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

[Christian Democrats]

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.

According to Section 5 of the resolution, "No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party or parties seeking divorce."

[Walrasia]

Yes, which means you've also read sections 3 and 4. Divorce is not a free pass. It is fine how it is.

3) Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce. In case the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

4) Upon divorce proceedings, appropriate latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, and appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

[Christian Democrats]

Yes, which means you've also read sections 4 and 5. Divorce is not a free pass. It is fine how it is.

3) Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce. In case the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

4) Upon divorce proceedings, appropriate latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, and appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

Neither of those is really a repercussion. When any other kind of contract is broken, it is considered a civil wrong.

[Walrasia]

Actually, most sensible contracts stipulate what happens in the event of them being broken. That's what those two clauses are. At no point does it say divorcees are absolved of all rights and responsibilities. As a contractor who has had to end contracts prematurely (with good reason), I can assure you it was not considered a civil wrong.

[Linux and the X]

Yes, which means you've also read sections 4 and 5. Divorce is not a free pass. It is fine how it is.

3) Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce. In case the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

4) Upon divorce proceedings, appropriate latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, and appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

Neither of those is really a repercussion. When any other kind of contract is broken, it is considered a civil wrong.

From one of the contracts I'm in:

14. TERMINATION
You may terminate this Agreement at any time by erasing the Password and providing written notice of your termination to VeriSign at [address]; United Kingdom; Attention: Compliance Officer - Naming Services; [email].
VeriSign has the right to terminate this Agreement immediately if:
(a) an ICANN-approved change in the method of access under the Agreement or any terms and conditions of the Agreement results in a failure of its essential purpose;
(b) you or any of your Authorized Individual Users violate the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or
(c) such termination is required by law, regulation, or a change in ICANN approved policy; or
(d) your continued access to and use of the Data or that of your Authorized Individual Users would cause VeriSign to be in violation of any applicable law or regulation; or
(e) VeriSign discovers that the user information provided in Section 2 above is inaccurate in any material way and such inaccuracy is not corrected with 48 hours of VeriSign's issuance of an e-mail to the e-mail address listed in Section 2(h).

Notice that nowhere is a penalty provided for.

[Christian Democrats]

At no point does it say divorcees are absolved of all rights and responsibilities.

Providing for the needs of one's child is a responsibility of parenthood, not marriage; and the "distribution of the parties' common estate" must occur when the spouses divorce. Note that the resolution allows either party to divorce without the consent of the other even if that other party has met all of his or her obligations under the marital contract.

Notice that nowhere is a penalty provided for.

Did the government dictate the terms under which that contract can be terminated?

The point of my argument is that spouses, even if they want, are not allowed to include penalties in their marital contract since Resolution 39 grants either spouse an absolute legal right to dissolve the marriage at any time whatsoever.

Also, with regard to that contract, could you imagine either suing or being sued for taking some action?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

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?

Not all, but some. For instance, we would want freedom of choice to exit an indentured bondage contract.

Also, why should individual member states not be allowed to determine which freedom is "better"?

Why shouldn't the WA protect the right of people not to be trapped in a marriage? We'd much rather that than have some theocracy letting people trap themselves.

Surely, you know that conceptions of freedom differ among cultures.

We'd sooner have individual freedoms protected by the WA than a state free to let their own people be stupid for whatever reason they might have.

And your poll remains highly distasteful. It's worse than 'do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?' in that ridiculous soap opera we earlier referred to.

[Hirota]

And your poll remains highly distasteful. It's worse than 'do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?' in that ridiculous soap opera we earlier referred to.

Typical CD emotive, hyperbolic nonsense.

[Christian Democrats]

We'd much rather that than have some theocracy letting people trap themselves.

. . .

We'd sooner have individual freedoms protected by the WA than a state free to let their own people be stupid for whatever reason they might have.

So, basically, you want the government to dictate the terms of people's private marital contracts because they are too stupid to make their own decisions in these sorts of matters pertaining to love, sexual intercourse, and family life?

[Walrasia]

So, basically, you want the government to dictate the terms of people's private marital contracts because they are too stupid to make their own decisions in these sorts of matters pertaining to love, sexual intercourse, and family life?

No, that's what you want. What we want is for the international community to continue to prevent governments forcing their narrow-minded views on marriage onto individuals. You yourself have said that you don't think the repercussions of divorce are enough because you want there to be a penalty involved. To turn around and make this about freedom is slightly bizarre. Trying to repeal a right does not equal increasing freedom.

[Christian Democrats]

What we want is for the international community to continue to prevent governments forcing their narrow-minded views on marriage onto individuals.

This repeal would not force my views onto anyone. It would allow romantic partners the option to bind themselves to more stringent terms, thus advancing the freedom of contract. This repeal proposal would not force any couples to commit to or to stay in lifelong relationships.

You are defending a resolution that forces the General Assembly's narrow-minded views onto all couples.

[Christian Democrats]

Given that Auralia's moralistic repeal is failing, I'm bumping this legalistic repeal that I would like to submit in May or June.

Also, in a few minutes, I'll post a proposal for a replacement resolution in this forum.

[Herby]

Actually the repeal is passing by about twelve hun--

•6 hours ago: Mousebumples withdrew vote
•5 hours ago: The Democratic Republic of Tomb withdrew vote
•5 hours ago: The Democratic Republic of Tomb AGAINST (588)

Well, okay then.

[Separatist Peoples]

Actually the repeal is passing by about twelve hun--

•6 hours ago: Mousebumples withdrew vote
•5 hours ago: The Democratic Republic of Tomb withdrew vote
•5 hours ago: The Democratic Republic of Tomb AGAINST (588)

Well, okay then.

"Yeah, I might have had some scathing things to say about this repeal as TNP's WA Minister..."

[Mousebumples]

My region's vote changed from being 1-0 in favor last night, to 2-2, this morning. We'll see how things shape up.

(Note: I haven't voted/expressed an opinion on the regional forum.)

[Railana]

Given that Auralia's moralistic repeal is failing, I'm bumping this legalistic repeal that I would like to submit in May or June.

((OOC: Best of luck, CD. Hopefully you'll have more success than I had.))

[Arach-Naga Combine]

These debates between humans about these "marriages" are becoming rather tiresome. Why can't you naked apes just develop culturally and embrace polyamory? No need for a complicated and conflicting legal system built up to oversee the contracting of mating relationships irrationally linked to economic and legal entanglements when each of these can be easily satisfied separately.

The argument presented in the proposal would indeed be persuasive, but it rests on entirely false premises. It attempts to equivocate a marital contract with those of employment or commerce, and should therefore have no special clauses, and yet in all the author's other pronouncements declares the uniqueness of this form of contract with some respect to "love, sex, etc." which could mean about a hundred different things if we know anything about you humans. The author further insists that this special variant of contract, higher than others due to aforementioned interpersonal connotations, should have its exit restricted on grounds diametrically opposed to those traits purported to elevate it. If it's so important for you humans to engage in this infinitely poorly-defined "love" to do so in a contract, how could you fail to accept that the loss of such "love" as unassailable grounds to terminate such a contract at will, and unconditionally?

[Blaccakre]

These debates between humans about these "marriages" are becoming rather tiresome. Why can't you naked apes just develop culturally and embrace polyamory? No need for a complicated and conflicting legal system built up to oversee the contracting of mating relationships irrationally linked to economic and legal entanglements when each of these can be easily satisfied separately.

The argument presented in the proposal would indeed be persuasive, but it rests on entirely false premises. It attempts to equivocate a marital contract with those of employment or commerce, and should therefore have no special clauses, and yet in all the author's other pronouncements declares the uniqueness of this form of contract with some respect to "love, sex, etc." which could mean about a hundred different things if we know anything about you humans. The author further insists that this special variant of contract, higher than others due to aforementioned interpersonal connotations, should have its exit restricted on grounds diametrically opposed to those traits purported to elevate it. If it's so important for you humans to engage in this infinitely poorly-defined "love" to do so in a contract, how could you fail to accept that the loss of such "love" as unassailable grounds to terminate such a contract at will, and unconditionally?

I never thought I'd say this, but that spider snake makes a good point.

But there can be all kinds of non-"love" reasons for marriage, and it is a contractual relationship, so if folks want to contract to get married just to bang out a few kids and live in a middle-class suburban home they can't really afford, and they also want that contract to be subject to liquidated damages and a public walk of shame in the event of a breach, why not let them? That seems like something a lizard bug could get behind, right?

[Arach-Naga Combine]

These debates between humans about these "marriages" are becoming rather tiresome. Why can't you naked apes just develop culturally and embrace polyamory? No need for a complicated and conflicting legal system built up to oversee the contracting of mating relationships irrationally linked to economic and legal entanglements when each of these can be easily satisfied separately.

The argument presented in the proposal would indeed be persuasive, but it rests on entirely false premises. It attempts to equivocate a marital contract with those of employment or commerce, and should therefore have no special clauses, and yet in all the author's other pronouncements declares the uniqueness of this form of contract with some respect to "love, sex, etc." which could mean about a hundred different things if we know anything about you humans. The author further insists that this special variant of contract, higher than others due to aforementioned interpersonal connotations, should have its exit restricted on grounds diametrically opposed to those traits purported to elevate it. If it's so important for you humans to engage in this infinitely poorly-defined "love" to do so in a contract, how could you fail to accept that the loss of such "love" as unassailable grounds to terminate such a contract at will, and unconditionally?

I never thought I'd say this, but that spider snake makes a good point.

But there can be all kinds of non-"love" reasons for marriage, and it is a contractual relationship, so if folks want to contract to get married just to bang out a few kids and live in a middle-class suburban home they can't really afford, and they also want that contract to be subject to liquidated damages and a public walk of shame in the event of a breach, why not let them? That seems like something a lizard bug could get behind, right?

Certainly. Which is why we reject this repeal attempt, because it eliminates contract rights. The previous resolution in no way prevents claims of damages incurred, but in fact enforces that right for claimants, as well as your ridiculous ideas about parenting responsibilities.

3) Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce. In case the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

4) Upon divorce proceedings, appropriate latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, and appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

And of course the WA has no capability to legislate against such "walks of shame" as you desire, be the contract pertaining to a childish monogamous relationship or the distribution rights to a highly addictive narcotic. The right to divorce resolution in fact enforces the terms of the contract, which this repeal attempt is aimed at dissolving. The author desires to impose non-contract punishments and responsibilities on contract members, and that is not something that could be supported on any grounds of freedom that the author so erroneously purports to uphold.

[Christian Democrats]

I plan to submit my repeal proposal later this week.

[Caracasus]

Caracasus strongly disagrees with your analogy comparing divorce and marriage to a business contract, as it is essentially a flawed one. There are many, numerous differences between a business contract that one may enter into and a personal relationship. In a personal relationship, either party must be free to end said relationship.

The notion of a no-fault divorce is vital to preserve the civil rights of individuals around the world. If it is removed it would become easy to apply strict penalties on those wishing to leave potentially abusive partners. We would not wish that to happen.

[Christian Democrats]

Caracasus strongly disagrees with your analogy comparing divorce and marriage to a business contract, as it is essentially a flawed one.

How?

There are many, numerous differences between a business contract that one may enter into and a personal relationship.

Will you give some examples?

In a personal relationship, either party must be free to end said relationship.

Why? No other contracts are so toothless.

The notion of a no-fault divorce is vital to preserve the civil rights of individuals around the world.

Whose civil rights? The right of a husband to abandon his wife who has tended to their home for years and for whom it would be difficult to reenter the workforce? The right of a wife to run away with a younger man, leaving her children and husband to fend for themselves?

If it is removed it would become easy to apply strict penalties on those wishing to leave potentially abusive partners.

Because people are too stupid to contract their own terms? Because governments do not have mechanisms in place to stop abuse? Because a future resolution, national laws, or subnational laws will not be passed to permit divorces in cases of abuse or neglect?

[Caracasus]

Well firstly, a marriage contract shares similarities with a business contract as once upon a time it essentially was. Most nations have moved beyond this particular piece of embedded inequality now, however, and one person is no longer considered property to be passed from a parent to a spouse. A marriage is a union between two people based on love, a business contract exists between two groups or individuals in the economic sphere. A marriage exists and comprises the two individuals private lives and influences every part of their existence.

As we have stated, both couples need to be able to leave said arrangement without fault - this exists to protect the rights of the individual over the rights of the moral majority.

Your claim of a single father abandoned by his wife is spurious at best. Are there no laws governing child support and maintenance?

Your claim that this will allow individuals to draw up their own marriage contracts is equally strange. YOu seem to be forgetting that in the vast majority of nations, it is the rule of law that decides upon divorce legislation and proceedings, not the individual.

EDIT: Not to mention of course that in the cases you mentioned your repeal would not effect the outcome at all; the majority of nations that have not got a no fault divorce, abandonment is usually cause enough to file for divorce.

[Christian Democrats]

Well firstly, a marriage contract shares similarities with a business contract as once upon a time it essentially was. Most nations have moved beyond this particular piece of embedded inequality now, however

How is it "unequal" for two individuals freely to contract the terms of their own marital union?

and one person is no longer considered property to be passed from a parent to a spouse.

You are mistaken. From the standpoint of contract, the prospective spouses make the decision. Under Resolutions 160 and 205, it would be quite illegal for a father to contract with another man a marriage for his daughter without her consent.

A marriage is a union between two people based on love

So, if any two people love each other, they're married? Apparently, I'm a polygamist.

a business contract exists between two groups or individuals in the economic sphere

And a marriage doesn't? Last time I checked, marriage unites the resources of the spouses and makes them financially responsible for one another. Financial disagreements are a common cause of divorce in many jurisdictions.

A marriage exists and comprises the two individuals private lives

Wrong. Marriage is a public act. People call on their community to recognize them as united.

and influences every part of their existence

It's naïve to think that marriage is all-encompassing. For many people, it is viewed as the most important aspect of life; but it does not necessarily touch on every part of one's existence. This is simply rhetorical fluff.

As we have stated, both couples need to be able to leave said arrangement without fault - this exists to protect the rights of the individual over the rights of the moral majority.

The moral majority?

The marriage contract protects conjugal rights as well as the rights of children.

Your claim of a single father abandoned by his wife is spurious at best. Are there no laws governing child support and maintenance?

Child support and maintenance are often insufficient or delayed to meet the needs of a homemaker and her children, much less to maintain their prior quality of life.

Your claim that this will allow individuals to draw up their own marriage contracts is equally strange. YOu seem to be forgetting that in the vast majority of nations, it is the rule of law that decides upon divorce legislation and proceedings, not the individual.

Apparently, you've missed the fact that I'm planning a replacement.

EDIT: Not to mention of course that in the cases you mentioned your repeal would not effect the outcome at all; the majority of nations that have not got a no fault divorce, abandonment is usually cause enough to file for divorce.

Restitution of conjugal rights?

[The Two Jerseys]

Comments in red.

(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,"

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, How is requiring a court ruling to dissolve a marriage "unfettered license"?

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, The resolution doesn't say that divorces will be handed out to anyone who asks for one. It says that any married person may petition for a divorce, and the court must hear that petition.

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 whenever he or she wishes with no penalty whatsoever, No, they can't dissolve a marriage "whenever they please". They have to go to court in order to obtain a divorce, not just say "I divorce you!" three times in a row.

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 the terms on which one enters a marital union, Bullshit. It has nothing to do with choosing a spouse.

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, And if their marriage "contract" doesn't include an exit clause?

Seeking to resolve the irreconcilable tension between the so-called right to divorce and the fundamental right to contract, Because contracts are never dissolved ever, nope!

Repeals Resolution 39, the Right to a Lawful Divorce.

I'm sorry, but there's no way you can argue that divorce is a violation of contract law when business contracts are modified or terminated by courts on a regular basis. There's no way we could ever support a repeal based on such false arguments as these.