marriage Act 2020:

benchmark would have been fine and received widespread support. Forcing us to change our age of majority to an arbitrary number just to suit your own culture, however, will

WE in the Duchies fully support this act. It is vital we act to protect children at a European level from sexual exploitation and being married off. One cannot make a informed lifelong choice at that age for something as important as marriage. 16 is the right age to do this. I say to the Duxbarion Union representitive this, at 15 they are still children as acknowledged by most countries in the world. This is not a culture based assessment but a science based one, by simply leaving it at age of majority would only make child abuse easy by allowing countries to set an age of majority that is low, they could for example set it at 10 or 7. Yes this is an extreme but it could happen that is why we need a defined age for this act. This age seems reasonable.

Tobias Johnson Farage, United Duchies

[Inquista]

Councillor Greene, there are often times - as is the case in Inquista - where people are allowed to marry below the age of majority. The age of majority in Inquista is 18, but Inquistans who are 17 are allowed to get married with the consent of their parents or guardians. Thus, in Inquista, your right to marriage actually isn't exclusively tied to the age of majority, as I've just outlined, and so are many rights and privileges. I don't think this act actually establishes an age of majority, it only establishes an age in which you cannot be married.

I like that, unlike in the previous version of this act, which stated that only those who are 18 and above can marry, with some exceptions with 16 and 17 year olds, that this act just establishes who cannot marry: those who are 15 year old and younger. In this case, I think it's fair to blanektly state that 15 year olds across Europe cannot and should not be allowed to marry.

Councilor Greene, l'm also very confused now as to who can marry in the Duxburian Union. Previously you stated that only 20 year olds in the Duxburian Union could marry. So if this passed, I'm not sure how the Duxburian Union could defy this, unless the DU brought their right to marry to below 15 years of age - which doesn't seem likely given what we've previously said.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

Colleagues, I have submitted an amendment about Coun. Greene's issue on the old version of this proposal. But again, here we go with this. You see, the EU shouldn't be the one regulating these very sensitive demographics since these are already within the sovereignty of the member-states. Section I backed by Section II Paragraph II is a complete disturbance to all member-states and I fear that they will start to leave one by one because of that phrase. Hence, I propose the following amendments:

Amendment I:
SECTION I - ABILITY TO MARRIAGE OR UNION
I. Persons 15 years of age and younger within the age of minority of a member-state, set by its laws and regulations shall be prohibited to marry, or be in a marriage or civil union.
II. It shall be an illegal and punishable offence to practice services involving the marriage or legal union of persons 15 years of age and younger within the age of minority of a member-state, set by its laws and regulations.

Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Inquista]

I oppose this amendment from the Councillor of Reitzmag. As I just previously explained, and also explained in the previous debate, people below the age of majority can marry all the time, and member states often make exceptions for this, as again demonstrated in our previous debate on this legislation. Sometimes those below the age of majority can get married at younger ages with parental consent.

Also, the age in which you can marry is not necessarily tied to the age of majority, and the two terms are absolutely not synonymous. Some member states may choose to harmonize their age of majority and the age of marriage, but that's prerogative, and still has nothing to do with the terms being synonymous. Irregardless, this Act doesn't even state when people can marry. The legislation only simply states when person cannot marry. The legislation is pretty concise and clear that those who are 15 and younger cannot marry, but it does not state when person have the right to marriage - which is still left up to the member states.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Duxburian Union]

Having been informed by the Speaker that I previously mentioned 20 as the year a Duxburian can marry, I had to sit down and review Duxburian law again. There are many laws and regulations I'm required to be familiar with as a councillor and thus the sheer volume leads to mistakes in memory. It turns out I am mistaken and while people do gain many rights at 15, marriage is still reserved for a fully-fledged 20 year old adult.

Therefore, I withdraw all Duxburian objections to the act as written, with my apologies to the Council for the mixup. We are still fiercely protective of our culture, values, norms, and laws, but this one would not affect our age to marry after all, and thus I am left with no reason to oppose it.

Councillor Farage, please show me the science that a Duxburian 15 year old can't handle the decisions that a Duxburian 16 year old can. I don't care what other countries do, this is not those countries. Our society is extremely daunting for any person to navigate and thrive in, which is why we start provisional adulthood at 15 and not 16 or 17, or 18. They need the extra time to prepare for the challenges of extreme meritocracy and personal responsibility. How do you expect me to trust some other country's science when you can't even spell my country's name?

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

Well thank you for the clarification Mr. Firoux, well that means this act will have no sense at all logically. Is there a member-state that even allows marriage of minors? That would be a very crazy idea unless there's an anarchic member-state here. So I'd like to withdraw my amendment instead and oppose this act. However, I do support the idea but this act has no use for now.

Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Vayinaod]

This version of the act is far more acceptable to me, and I will gladly support it.

I stand against the proposed amendment from Cllr. Van Allen.

Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod

[Spain]

The last proposed act was messy in my opinion, and had many work to do before being seen as an affordable bill for the European Union. Spain doesn't allow anyone to marry until they turn 18, but we are conscious of many ethnic groups, especially gypsys, which are breaking the law. The Government is unable to do something, because there's no consistant evidence, like photos or videos published on Social Media which could be used as evidences to punish the parents of that children forced to marry.

Councillor van Allen, I'm sorry but I'm once again against your withdrawn amendment. This act won't be useless, as sometimes it's better to have laws written instead of waiting for some insane nation to allow child marriage.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Inquista]

Debate is now over. It is time to vote on amendments. Voting on amendments will last until 21:45 GMT on November 29th, 2020.

There is one amendment, proposed by Councillor Van Allen:

Amendment I - Proposed by Cllr. Van Allen
SECTION I - ABILITY TO MARRIAGE OR UNION
I. Persons 15 years of age and younger within the age of minority of a member-state, set by its laws and regulations shall be prohibited to marry, or be in a marriage or civil union.
II. It shall be an illegal and punishable offence to practice services involving the marriage or legal union of persons 15 years of age and younger within the age of minority of a member-state, set by its laws and regulations.

---

I vote AGAINST Councillor Van Allen's amendment.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Spain]

Mr. Speaker, I think Cllr. van Allen withdrew his amendment.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Inquista]

We love to see it.

Alrighty, time for final voting. Voting will begin NOW and will last until 22:45 GMT on November 29th, 2020.

On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I shall vote FOR this Act.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies I VOTE for this act.

Tobias Johnson Farage

[Nofoaga]

On behalf of the Republic of Nofoaga, I vote AGAINST this act.

Mrs. Paul-Gabrielle Muzhare
EU Councillor for the Republic of Nofoaga

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I ABSTAIN from voting.

Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Inimicus]

The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR this act.

Hetty Tilki

[Spain]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR this act.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Duxburian Union]

The Union of Duxburian Dominions votes FOR the act.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union