[DEFEATED] Repeal "The Right to a Lawful Divorce"

[Railana]

As we don't anticipate any additional constructive criticism, we'll likely be submitting this soon.

We're finding it difficult to believe that not terminating a marriage could make anything easier on a couple who just aren't suitable for one another. Are you honestly proposing that a couple constantly in a web of arguments and dispute would be happier not going their separate ways?

I am honestly proposing that marriage counselling sometimes works and that divorce isn't always the right way to go.

If the welfare of children involved is your primary concern, why not attempt to legislate on that? This seems like an encroachment on what we see as a fundamental right to terminate marriages that simply aren't working.

I'm not sure what you mean by "legislate on that". The whole point of this repeal is that the target resolution prevents such legislative initiatives.

Assuming that the couples in question haven't already gone through the necessary motions to try and heal their relationships. In reality, encouraging states to discourage divorce is only creating more red tape for an already distressing situation.

That's not necessarily the case, though, which is my point. And this proposal would not encourage states to do anything; it is a repeal.

In the event of an abusive spouse, do you honestly propose that their partner stays with an abusive spouse for a prolonged period of time while they go through 'rehabilitation'? Seems like further entrapment for potential victims to me...

No, I don't. Obviously abuse is a legitimate reason for an immediate divorce.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Bananaistan]

That's not what that clause says. At all. For the record, the Railanan government strongly believes that marriage has significant value even for couples with no children. Are you denying that - notwithstanding your refusal to acknowledge marriage's natural link to children and families - most marriages do, in fact, result in children, and that these children are harmed by the effective dissolution of their families?

Perhaps in my roleplay they don't? Leaving that aside, children may or may not be harmed by marriage breakdown. The final act of divorce, IE the state legally recognising the marriage breakdown and dissolving the marriage, does not harm children. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that parents staying together for the children's sake harms the children.

I would also like to see some back up for this conclusively established clause.

I'm not sure what imaginary world you live in where marriage counselling never works, marital disagreements are never resolved and ex-spouses never get back together, but it doesn't work that way in real life. Yes, children are better off if their family units remain intact, and the state has every right to encourage struggling couples to find a way to make it work in such cases.

It may or it may not work. The state has no place forcing people to do it though. Again though, in a divorce situation, the family unit is already damaged. I'm not sure what imaginary world you live in where children are helped by parents remaining in a loveless marriage.

As we don't anticipate any additional constructive criticism, we'll likely be submitting this soon.

Read: I won't bother addressing the points raised by those opposed to the repeal.

In the event of an abusive spouse, do you honestly propose that their partner stays with an abusive spouse for a prolonged period of time while they go through 'rehabilitation'? Seems like further entrapment for potential victims to me...

No, I don't. Obviously abuse is a legitimate reason for an immediate divorce.

And yet your whole repeal argument is based on permitting states to force couples into an arbitrary period of time of counselling. This is not immediate.

[Ocaeania]

If your greatest argument is the welfare of children I highly oppose. The inability to divorce will have an infinitely more negative impact on children than a divorce, as if the parents are divorcing then the relationship is dead. You can't simply tell people to love each other again.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

If your greatest argument is the welfare of children I highly oppose. The inability to divorce will have an infinitely more negative impact on children than a divorce, as if the parents are divorcing then the relationship is dead. You can't simply tell people to love each other again.

"But we can tell them to suck it up, instead of ruining their kids lives, as well as being oathbreakers."

[Toronina]

If your greatest argument is the welfare of children I highly oppose. The inability to divorce will have an infinitely more negative impact on children than a divorce, as if the parents are divorcing then the relationship is dead. You can't simply tell people to love each other again.

"But we can tell them to suck it up, instead of ruining their kids lives, as well as being oathbreakers."

"Oathbreakers? I don't recall 'till death do us part' was expected to be an oath. Besides, what is worse for the kids. Constant fighting from a couple who no longer love each other, but are staying together for the kids, an abusive husband or wife who uses counseling to there advantage OR a couple parting ways, and allowing them to remain friends?"

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"But we can tell them to suck it up, instead of ruining their kids lives, as well as being oathbreakers."

"Oathbreakers? I don't recall 'till death do us part' was expected to be an oath. Besides, what is worse for the kids. Constant fighting from a couple who no longer love each other, but are staying together for the kids, an abusive husband or wife who uses counseling to there advantage OR a couple parting ways, and allowing them to remain friends?"

"Abuse is an exception. No fault divorce is what we oppose. If there's no abuse going on, then the marriage should remain. Parents are supposed to put their children before themselves."

[Toronina]

"Oathbreakers? I don't recall 'till death do us part' was expected to be an oath. Besides, what is worse for the kids. Constant fighting from a couple who no longer love each other, but are staying together for the kids, an abusive husband or wife who uses counseling to there advantage OR a couple parting ways, and allowing them to remain friends?"

"Abuse is an exception. No fault divorce is what we oppose. If there's no abuse going on, then the marriage should remain. Parents are supposed to put their children before themselves."

"So the people should stay in a loveless relationship? To the point where it might very well end with domestic abuse?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Oathbreakers? I don't recall 'till death do us part' was expected to be an oath. Besides, what is worse for the kids. Constant fighting from a couple who no longer love each other, but are staying together for the kids, an abusive husband or wife who uses counseling to there advantage OR a couple parting ways, and allowing them to remain friends?"

"Abuse is an exception. No fault divorce is what we oppose. If there's no abuse going on, then the marriage should remain. Parents are supposed to put their children before themselves."

"All this will do is encourage abusive acts to substantiate an at-fault divorce so the individuals can escape each other. Keeping them bound against their mutual wills is just cruel. People change as they age, and grow apart. There's nothing wrong with allowing them to seek happiness elsewhere."

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"Abuse is an exception. No fault divorce is what we oppose. If there's no abuse going on, then the marriage should remain. Parents are supposed to put their children before themselves."

"All this will do is encourage abusive acts to substantiate an at-fault divorce so the individuals can escape each other. Keeping them bound against their mutual wills is just cruel. People change as they age, and grow apart. There's nothing wrong with allowing them to seek happiness elsewhere."

"I doubt that, considering the abuser will be thrown in jail, and neither party would be permitted to remarry."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...given that divorce is technically an infringement on individual liberty since it prevents parties from contracting a different set of termination conditions and penalties for a marital contract than those prescribed by law....

I'm afraid I must be missing something. Could you elaborate this point? What termination conditions and penalties would be just for the couple and yet illegal? The target resolution is the best possible protector of such a separation contract; nothing in it forces couples to throw in the towel; it only prevents WA governments from forbidding them to do so.

Full disclosure, we'll probably vote against this repeal no matter what, but if there's more to the argument than what I'm afraid we consider the weak sauce of its written text, we'd like to hear it, at least.

[Railana]

((OOC: This is now at vote.))

[Christian Democrats]

...given that divorce is technically an infringement on individual liberty since it prevents parties from contracting a different set of termination conditions and penalties for a marital contract than those prescribed by law....

I'm afraid I must be missing something. Could you elaborate this point? What termination conditions and penalties would be just for the couple and yet illegal? The target resolution is the best possible protector of such a separation contract; nothing in it forces couples to throw in the towel; it only prevents WA governments from forbidding them to do so.

Resolution 39 requires member states to grant immediate divorces regardless of the terms to which the spouses earlier might have agreed.

2010: Jack and Jane marry and agree to undergo three months of counseling if either of them ever wants to divorce.
2015: Jack wants a divorce. Resolution 39 requires the government to dissolve the marriage despite the 2010 agreement.

[The Arkam Asylum]

i have thrown in my support. The World assembly should not be getting thid nitpicky with the rights of member nations.

[The Empire Of The Big Apple]

Every family has their own view on the religious, social, and economical effects, among others, that accompamy this issue. Whatever that family decides is best for them is fine with The Empire Of The Big Apple, and therefore, this bill is a Nay for me, and I hope to help provide options to all citizens.

[Wolfhawk]

reminds me of a Frasier episode

if it was so bad why did you stay together

for you kids

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'm afraid I must be missing something. Could you elaborate this point? What termination conditions and penalties would be just for the couple and yet illegal? The target resolution is the best possible protector of such a separation contract; nothing in it forces couples to throw in the towel; it only prevents WA governments from forbidding them to do so.

Resolution 39 requires member states to grant immediate divorces regardless of the terms to which the spouses earlier might have agreed.

2010: Jack and Jane marry and agree to undergo three months of counseling if either of them ever wants to divorce.
2015: Jack wants a divorce. Resolution 39 requires the government to dissolve the marriage despite the 2010 agreement.

I can't imagine a reasonable court interpreting "without let or hindrance" to mean "even in violation of faithfully executed contracts." Particularly in light of the abundantly repeated language about "appropriate legal systems of WA members."

The fact that multiple nations have taken that ambiguity seriously is, however, troubling.

[Defwa]

Resolution 39 requires member states to grant immediate divorces regardless of the terms to which the spouses earlier might have agreed.

2010: Jack and Jane marry and agree to undergo three months of counseling if either of them ever wants to divorce.
2015: Jack wants a divorce. Resolution 39 requires the government to dissolve the marriage despite the 2010 agreement.

I can't imagine a reasonable court interpreting "without let or hindrance" to mean "even in violation of faithfully executed contracts." Particularly in light of the abundantly repeated language about "appropriate legal systems of WA members."

The fact that multiple nations have taken that ambiguity seriously is, however, troubling.

Indeed. The flagrant abuses certain ambassadors imagine their fellow citizens doing make it clear exactly why the WA has to put its nose into every single right to individual choice.
Member states just can't be trusted. Their ideologically rooted paranoia leads them to folly.

The position of Defwa and the Democratic Socialist Assembly should be clear.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I can't imagine a reasonable court interpreting "without let or hindrance" to mean "even in violation of faithfully executed contracts." Particularly in light of the abundantly repeated language about "appropriate legal systems of WA members."

The fact that multiple nations have taken that ambiguity seriously is, however, troubling.

Indeed. The flagrant abuses certain ambassadors imagine their fellow citizens doing make it clear exactly why the WA has to put its nose into every single right to individual choice.
Member states just can't be trusted. Their ideologically rooted paranoia leads them to folly.

The position of Defwa and the Democratic Socialist Assembly should be clear.

"We disagree, the populace is uneducated in such matters. We know what is best for them, we know how to maintain order, peace and sustainability, we have done so for five billion years, and will continue to do so until the end of time if all goes according to plan."

[Fendon]

We will continue to oppose this repeal. We see this as an affront to a fundamental right to lawful divorce.

[Chrystallia]

The Empire of Chrystallia is against this one. We think it sounds like you want to make it compulsory to go to marriage counseling for 6 months before it's leagal to get a divorce. Marriage counseling can't save a marriage between two people who just aren't ment to be together. Besides we belive that a lot of divorces happens due to the fact that people tend to put themselves and their needs befor their familys needs. That children are often victims in divorce cases is true, but perhaps it's because parents don't take the children into account, when they are arguing. Also we don't belive that this is an international issue.

[The Dark Star Republic]

We will continue to oppose this repeal. We see this as an affront to a fundamental right to lawful divorce.

"We've voted against the repeal, but we can't say its opponents are having an easy time convincing us of their arguments. How can divorce be a "fundamental right"? The WA doesn't even recognise the right to get married in the first place."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Aurinsula]

Against. No-fault divorce is a human right, and abrogating that right will only make it more likely that people will simply abandon their spouses without going through the proper channels.

[Murden]

There is no reason for this to be repealed; the right to a divorce should be available to all citizens in all nations and the government should not interfere with their personal lives.

[Defwa]

We will continue to oppose this repeal. We see this as an affront to a fundamental right to lawful divorce.

"We've voted against the repeal, but we can't say its opponents are having an easy time convincing us of their arguments. How can divorce be a "fundamental right"? The WA doesn't even recognise the right to get married in the first place."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

It does, though, recognize that marriage is all about personal choices. Via the forced marriage ban act.

"We disagree, the populace is uneducated in such matters. We know what is best for them, we know how to maintain order, peace and sustainability, we have done so for five billion years, and will continue to do so until the end of time if all goes according to plan."

Hm, it seems like in all that time you would have figured out how to make your people not so stupid. Either you're not giving your people enough credit or their government is just as incapable.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We disagree, the populace is uneducated in such matters. We know what is best for them, we know how to maintain order, peace and sustainability, we have done so for five billion years, and will continue to do so until the end of time if all goes according to plan."

Hm, it seems like in all that time you would have figured out how to make your people not so stupid. Either you're not giving your people enough credit or their government is just as incapable.

"Kerosene in the water. That has to be it. The C.D.S.P. has had top men working on this question. Top men."

"I doubt that, considering the abuser will be thrown in jail, and neither party would be permitted to remarry."

"By Odin's rock-hard nipples, that has to be illegal somewhere..."