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

[Christian Democrats]

I have decided to make my own attempt at a repeal of Resolution 39 on legal grounds instead of moral or cultural grounds (see the Auralian draft to repeal this resolution).

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Repeal "The Right to a Lawful Divorce"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#39 | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recalling that this Assembly, in Resolution 205, Freedom of Contract, affirmed "a fundamental right to liberty, which includes the freedom to choose, think, and act as an individual,"

Further recalling that this Assembly, in that same resolution, recognized that "a person's freedom to voluntarily and willfully make agreements with others is an important part of their fundamental right to liberty,"

Recognizing that Resolution 39, the Right to a Lawful Divorce, grants a spouse unfettered license to dissolve a marriage regardless of the terms of the marital contract to which that individual earlier agreed,

Believing that Resolution 39 thus infringes on the fundamental liberty of contract because it requires that divorces be made available "without let or hindrance" irrespective of the terms that the spouses contracted out of their own individual sovereignty,

Realizing that Resolution 39 unreasonably denies individuals their fundamental right to commit themselves voluntarily to interpersonal, romantic relationships with binding (legally enforceable) terms, including lifelong unions or even unions for shorter periods of time, since any party to a marriage can dissolve the contract "with promptitude" and with "[n]o penalty of any kind,"

Expressing its vehement opposition to Resolution 39, a law that unjustly intervenes in personal romantic relationships, because it violates freedom of contract and freedom of choice: the liberty to choose for oneself the terms on which one enters a marital union,

Convinced that romantic partners who choose to marry are perfectly capable and should be allowed to determine freely the exit clauses of their own unions without unnecessary involvement by the national or subnational government, let alone an international body,

Seeking to resolve the irreconcilable tension between the so-called right to divorce and the fundamental right to contract,

Repeals Resolution 39, the Right to a Lawful Divorce.

[San Benedict e San Francesco]

I... I can't even...

There's no flaw to find on these grounds, sir.

[United Federation of Canada]

WOW!!! Is this the best you can come up with CD?

I have decided to make my own attempt at a repeal of Resolution 39 on legal grounds instead of moral or cultural grounds (see the Auralian draft to repeal this resolution).

(Image)

(Image)(Image)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Repeal "The Right to a Lawful Divorce"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#39 | Proposed by: (Image) Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recalling that this Assembly, in Resolution 205, Freedom of Contract, affirmed "a fundamental right to liberty, which includes the freedom to choose, think, and act as an individual," That it did, and all we can say is THANK THE FORCE!!

Further recalling that this Assembly, in that same resolution, recognized that "a person's freedom to voluntarily and willfully make agreements with others is an important part of their fundamental right to liberty," Yep, it did.

Recognizing that Resolution 39, the Right to a Lawful Divorce, grants a spouse unfettered license to dissolve a marriage or similar union regardless of the terms of the marital contract, civil union, or domestic partnership to which that individual earlier agreed, Where is the problem here?

Believing that Resolution 39 infringes on the fundamental liberty of contract because it requires that divorces be made available "without let or hindrance" irrespective of the terms to which the private parties of a marriage had agreed out of their own free will, A pretty basic civil right.

Realizing that Resolution 39 prevents individuals from voluntarily committing themselves to interpersonal, romantic relationships with binding (or legally enforceable) terms, including lifelong unions and even unions for shorter periods of time, since any party to a marriage can dissolve the contract whenever he or she wishes with no penalty whatsoever, Without penalty huh? Alimony seems pretty penalizing to one side.

Expressing its opposition to Resolution 39, a law that intervenes in personal and romantic relationships, because it violates the fundamental freedom to contract and individual freedom of choice, namely the liberty to choose the terms on which one enters a marital union, ????????????????????????? You are really going to use this as your argument?

Repeals Resolution 39, the Right to a Lawful Divorce.

Pretty much a fail right out of the gates, but expected.

OPPOSED

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

Your argument in extremely persuasive, but I oppose this, since I strongly support that resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

Recognizing that Resolution 39, the Right to a Lawful Divorce, grants a spouse unfettered license to dissolve a marriage or similar union regardless of the terms of the marital contract, civil union, or domestic partnership to which that individual earlier agreed, Where is the problem here?

A contract that can be dissolved by either party at any time is effectively meaningless.

Imagine if we did this with business contracts: either party can dissolve the contract at any time without penalty.

Believing that Resolution 39 infringes on the fundamental liberty of contract because it requires that divorces be made available "without let or hindrance" irrespective of the terms to which the private parties of a marriage had agreed out of their own free will, A pretty basic civil right.

What is a basic civil right, and why is it a basic civil right?

Realizing that Resolution 39 prevents individuals from voluntarily committing themselves to interpersonal, romantic relationships with binding (or legally enforceable) terms, including lifelong unions and even unions for shorter periods of time, since any party to a marriage can dissolve the contract whenever he or she wishes with no penalty whatsoever, Without penalty huh? Alimony seems pretty penalizing to one side.

I am simply using the language of the resolution itself, which says:

No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party or parties seeking divorce for the sole reason of such seeking or for the sole reason there is no consent of all parties to such divorce.

Expressing its opposition to Resolution 39, a law that intervenes in personal and romantic relationships, because it violates the fundamental freedom to contract and individual freedom of choice, namely the liberty to choose the terms on which one enters a marital union, ????????????????????????? You are really going to use this as your argument?

If my spouse and I want, why should we not be allowed to bind ourselves to legally enforceable terms in a marital contract? Why should a world government dictate the terms on which my spouse and I marry? Why should it decide the circumstances under which our contract can be dissolved? Why do you think the General Assembly should involve itself in marital relationships in this way?

[Christian Democrats]

Your argument in extremely persuasive, but I oppose this, since I strongly support that resolution.

I do not understand why an international body should dictate the terms under which a private contract between me and my spouse can be dissolved. We should have the freedom to determine the terms of our own marital contract. If I want to bind myself to my wife for life, unless she does X, Y, or Z, I should be at liberty to put that in a legally enforceable marital agreement, which the government cannot override. The freedom of contract is violated if I am not permitted to bind myself to certain terms, and what sort of agreement is more important or more personal than an agreement to marry the individual whom I love?

[Linux and the X]

what sort of agreement is more important or more personal than an agreement to marry the individual whom I love?

Quoting this so you can't revise your remarks and pretend you didn't say it.

[New Sapienta]

Opposed, since it is rather thinly veiled.

[New Tarajan]

Expressing its opposition to Resolution 39, a law that unjustly intervenes in personal and romantic relationships, because it violates the fundamental freedom to contract and individual freedom of choice, namely the liberty to choose the terms on which one enters a marital union,

Excuse me, honourable colleague, but this is a non-sense: you want to repeal a resolution that grants to all individuals the freedom to dissolve a union (a FREE union), claiming it would be an offense to their own freedom.
I may ask to you what to you define as "freedom". In my opinion, the Resolution GA#39 does not absolutely harm any kind of freedom, and it is a good piece of international legislation.
This seems more another attempt to pass an ideological point of view in the World Assembly disguised as "defense of freedom".

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

Should romantic partners have the liberty to decide freely the terms of their own marital contracts?

Absolutely, and there is nothing in the act being discussed stopping it. If both parties are happy with the situation, that's great! If you and your spouse want to stay together forever the WA isn't lifting a single finger to stop you. If the situation turns south then wouldn't it be best if after trying to salvage their marriage people be allowed to walk away before someone actually gets hurt? The idea of forcing people to stay married in the name of freedom is ridiculous.

[Christian Democrats]

I may ask to you what to you define as "freedom". In my opinion, the Resolution GA#39 does not absolutely harm any kind of freedom, and it is a good piece of international legislation.

People, whenever they marry, should have the freedom to define the terms of their own private marital contracts, including the freedom to determine the conditions under which those consensual agreements can be dissolved.

The idea of forcing people to stay married in the name of freedom is ridiculous.

The idea of dictating the terms of private contracts is ridiculous.

Would you apply this same logic to any other type of contract?

Why should an international body determine the exit clauses of private marital contracts?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

As the author of Freedom to Contract, I would like to point out this clause:

3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest

Apparently, long before Freedom to Contract was enacted, the member nations of this assembly, through collective action, regulated certain contracts because they felt doing so met some compelling public policy interest. In fact, we don't have to guess what that compelling interest was:

RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous,

There is no conflict between the general freedom of contract recognized in GA # 205 and the regulation of marital contracts in GA # 39. There are clearly defined, compelling public policy interests that are served by the right to a lawful divorce.

Best Regards,

[Christian Democrats]

There is no conflict between the general freedom of contract recognized in GA # 205 and the regulation of marital contracts in GA # 39. There are clearly defined, compelling public policy interests that are served by the right to a lawful divorce.

No-fault divorce laws make no sense because they allow either spouse unilaterally and capriciously to dissolve a civil marriage with no consequences, thus rendering such agreements effectively meaningless and untenable due to the inability for legal enforcement to occur. If there is a "compelling public policy interest" in regulating such contracts (recall that the freedom of contract is fundamental), then the terms on which marital dissolution can occur ought to be narrowly tailored to meet the public policy goal.

For instance, a national or subnational government might require that divorce or separation be allowed under a set of clearly defined circumstances, such as abuse, adultery, conviction of a felony, endangerment, fraud, incurable insanity, or neglect.

[Abacathea]

No-fault divorce laws make no sense because they allow either spouse unilaterally and capriciously to dissolve a civil marriage with no consequences, thus rendering such agreements effectively meaningless and untenable due to the inability for legal enforcement to occur.

Explain to me CD, why should there be consequences? This is an argument I fail to understand in it's entirety. As completely and utterly mushball as this is going to sound, marriage, civil partnerships and so forth, are, at their core about love. Why on earth are we basifying to some sort of business venture here.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

There is no conflict between the general freedom of contract recognized in GA # 205 and the regulation of marital contracts in GA # 39. There are clearly defined, compelling public policy interests that are served by the right to a lawful divorce.

No-fault divorce laws make no sense because they allow either spouse unilaterally and capriciously to dissolve a civil marriage with no consequences, thus rendering such agreements effectively meaningless and untenable due to the inability for legal enforcement to occur. If there is a "compelling public policy interest" in regulating such contracts (recall that the freedom of contract is fundamental), then the terms on which marital dissolution can occur ought to be narrowly tailored to meet the public policy goal.

For instance, a national or subnational government might require that divorce or separation be allowed under a set of clearly defined circumstances, such as abuse, adultery, conviction of a felony, endangerment, fraud, incurable insanity, or neglect.

Have you ever been through a divorce? I assure you, there are consequences. For everyone even remotely involved.

Sometimes, there are reasons to put oneself through those consequences. Society should not hold a person's happiness as hostage to the (poor) partnership decisions they have made. That is the compelling public public policy behind no fault divorce: we all change, and sometimes we grow apart from those we once loved. It is not fair to compel adherence to a partnership decision that has outlived its virtue; especially when a change can mean the difference between a joyful life and a miserable one.

[Greater Pokarnia]

No-fault divorce laws make no sense because they allow either spouse unilaterally and capriciously to dissolve a civil marriage with no consequences, thus rendering such agreements effectively meaningless and untenable due to the inability for legal enforcement to occur. If there is a "compelling public policy interest" in regulating such contracts (recall that the freedom of contract is fundamental), then the terms on which marital dissolution can occur ought to be narrowly tailored to meet the public policy goal.

For instance, a national or subnational government might require that divorce or separation be allowed under a set of clearly defined circumstances, such as abuse, adultery, conviction of a felony, endangerment, fraud, incurable insanity, or neglect.

Have you ever been through a divorce? I assure you, there are consequences. For everyone even remotely involved.

Sometimes, there are reasons to put oneself through those consequences. Society should not hold a person's happiness as hostage to the (poor) partnership decisions they have made. That is the compelling public public policy behind no fault divorce: we all change, and sometimes we grow apart from those we once loved. It is not fair to compel adherence to a decision that has outlived its virtue; especially when a change can mean the difference between a joyful life and a miserable one.

What about nations where marriage is not based off of love to begin with?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Have you ever been through a divorce? I assure you, there are consequences. For everyone even remotely involved.

Sometimes, there are reasons to put oneself through those consequences. Society should not hold a person's happiness as hostage to the (poor) partnership decisions they have made. That is the compelling public public policy behind no fault divorce: we all change, and sometimes we grow apart from those we once loved. It is not fair to compel adherence to a decision that has outlived its virtue; especially when a change can mean the difference between a joyful life and a miserable one.

What about nations where marriage is not based off of love to begin with?

Uh... shame?

[Greater Pokarnia]

What about nations where marriage is not based off of love to begin with?

Uh... shame?

I love the cultural tolerance you exude.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Uh... shame?

I love the cultural tolerance you exude.

... joking aside, I was challenged to provide the compelling public policy behind a WA law that legalizes no fault divorce. I have provided one: we don't want individuals to be miserable because (for whatever reason) they're unhappy in their marriage.

I get that there's a Nat Sov argument that goes something like "well, in my nation we don't really care if individuals are happy in their marriage." Stuff it. There's a Nat Sov argument against everything we do. That doesn't mean there isn't also a compelling reason for the legislation we pass.

[Greater Pokarnia]

I love the cultural tolerance you exude.

... joking aside, I was challenged to provide the compelling public policy behind a WA law that legalizes no fault divorce. I have provided one: we don't want individuals to be miserable because (for whatever reason) they're unhappy in their marriage.

I get that there's a Nat Sov argument that goes something like "well, in my nation we don't really care if individuals are happy in their marriage." Stuff it. There's a Nat Sov argument against everything we do. That doesn't mean there isn't also a compelling reason for the legislation we pass.

That's all you had to say. I'm in support of the "Right to a Lawful Divorce", I just like seeing how people justify their arguments.

[Christian Democrats]

Explain to me CD, why should there be consequences? This is an argument I fail to understand in it's entirety.

People should not be allowed to break their promises, especially legal ones, without repercussions except in extreme cases. An entire public institution loses some of its validity when it is treated as dissolvable at any time and without consequences.

Have you ever been through a divorce? I assure you, there are consequences. For everyone even remotely involved.

Sometimes, there are reasons to put oneself through those consequences. Society should not hold a person's happiness as hostage to the (poor) partnership decisions they have made. That is the compelling public public policy behind no fault divorce: we all change, and sometimes we grow apart from those we once loved. It is not fair to compel adherence to a decision that has outlived its virtue; especially when a change can mean the difference between a joyful life and a miserable one.

Some U.S. states have instituted what are known as covenant marriages. If two people wanted to enter such a relationship, why should they be prohibited from doing so? Does the government know better than the couple how their romantic relationship ought to go? Essentially, the resolution you are defending bans people from freely choosing such options. Why should a couple not be allowed to determine for itself the terms on which it enters a legal and social union? Why should the government get involved?

At the very least, should the General Assembly, if it wants to require no-fault divorce, not allow member states to institute waiting periods? In Canada, for example, the Divorce Act says that couples cannot obtain divorces, unless they "have lived separate and apart for at least one year preceding the determination of the divorce proceeding." In Ireland, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution says that "the spouses [must] have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years" before a divorce can be obtained. In Australia, married couples may divorce only if they have been separated for at least a year. In New Zealand, a marriage or civil union can be dissolved if and only if the couple has lived apart for at least two years. And so forth.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We must say we find your poll very distastefully worded. It reminds us of a passage from some ridiculous soap opera called Yes Minister within that soap opera real life... about how to trap people into agreeing with you.

You could just as easily have asked the question 'Should romantic partners have the liberty to decide freely whether they want to be/remain married?' But of course you didn't. The very resolution you plan to repeal grants better individual freedom of choice than your repeal.

[Christian Democrats]

The very resolution you plan to repeal grants better individual freedom of choice than your repeal.

Would you favor this same "freedom of choice" in all other contracts? Also, why should individual member states not be allowed to determine which freedom is "better"? Surely, you know that conceptions of freedom differ among cultures.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Safe to say, against.
Divorce must be legal and available.

[Walrasia]

The very resolution you plan to repeal grants better individual freedom of choice than your repeal.

Would you favor this same "freedom of choice" in all other contracts?

All contracts are breakable, and breaking them has repercussions. Divorce is no different. So, yes.