NationStates

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent of GAR #15, "Freedom of Marriage Act",

WISHING for the ideas contained within said act to be maintained,

NOTING, however, that the act only prevents discrimination in marriage based on sexuality or gender,

BELIEVING that improvements can be made in this area,

REPEALS GAR #15, "Freedom of Marriage Act".

Note: I only intend to submit this if the proposal I am still in the process of writing, which is blocked by this act, looks like it will pass quickly.

Zaklen wrote:

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent of GAR #15, "Freedom of Marriage Act",

WISHING for the ideas contained within said act to be maintained,

NOTING, however, that the act only prevents discrimination in marriage based on sexuality or gender,

BELIEVING that improvements can be made in this area,

REPEALS GAR #15, "Freedom of Marriage Act".

Note: I only intend to submit this if the proposal I am still in the process of writing, which is blocked by this act, looks like it will pass quickly.

You could actually include an argument rather than just saying it could be made better.

Nigel slams his head on his desk.

Oh not this again.

Oh and I can debunk your argument in four letters, CoCR.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Without elaboration, this proposal is, in a nutshell, pointless.

Sincerely,
Representative Abraham Weiss

We cannot support a repeal in favor of a replacement that has not even been laid before this body.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

I'm sorry, but did I miss the bit in FoMA where it says we can't ensure marriage equality on other fronts? Could you point that bit out for me? No? That's probably because it isn't there.

-Gwaredd LLwyd
Lieutenant WA Ambassador for Embolalia

Embolalia wrote:I'm sorry, but did I miss the bit in FoMA where it says we can't ensure marriage equality on other fronts? Could you point that bit out for me? No? That's probably because it isn't there.

-Gwaredd LLwyd
Lieutenant WA Ambassador for Embolalia

"While the Queendom agrees with Your Excellency, this Secretariat ruling should be taken into consideration", Lord Raekevik pointed out.

Flibbleites wrote:Oh and I can debunk your argument in four letters, CoCR.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

"Unfortunately, the Charter of Civil Rights does not mean that polyamorous people have marriage rights in member states", Lord Raekevik asserted. "Although since I have not seen the alleged replacement planned here, I cannot tell whether that is what the author intends to address."

The replacement I have planned is rather complicated, and is not ready for the floor yet. I should have it ready in the next couple of hours, so, at latest, it will be proposed tomorrow morning. As for my reason behind repealing this, "Freedom of Marriage Act" mandates non-discrimination of couples based on gender or sexual orientation. While this does not conflict directly with what I am drafting, if #15 were to be repealed, my proposal would have a significant hole in it. In order to avoid something very close to a house of cards violation, I need "Freedom of Marriage Act" repealed, so that I can avoid a duplication violation, and keep my proposal solid.

Like I have stated, I will not get serious about repealing #15 until my proposal has gained at least moderate support, as I wish to avoid a situation in which an important piece of legislation has been repealed, and ambassadors scramble to replace it, resulting in shoddy legislation.

Over my dead body.

Yours,

"The embassy of Aman is always happy to replace flawed proposals with better ones, but since GAR#15 does not apply to Aman, as the centralized government does not marry people by civil contract, we shall abstain on this issue for the time being." The Lady Malréd responded.

The Republic of Quadrimmina will gladly lend its support to this measure in favor of our own proposed replacement for the Freedom of Marriage Act. While we have reservations about the repeal of FoMA (namely the possibility of more stringent marriage resolutions being passed), we are equally concerned about the international status of interracial, interspecies, polygamous, and other marriages denied by member states due to reductive classifications. Our legal scholars have attempted to apply FoMA and CoCR criteria to this matter, but can only come up with the fact that CoCR, while ensuring that people are not discriminated against based on reductive classifications, does not ensure that two or more individuals cannot be denied the right to wed because of a difference in their traits that are based on reductive classifications, nor can they be denied that right based on number of individuals. It is in this mind that we support this repeal.

Alqania wrote:"Unfortunately, the Charter of Civil Rights does not mean that polyamorous people have marriage rights in member states", Lord Raekevik asserted. "Although since I have not seen the alleged replacement planned here, I cannot tell whether that is what the author intends to address."

Quadrimmina wrote:Our legal scholars have attempted to apply FoMA and CoCR criteria to this matter, but can only come up with the fact that CoCR, while ensuring that people are not discriminated against based on reductive classifications, does not ensure that two or more individuals cannot be denied the right to wed because of a difference in their traits that are based on reductive classifications, nor can they be denied that right based on number of individuals. It is in this mind that we support this repeal.

"With the greatest respect, we are unsure of whether such a stance is reasonable? If something is discriminated based on something manifested from a reductive classification, surely it is from that reductive classification that they are discriminated against?" Lord Whittingrey queried. "Furthermore, insofar as we can make out, if 1(c) of The Charter of Civil Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of pretty much anything; we cannot find any reasonable non-prejudicial treatment which could disallow civil unions. Therefore, while we think that CoCR covers all the discrimination that needs to be covered; we are not entirely convinced that a repeal is necessary, although if it is impossible to write a decent proposal without duplication we may be happy to vote in favour of this repeal." He paused.
"Furthermore, again," Lord Whittingrey continued, "we are curious as to why the Republic of Quadrimmina is in support of this repeal for the purpose of supporting a withdrawn illegal proposal? Will Quadrimmina be redrafting their proposal?"

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:

Alqania wrote:"Unfortunately, the Charter of Civil Rights does not mean that polyamorous people have marriage rights in member states", Lord Raekevik asserted. "Although since I have not seen the alleged replacement planned here, I cannot tell whether that is what the author intends to address."

Quadrimmina wrote:Our legal scholars have attempted to apply FoMA and CoCR criteria to this matter, but can only come up with the fact that CoCR, while ensuring that people are not discriminated against based on reductive classifications, does not ensure that two or more individuals cannot be denied the right to wed because of a difference in their traits that are based on reductive classifications, nor can they be denied that right based on number of individuals. It is in this mind that we support this repeal.

"With the greatest respect, we are unsure of whether such a stance is reasonable? If something is discriminated based on something manifested from a reductive classification, surely it is from that reductive classification that they are discriminated against?" Lord Whittingrey queried. "Furthermore, insofar as we can make out, if 1(c) of The Charter of Civil Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of pretty much anything; we cannot find any reasonable non-prejudicial treatment which could disallow civil unions. Therefore, while we think that CoCR covers all the discrimination that needs to be covered; we are not entirely convinced that a repeal is necessary, although if it is impossible to write a decent proposal without duplication we may be happy to vote in favour of this repeal." He paused.
"Furthermore, again," Lord Whittingrey continued, "we are curious as to why the Republic of Quadrimmina is in support of this repeal for the purpose of supporting a withdrawn illegal proposal? Will Quadrimmina be redrafting their proposal?"

Our argument is that while CoCR prohibits discrimination of individuals on the basis of certain classifications, the discrimination of two or more individuals on the basis of not sharing the same type of those classifications may still be allowable. For instance, take an interracial couple. Neither one of them can be discriminated against due to race. But, could their marriage still be prohibited? Sure. Interracial marriage can be illegal so long as it is legal for everyone. Also, CoCR makes no guarantees with respect to polygamous marriage, even if our prior assertion is wrong.

And the withdrawn/illegal proposal is only illegal due to FoMA's existence. FoMA's repeal would make our proposal legal.