PASSED: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The state may have a practical interest in not compelling individual churches to perform them (this would be the only conceivable place where religious liberty enters the equation), ...

Yes indeed, and that is all I was claiming that COCR allowed - nothing more. Needless to say I was not expecting the discussion of the actual repeal to be sidelined by a bizarre tangent over just how much COCR allows nations to trample religious freedom. For the time being, why don't we get back to what the repeal is arguing: that FOMA is redundant, it only protects same-sex couples, and contains a weird loophole in which nations think they can get around enforcing marriage equality by privatizing all business of marriage to the church.

Go.

[Railana]

That said, opposite-sex relationships are naturally ordered towards procreation, given that vaginal intercourse is a key component of human reproduction; the same cannot be said of same-sex relationships. Capacity to have vaginal intercourse is often indirectly a requirement for marriages, at least in jurisdictions where marriages that were never consummated can be annulled.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"With the technological advancements of in-vitro fertilization and the accessibility of surrogates, the concern is vanishing. Besides, it doesn't seem to touch those instances of those choosing not to reproduce."

Such alternative means of reproduction are rarely used in practice, however. The use of contraception, while more common, does not negate the fact that historically marriage has been intimately tied to procreation as the natural fulfillment of the conjugal act. We believe that it is legitimate for states to recognize the institution of marriage in such a way that reflects its natural ordering, which would necessitate the exclusion of same-sex relationships.

There is also a related argument to be made that marriage is ultimately defined as a comprehensive union between two persons, including not only spiritual and emotional union but also bodily union. It is interesting to note that human beings are functionally complete except in one area: reproduction. Humans require another human being of the opposite sex to reproduce. Bodily union between two persons is therefore only possible through (unprotected) vaginal intercourse, in which two bodies are mutually coordinated to accomplish the common biological purpose of reproduction. It is important to note that such a union existed even when reproduction did not actually occur, in the same way that any union that does not accomplish its goal nonetheless existed. As same-sex couples are inherently incapable of such a union, it is legitimate for states to refrain from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm not sure why a bodily union has to be explicitly heterosexual, ambassador. Or even why it has to exist; surely there are couples out there wedded in matrimony who engage in non-traditional intercourse. Or none at all. I believe my neice is very fond of the story of two asexual women who got married in my home nation. She finds it very romantic, but that's a 12 year old girl for you.

"I simply don't see how, especially considering the Sexual Privacy Act, there is any reason for a government to consider reproduction and copulation in marriages."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...naturally ordered.... natural fulfillment of the conjugal act... ... natural ordering... comprehensive union between two persons... spiritual and emotional union... bodily union... biological purpose...

My apologies, ambassador, but the introduction of metaphysical jargon and unsupportable essentialism does not give the state a quantifiable goal that can be advanced by forcing a particular philosophical viewpoint on people who wish to spend their lives together. I do not see what ivory tower soft-science whole-cloth bloviation about the true inner goals of the vagina has to do with a discussion of the rights of people. Yes, any discussion of rights rests on philosophical bases; but trying to use the mere facts of biological history to justify limiting the free acts of individuals who harm none is... well... are you joking?

As to the repeal at hand, I'm certain CoCR would treat Mr. Fulton's proposed limitation as a violation; but it's been alleged there are other possible loopholes. If anyone can cite some, I'd be glad of the light shined thereon.

[Pennswald]

Having read both FoMA and CoCR, and considering the debate of our esteemed colleagues, we have come to the following conclusions:

• FoMA, despite its title, is a one-trick pony, focused upon permitting M/M & F/F marriages.
• CoCR, although it does not explicity refer to marriage, is far more comprehensive and effecitve in barring discrimination.
• FoMA exists only because it preceded CoCR. Had CoCR passed first, it is likely that FoMA would be seen as redundant legislation.

Given also, that Pennswald was already convinced of the following propositions:

• That gender has several aspects: chromosomes, gonads, genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, soceital function, and self image.
• While male-female pair bonding may be the normative basis, it is not the sole basis for the formation of households and families.
• Although the state does have a compelling interest in the formation and maintenance of stable households, its only concern is that those entering into such a relationship are consenting adults. Therefore the only legitimate restrictions are those based upon age of consent and mental competence.
• Culture is the primary determinant for a society's acceptable household forms.
• As long as sentient civil rights are preserved, household formation is a domestic issue and outside the purview of the WA.

Pennswald is therefore of the opinion that FoMA does not sufficiently provide for marriage freedom and can be repealed in favor of the additions protections provided by CoCR. Indeed, the presence of CoCR makes FoMA a bipedally challenged water fowl.

Pennswald says "Aye".

[The Palentine]

The good but unwholesome Senator Sulla leans back in his chair and places his feet on his desk as he relaxes and sips Wild Turkey on the rocks while smoking a fine Yeldan cigar the size of a small kosher salami. He looks over at his Kennyite counterpart and says,
"You really know how to stir things up and bring the nutjobs from both sides of the arguments out don't you old bean? Oh wel,l I haven't anticipated this much fun in a debate since the Thessadorian Ambassador got hit with a cherry pie right in the chest. You know I'll support you in this endeavor, but would you like me to notify the Jaegermonsters or the dolphins in case you need some help with dealing with the opposition, old bean?"

The reprobate then takes a puff from his cigar and exhales a cloud of fragrant blue smoke which wafts out into the Festering Snakepit.

[Socialist Assembly Marxists]

:roll:

Yeah, trust me, there was quite the pro-gay backlash against the repeal -- despite the fact that it did not address the issue of gay rights at all, just redundant legislation. I was afraid Aram Koopman might have an aneurysm, right there on the GA floor. We were accused of everything, from the standard "homophobia" card, to "lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas," to wanting to "abolish the erotic liberties of the human race." They had it out on the UNOG forum, with everyone throwing down. It's all right here in the NSwiki archive, if you want to have a look.

At any rate, people are just as liable now to misread a repeal as they were before. I don't think it's going to affect our chances of success much.

You have our support in repealing redundant legislation.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Poll added. Scroll up and let the WA Know just how you feel!

This will be at vote Wednesday night by my calculations. If you wanna "told ya so," do it now before the GA weighs in.

[Chester Pearson]

Poll added. Scroll up and let the WA Know just how you feel!

This will be at vote Wednesday night by my calculations. If you wanna "told ya so," do it now before the GA weighs in.

You do realize Mousey is going to stomp this into the pavement, correct?

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm sure you're not suggesting that the Modern NatSovs would vote against a repeal of Freedom of Marriage Act?

Freedom to Govern!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*snip*

Really? I had no idea mousey was opposed to repealing redundant legislation. Or wedded to FOMA at all. I guess all those years I've spent playing with her have been total lies. Who is the real mousey?

[Chester Pearson]

*snip*

Really? I had no idea mousey was opposed to repealing redundant legislation. Or wedded to FOMA at all. I guess all those years I've spent playing with her have been total lies. Who is the real mousey?

Last time I checked OA is fairly redundant, yet Mouse seems to be defending that one to the death....

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That's because the modern NatSov is supposed to be gung-ho for mandated late-term abortions...I don't recall anything ever being said about marriage...

[Kelinfort]

A bit Natsov-ish. Given the potential implications, no vote yet

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

What, in this entire repeal argument, do you find "NatSov-ish"??

Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #15
Proposed by: Omigodtheyclonedkenny

Description: WA Resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to the cause of human rights and extending protections for LGBT persons across the NS world,

Resolving itself, however, of the need to remove wasteful, redundant and unnecessary legislation from its books,

Recalling that subsequent to Freedom of Marriage Act's adoption, Resolution #35: The Charter of Civil Rights was enacted, forbidding discrimination by governments and/or public-service providers based on any "reductive categorisation," not just sex or sexual preference,

Contending that the passage of COCR eclipses the need for a Freedom of Marriage Act, as COCR effectively outlaws discrimination in the performance and recognition of marriages, and in a far more efficient manner,

Believing that this is evidenced by the fact that Freedom of Marriage Act only addresses discrimination in marriage based on sex, whereas COCR also outlaws discrimination against interracial, interfaith or intercultural couples,

Further condemning the confusing and needlessly complicated legal structure created by Freedom of Marriage Act, in which undefined "religious communities" are exempted from its terms, leaving theocratic regimes and nations with privatized marriage in doubt as to which set of rules they are meant to follow,

Reminding member states that repealing this act will not authorize discrimination against same-sex couples in any way,

Hereby REPEALS Resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act.

[Chester Pearson]

That's because the modern NatSov is supposed to be gung-ho for mandated late-term abortions...I don't recall anything ever being said about marriage...

I guess were going to find out now aren't we?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I suppose we will. She may decide to stomp just because she's still mad about my RF repeal, but I don't recall her having any passionate feelings about FOMA one way or the other.

At any rate she hasn't responded to any of my messages, so I'm gonna have to watch from the cheap seats like the rest of you guys.

[Khatovaria]

It is the belief of my Khatovarian people and myself that the government has no place in marriage regardless of the circumstance. As such, I will be representing my nation by voting AGAINST this resolution and any other that implies that a government (World Assembly, Regional, or National) will have its fingers in the union between two people in any way.

[Ikania]

And all the same-sex community is going to read is "OH NO! WE DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MARRY EACH OTHER ANYMORE!" and vote no. While I would vote for it, it will go over like a shit balloon and you know it....

WHAT'S THAT PEARSON

WHAT'S THAT?

I never thought this would be repealed, nor would I ever vote to do so, but here I am.

[Burninati0n]

I used to be active on this forum, then I kind of stopped. I had to come back to post here because the present GA proposal is somehow winning. Shame on us all.

The thing is, it's right in some theoretical world where there has never been significant anti-homosexual tendencies that generic civil rights guarantees are sufficient for all classes.

But this is not such a world. For example, in my country, discrimination against blacks, homosexuals, and African Americans are all forbidden by generic civil rights legislation. There was even an attempt at one point at amending our constitution to include an "Equal Rights Amendment" to strengthen this guarantee. However it was defeated for the same reason that the present proposal seeks to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It should already be covered.

But in my country, women, homosexuals, and blacks are all discriminated against. Generic protections, it turns out, are inadequate when you have a social group that has a history of being discriminated against. In those cases you need specific legislation, or countries that want to maintain the status quo will get around it.

It's a shame that the WA, an assembly that once guaranteed this right by a huge voting margin, is now willing to see that right subverted for BS reasons that don't hold up under strict scrutiny.

[Normlpeople]

I used to be active on this forum, then I kind of stopped. I had to come back to post here because the present GA proposal is somehow winning. Shame on us all.

The thing is, it's right in some theoretical world where there has never been significant anti-homosexual tendencies that generic civil rights guarantees are sufficient for all classes.

But this is not such a world. For example, in my country, discrimination against blacks, homosexuals, and African Americans are all forbidden by generic civil rights legislation. There was even an attempt at one point at amending our constitution to include an "Equal Rights Amendment" to strengthen this guarantee. However it was defeated for the same reason that the present proposal seeks to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It should already be covered.

But in my country, women, homosexuals, and blacks are all discriminated against. Generic protections, it turns out, are inadequate when you have a social group that has a history of being discriminated against. In those cases you need specific legislation, or countries that want to maintain the status quo will get around it.

It's a shame that the WA, an assembly that once guaranteed this right by a huge voting margin, is now willing to see that right subverted for BS reasons that don't hold up under strict scrutiny.

"I would suggest that your nation is the exception, not the norm. Your government is already required to grant the protections of the CoCR to the various minority groups you mentioned, should your individual citizens have an issue with racism, I would suggest that is a social problem in your nation that you need to correct on your own.

I am pleased to see this poorly written piece of legislation removed from the books. While we don't recognize marriage in our nation, we do welcome the possibilities this opens up for our citizens who may choose to marry, either in one of the many minority religions or in other nations."

[Burninati0n]

"I would suggest that your nation is the exception, not the norm. Your government is already required to grant the protections of the CoCR to the various minority groups you mentioned, should your individual citizens have an issue with racism, I would suggest that is a social problem in your nation that you need to correct on your own.

And I would suggest that you take your head out of the sand and deal with the real world.

Even if my nation is the exception not the norm, don't homosexuals in my exceptional country deserve the same rights as everyone else? And in other exceptional countries?

Your refusal to deal with the way the world actually is in preference for keeping your head in the sand is the most dangerous tendency one can possibly adopt in politics.

[Normlpeople]

"I would suggest that your nation is the exception, not the norm. Your government is already required to grant the protections of the CoCR to the various minority groups you mentioned, should your individual citizens have an issue with racism, I would suggest that is a social problem in your nation that you need to correct on your own.

And I would suggest that you take your head out of the sand and deal with the real world.

Even if my nation is the exception not the norm, don't homosexuals in my exceptional country deserve the same rights as everyone else? And in other exceptional countries?

Your refusal to deal with the way the world actually is in preference for keeping your head in the sand is the most dangerous tendency one can possibly adopt in politics.

Clover sighed, shaking her head "Yes, they do. I don't know what goes on in your world, but in mine, homosexuals go about their business in the same way everyone else does, free to do as they wish. Harassment isn't an issue because it simply does not occur. Our citizens realize every one of them is equal, as is decreed by the Princess, and they treat each other in that manner.

You seem to have a social problem in your nation dealing with the fact that the freedoms granted by the CoCR are not being respected by individual citizens. What makes you believe these citizens respect the freedoms granted by this useless piece of legislation? If you have an issue with your citizens discriminating against minorities, then it is a social problem your own nation needs to address, the WA cannot, and will not, solve it for you."

[The Sotoan Union]

Maybe very pedantic but LGBT isn't just the rights of same sex couples. It also includes the rights of transgendered who may not identify as male or female. The last sentence says that this repeal does not give countries the right to discriminate against same sex couples, but what about transgender couples?

[Burninati0n]

the WA cannot, and will not, solve it for you."

Head + sand.

The WA CAN and DID solve it for me.

There are some in the WA who seem not to want to deal with this, since they don't seem to realize that they live in the real world, not in the world of logic where you never need to say the same thing twice to make sure you got your point across.