Moderator Ruling Appeal (International Marriage Accords)

[Quadrimmina]

Putting aside the fact that this resolution has been proposed in numerous iterations (most of which were more restrictive than the current one), it has come to my attention that the Secretariat has removed my proposal ("International marriage Accords") from the queue. For your reference, the thread and text of this resolution can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=132711

I would first like to note the differences between FoMA and IMA. FoMA has three operative Articles: one noting that it operates within the realm of two-person unions and excluding religious rites from restriction, one ensuring that marriages and the rights therein granted are protected, and one ensuring that same-sex couples have the same and equal rights to wed as opposite-sex couples, sans discrimination. IMA has four Articles: one differentiating between marriages formed through civil means (those under FoMA control, and IMA control), and those formed through civil means and subsumed by religions, one mandating the performance of any marriage between sapient individuals that meets Article I definitions with special exemptions, one ensuring nondiscrimination in marriages or marital status, and one mandating the portability of marriages and marriage rights between nations. We feel that the fact that IMA is more expansive in its definitions, mandates, and new policies to the point that while FoMA covers some of the same topics, it is not a duplication of FoMA. For instance, would this be a duplication of FoMA if it legalized all kinds of marriages except same-sex marriage?

In the moderator ruling which struck down IMA, it was noted that IMA was "FoM with two people removed and a more expansive definition put into place". This is not at all the case. IMA was conceived not to legalize polygamous marriage, but to legalize interracial and interspecies marriage, something that was in our delegation's eyes a flaw of FoMA (its restrictive nature in only legalizing same-sex marriage). It may render FoMA largely toothless after its passage, but that's only because its language categorically includes the same thing as FoMA. I would like to request further moderator elaboration on this topic and why the Secretariat has reached their decision. Because, in my humble view, it would appear that IMA is more expansive than FoMA and covers far more than FoMA does, and in doing so is not a duplication of FoMA. The argument of the Secretariat that it does very little more than FoMA does fails to take into account the other kinds of marriages currently not regulated by the WA that would be regulated under IMA. By the sheer number of endorsements the proposal got, and the fact that any discussion of illegality was quickly dismissed on the floor debate, it can be noted that there is an international consensus that this resolution is legal.

Also, with respect to resolutions that are too expansive, expansive and less expansive resolutions do exist simultaneously. The simplest example, of course, is CoCR, which bans many kinds of discrimination (some would argue all of them). In the light of this, many GA resolutions could be considered duplication, and CoCR could indeed be considered duplication of resolutions like FoMA. If the issue is the level of expansion though (as CoCR expands discrimination from FoMA and other resolutions to one much more broad), it should be obvious that by taking the limited scope of FoMA (heterosexual vs. homosexual marriages) and expanding it to all kinds of marriage (interracial, interspecies, polygamous, incestuous, etc).

Taking all this into account, I hope the Secretariat will reconsider its position. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to a swift and thorough end to this matter.

[NERVUN]

In many ways, your own argument is exactly why we came to the conclusion that it was duplication. As you noted, by its passage, FoMA would be toothless. You were attempting to re-pass it with many of the same bits within it as FoMA, but a much expanded definition of marriage.

The problem is that FoMA has "locked" as it 'twer a number of key components into place for the WA in regards to marriage. In trying to meet them, you ended up duplicating them.

Yes, you can make an argument that FoMA is lacking in terms of protections for a wide range of possible couples, but that's neither here nor there (Except as a basis for repealing FoMA). We have allowed expansions of rights in the past, yes. The CoCR, for example, as you noted does not cover everything and other resolutions have expanded those protections to others, in various ways. But, the thing is, those expansions were not an attempt to re-write the CoCR to just include a larger group for coverage. Yours was and that is why we reached the conclusion that it was a duplication.

[Ardchoille]

I'm adding this comment here because I initially argued in favour of allowing International Marriage Accords to go to vote, and knowing what changed my mind might help you with the ruling.

First up, though, I should point out that it was a ruling. There is no appeal once a ruling has been made. Because of the way we dealt with your proposal in its final version, all active GA mods have discussed it, or seen it and agreed with the points being made during the discussion.

Next, let me reassure you that we were aware of the scope and intent of your proposal. All posts in the drafting thread where you responded to other players' queries about its legality in view of GA#15 and of GA#160 were collected and posted in the mods' discussion thread -- not that #160 ever posed much of a problem, since it was about non-consensual marriage; but in responding to comments about it you gave some good summaries of the purposes of IMA, and those posts were reviewed too.

I originally argued that your proposal encompassed GA#15 in the way that GA#35, the Charter of Civil Rights, encompassed minor nods to discrimination in earlier "rights" resolutions (eg, GA #23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking). However, when I sampled some of those earlier resolutions, their anti-discrimination clauses were just that, minor clauses, not the entire purpose of the law. They related to the specific right, and by granting the right the WA had removed that specific form of discrimination. But the "right not to be discriminated against in any form" did not exist, so GA#35 didn't duplicate them. Once it did exist, if, say, GA#23 had been submitted after CoCR passed, we might have advised the removal of its "discrimination" reference to avoid duplication, but that wouldn't have killed the whole thing. A proposal banning slavery would still have been valid.

With your proposal, if the chronology of the two were reversed -- if International Marriage Accords were already law, and FOMA were proposed -- would FOMA have been accepted as legal? No; it would clearly duplicate IMA. It wouldn't even rate as an extension; its only purpose would be to permit a specific form of marriage that was already permitted. IMA is simply so comprehensive that it would already cover the areas FOMA would be trying to cover.

The possibility of preserving IMA with one addition, a clause using some such language as "except insofar as international law already provides", was also briefly considered and swiftly rejected. First, because that's not an acceptable way to dodge a repeal; and second, because even when it's not, it's often just sloppy drafting. It can create unlooked-for effects (or justification for repeals) if somebody seizes on a previous law on a completely different topic and applies it to yours. You were right to avoid spoiling a good proposal with any such cop-out.

What you've got with IMA is a much more comprehensive and international replacement for FOMA, but you would have to repeal FOMA first before it could be implemented.

[Quadrimmina]

Thank you to both NERVUN and Ard for your analyses. I appreciate both the thoroughness of your consideration and your taking the time to explain it to me. Thank you for all that you do.