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

[Tinfect]

I'd expect no other statement from a corrupt dictatorship. If you could even keep focus on the matters at hand, rather than devolving every conversation into petty pubescent insults, then maybe your nation could find some stability.

"Where did you get the idea that we were Corrupt? A Dictatorship, yes, but I assure you, there is no corruption. Director Blake, has seen to that. I, however, have been focused on the matter at hand, mainly, the unethical practices of the Christian Democrats Delegation in attempting to push this proposal, and their replacement of the target resolution. The Imperium, is perfectly stable, despite whatever madness you seem to seem be suffering from. As for your accusations of "petty insults", I was merely stating a fact. Nations that subscribe to the insanity if "Noble Blood", tend to result in Inbred rulers, your rather broken grammar in these conversations, does not help your case, and a Nation that does not consider Rape to be a crime is certainly insane, by the judge of almost all member states."

Furthermore, your nations treats do little to sway me. If anything, I might just liberate them for their sake.

"I assume you meant Threats. I highly doubt your threats hold any intent behind them, and even if they do, I doubt your nation could actually do anything to our Soldiers. As mentioned in theDocuments we have provided to the World Assembly, our Soldiers are equipped with only the finest in Imperial Technology, and we do not even need to stage a surface invasion of your worlds to destroy you. An Enclave II will do quite nicely, I imagine."

[Christian Democrats]

We would like to know why people seem to be assuming that be repealing legislation on divorce, it will give individuals greater say in the marriage and divorce legislation they take part in?

It is our experience that very few, if any nation states have no legislation that covers marriage contracts and divorce. This merely allows nation states to pass more draconian legislation regarding marriage and divorce. If anything, this could lead to more interference from the state regarding marriage and divorce.

We fail to see how this utopia where couples are allowed to control everything about their marriage contract will appear by repealing legislation that limits what nation states may do regarding marriage and divorce.

Resolution 205 restricts the authority of the government to limit liberty of contract, and I've drafted replacement legislation guaranteeing that the freedom to set one's own terms would be upheld in marital unions specifically.

Covenant Marriages are a disgusting practice that should be banned as soon as possible.

They are banned . . . by the Right to a Lawful Divorce.

The ban on covenant marriages is an infringement on personal liberty. As the ambassador from Phydios puts it:

This is the current situation that all citizens of all WA member nations face:

• Marrying someone, and both of you wanting that marriage to be dissolvable without penalty at any time: legal.
• Marrying someone, and both of you wanting that marriage to be legally binding, with penalties for breaching it: illegal.

In other words, the message the WA sends to citizens right now is: you're too dumb to make personal commitments, so we have to force you to contract marriages with terms that are not legally binding.

In any case, Covenant Marriages, are, as previously mentioned, reprehensible. If anything relating to Marriage is the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, it is that, and Forced Marriages, which are covered by another resolution.

Authored by yours truly.

[Tinfect]

Resolution 205 restricts the authority of the government to limit liberty of contract, and I've drafted replacement legislation guaranteeing that the freedom to set one's own terms would be upheld in marital unions specifically.

"Your "Replacement" is an abomination. And a clear attempt to push your own insane views on all member states with no regard to their prosperity or welfare."

They are banned . . . by the Right to a Lawful Divorce.

"I am aware, hence why it should remain in the halls of the General Assembly."

The ban on covenant marriages is an infringement on personal liberty. As the ambassador from Phydios puts it:

"Yes, it does. No, we do not care. Laws that ensure that Thieves, Murderers, and Terrorists infringe on the personal liberty to Murder, Steal, and Terrorize. We have these laws for a reason, and one that you should very well know." We have already responded to Phydios' statements, and I will not repeat myself here."

Authored by yours truly.

"Yes, I am well aware of that Ambassador. That is irrelevant."

[Christian Democrats]

The ban on covenant marriages is an infringement on personal liberty.

Yes, it does. No, we do not care. Laws that ensure that Thieves, Murderers, and Terrorists infringe on the personal liberty to Murder, Steal, and Terrorize.

Because signing a binding agreement with one's spouse is like bombing an airplane or train station?



Again, the message being sent by the WA to WA citizens is this: we know how to structure your marriage better than you know how to structure your marriage because you're unreasonable. We know what's better for you.

Why not go whole hog and just assign people to their spouses by means of a questionnaire and an algorithm?

[Tinfect]

Because signing a binding agreement with one's spouse is like bombing an airplane or train station?

"You know as well as I do that Covenant Marriages are traps for those involved. There is a damned good reason that Civilized Nations have banned such practices. I am tiring of this game, Ambassador."

Again, the message being sent by the WA to WA citizens is this: we know how to structure your marriage better than you know how to structure your marriage because you're unreasonable. We know what's better for you.

"Oh, Hold on, let me show you just how profoundly stupid that argument is."

Again, the message being sent by the WA to WA citizens is this: we know how to structure your [Agricultural Industries] better than you know how to structure your [Agricultural Industries] because you're unreasonable. We know what's better for you.

"Congratulations, Ambassador, you are now arguing, just as inanely, against General Assembly Resolution #249, one of your own, if memory serves."

Why not go whole hog and just assign people to their spouses by means of a questionnaire and an algorithm?

"That, is entirely different, and you damn well know it."

[Caracasus]

We are sorry, but legislation that allows individuals to set their own terms regarding marriage contracts does not, in our opinion, stand a chance of passing. If you could direct us to your draft, we may well change our minds, but until such a time as you present us with a realistic alternative we will remain opposed vehemently to what we perceive as a calculated attempt on your part to undermine civil liberties in nation states.

[Christian Democrats]

Because signing a binding agreement with one's spouse is like bombing an airplane or train station?

"You know as well as I do that Covenant Marriages are traps for those involved. There is a damned good reason that Civilized Nations have banned such practices. I am tiring of this game, Ambassador."

A trap? Nobody is setting a trap for the couple. The spouses themselves are agreeing voluntarily to stricter terms. If the spouses are being "trapped," they are "trapping" themselves, consensual conduct that ought to be perfectly legal.

Again, the message being sent by the WA to WA citizens is this: we know how to structure your marriage better than you know how to structure your marriage because you're unreasonable. We know what's better for you.

"Oh, Hold on, let me show you just how profoundly stupid that argument is."

Again, the message being sent by the WA to WA citizens is this: we know how to structure your [Agricultural Industries] better than you know how to structure your [Agricultural Industries] because you're unreasonable. We know what's better for you.

"Congratulations, Ambassador, you are now arguing, just as inanely, against General Assembly Resolution #249, one of your own, if memory serves."

Because letting a couple contract an agreement for themselves is the same as corporate juggernauts taking advantage of small farmers?

Unless you can show me that the husband is taking advantage of the wife or vice versa, this is a poor comparison. If you can show that deception was employed by either party to secure the marriage, the contract could be voided by a court of law.

Why not go whole hog and just assign people to their spouses by means of a questionnaire and an algorithm?

"That, is entirely different, and you damn well know it."

How? In both instances, the government is controlling how people marry. I'm not even saying that the state has to recognize marriage, merely that it should enforce the private contracts of couples who choose to sign them.

If Tom, Dick, and Harry want to sign a contract that obliges them to live together under penalty of paying $2500 to each of the other parties, the government should allow it and enforce it even if it chooses not to provide them public benefits.

If you could direct us to your draft, we may well change our minds.

Really? Are you that forgetful? I gave you a link last week in this thread. And you responded to my post!

[Tinfect]

A trap? Nobody is setting a trap for the couple. The spouses themselves are agreeing voluntarily to stricter terms. If the spouses are being "trapped," they are "trapping" themselves, consensual conduct that ought to be perfectly legal.

"Absolutely not. There is a line between consensual conduct, and outright insanity. No one should have the ability to enforce unfair agreements on another sapient entity, and the State should, in no way, be required to enforce such madness. There is a reason the Imperium heavily regulates all Contracts made between Non-State Actors. Unlike nations such as your own, we will not allow such abuses of human rights to go unchallenged."

Because letting a couple contract an agreement for themselves is the same as corporate juggernauts taking advantage of small farmers?
Unless you can show me that the husband is taking advantage of the wife or vice versa, this is a poor comparison. If you can show that deception was employed by either party to secure the marriage, the contract could be voided by a court of law.

"You know fully well that Covenant Marriages exist solely to allow one partner to exhibit legal control over the other. This is how it will always be, and we will not allow such reprehensible acts within our nation."

How? In both instances, the government is controlling how people marry. I'm not even saying that the state has to recognize marriage, merely that it should enforce the private contracts of couples who choose to sign them.

"In one instance, the State is reasonably restricting contracts to ensure a fair, and unbiased agreement between two parties. The other, is the actions of a Totalitarian State, with no regard for human rights. Again, I tire of this game."

If Tom, Dick, and Harry want to sign a contract that obliges them to live together under penalty of paying $2500 to each of the other parties, the government should allow it and enforce it even if it chooses not to provide them public benefits.

"No, They should not. Because that, is clearly an insane contract. No reasonable government would enforce something so profoundly stupid. In this context, if, in order to exit the Marriage, one party has to pay the other 2500 Iron marks, however, the Contract requires that the other member be the only one with access to the accounts, as you know full well would happen if such a thing were allowed, the first party would be unable to raise the required funds, an thus be locked in an unsatisfactory marriage. Your insistence that Marriage is identical to a Business Contract is reprehensible."

[Bananaistan]

Marrying someone, and both of you wanting that marriage to be legally binding, with penalties for breaching it: illegal.

This really is something else. Just like the ridiculous poll question.

So long as both parties continue to want the marriage to remain legally binding it remains so with all the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. This whole thread is nothing but red herring after red herring in an exercise to attempt to get the WA to legally prevent people from changing their minds and to lock people into unhappy marriages.

Why do you wish to prevent people from changing their minds?

[Tinfect]

Marrying someone, and both of you wanting that marriage to be legally binding, with penalties for breaching it: illegal.

This really is something else. Just like the ridiculous poll question.

So long as both parties continue to want the marriage to remain legally binding it remains so with all the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. This whole thread is nothing but red herring after red herring in an exercise to attempt to get the WA to legally prevent people from changing their minds and to lock people into unhappy marriages.

Why do you wish to prevent people from changing their minds?

OOC:
Finally someone else points this out.
CD has refused to comment on any post where I mention this, and he chooses to focus on repeating the same Nat-Sov garbage, so I would not expect a response.

[Christian Democrats]

There is a line between consensual conduct, and outright insanity.

Yes, couples who want to be married for life are insane.

No one should have the ability to enforce unfair agreements on another sapient entity.

If both parties voluntarily agree, fully understanding the terms, the agreement is not unfair to either of them.

There is a reason the Imperium heavily regulates all Contracts made between Non-State Actors.

It appears that your government is violating the "right to liberty" guaranteed by Resolution 205.

(It should be noted that my nation has sought a repeal of that resolution in the past because of our belief that it needs to be tweaked.)

Unlike nations such as your own, we will not allow such abuses of human rights to go unchallenged.

Sure, it's an abuse of human rights to allow humans the right to make binding agreements concerning their own domestic relations.

You know fully well that Covenant Marriages exist solely to allow one partner to exhibit legal control over the other.

In reality, the husband and the wife are treated as equals, accepting rights and responsibilities toward one another, rights and responsibilities that actually have teeth, unlike the marriages that are registered by most couples.

How? In both instances, the government is controlling how people marry. I'm not even saying that the state has to recognize marriage, merely that it should enforce the private contracts of couples who choose to sign them.

In one instance, the State is reasonably restricting contracts to ensure a fair, and unbiased agreement between two parties.

A contract cannot be unfair and biased if the parties accept equivalent rights and responsibilities toward each other.

The other, is the actions of a Totalitarian State, with no regard for human rights.

I believe contract enforcement is one of the minimal functions of any government.

If Tom, Dick, and Harry want to sign a contract that obliges them to live together under penalty of paying $2500 to each of the other parties, the government should allow it and enforce it even if it chooses not to provide them public benefits.

No, They should not. Because that, is clearly an insane contract.

Why? The penalty is far cheaper than the average wedding; and it gives each party an incentive not to leave except for pressing reasons, thus encouraging them to talk out their differences if any disputes ever arise.

What if a husband who has married and divorced twice previously chooses to sign a contract with his newest wife, accepting the obligation to reimburse her and her parents for the cost of the wedding if he ever chooses to leave her?

So long as both parties continue to want the marriage to remain legally binding it remains so

. . .

Why do you wish to prevent people from changing their minds?

I'm not sure you know what the term "legally binding" means.

It's not "legally binding" if one of the signers can pull out at any time without no delay or penalty.

[Tinfect]

Yes, couples who want to be married for life are insane.

"I never said anything of the sort, Ambassador. Please do not continue making up arguments to attack, and respond to the ones I have offered."

(It should be noted that my nation has sought a repeal of that resolution in the past because of our belief that it needs to be tweaked.)

"Good. Although, given your history with the WA, I imagine you would use that as an excuse to draft some abomination of your own to replace it. Possibly one restricting the rights of nations to regulate Contracts."

Sure, it's an abuse of human rights to allow humans the right to make binding agreements concerning their own domestic relations.

"Again, I never said anything of the sort. Your nation, in several ways, violates Human Rights as defined by the Imperium. Your Theocratic Government, being one of, and the root of many of them."

In reality, the husband and the wife are treated as equals, accepting rights and responsibilities toward one another, rights and responsibilities that actually have teeth, unlike the marriages that are registered by most couples.

"Perhaps in your perfect world. However, here in reality, Human Nature is to control, and while we have been largely successful in advancing Civilization, intentionally backwards nations seem to be intent on dragging us more civilized nations down to their level."

A contract cannot be unfair and biased if the parties accept equivalent rights and responsibilities toward each other.

"Because a Covenant Marriage is always a fair, and balanced contract, that in no way is ever tilted in favor of one party, Right? Feel free to join the rest of us in the real world, we are waiting."

I believe contract enforcement is one of the minimal functions of any government.

"Yes, when the Contract is fair. Unlike how you know fully well that Covenant Marriages would be used."

Why? The penalty is far cheaper than the average wedding; and it gives each party an incentive not to leave except for pressing reasons, thus encouraging them to talk out their differences if any disputes ever arise.

"If their respect and trust for eachother cannot convince them to do so on its own, then it is likely for the best if they were to divorce."

What if a husband who has married and divorced twice previously chooses to sign a contract with his newest wife, accepting the obligation to reimburse her and her parents for the cost of the wedding if he ever chooses to leave her?

"He can do that on his own. He does not need to provide a legally binding document to do so, if his intentions are honest."

[The Two Jerseys]

Today you have brought great shame & dishonor to your nation and it's people. Expect a condemnation of this vial action to reach the Security Council's floor.

"Well? We're waiting..." -Ambassador J.R. Ewing

[Christian Democrats]

He does not need to provide a legally binding document to do so, if his intentions are honest.

And you think I'm the one living in wonderland?

[Tinfect]

And you think I'm the one living in wonderland?

"Please respond to my arguments with something other than select commentary, if you can.
Otherwise, you are only further proving how indefensible this abomination is."

[Heartlost]

Today you have brought great shame & dishonor to your nation and it's people. Expect a condemnation of this vial action to reach the Security Council's floor.

"Well? We're waiting..." -Ambassador J.R. Ewing

Oh my, not all that patient are we? I was planning on doing it tomorrow, though no matter, I never did much care about the condemn/commend procedure perpetrated by the Security Council. I've decided not to dirty my hands with such rubbish, especially if it is going to be the first resolution presented by Heartlost before this council. No. Instead I've been looking over a few resolution passed by the World Assembly, two in particular, so if anything I'll most likely draft and propose their repeal tomorrow or the day after.

[Bananaistan]

So long as both parties continue to want the marriage to remain legally binding it remains so

. . .

Why do you wish to prevent people from changing their minds?

I'm not sure you know what the term "legally binding" means.

It's not "legally binding" if one of the signers can pull out at any time without no delay or penalty.

That's superfluous to the main point.

Why do you want to force people to remain in loveless marriages?

[Caracasus]

I'm not sure you know what the term "legally binding" means.

It's not "legally binding" if one of the signers can pull out at any time without no delay or penalty.

That's superfluous to the main point.

Why do you want to force people to remain in loveless marriages?

We feel this is a mis-representation of the original legislation. There is, for example, nothing about delay within the original. You also act as this clause

5) 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.

indicates that those divorcing can leave their partners without incurring any financial responsibility or responsibility for potential offspring. This is patently not the case, as highlighted by the following passages from the original legislation.

2) Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with promptitude.

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.

[/quote]

Within this we can clearly see that no child would be abandoned - the appropriate legal systems are charged with ensuring that not only the rights, but the responsibilities of parenthood remain. We can also see that divorce proceedings themselves would handle distribution of assets.

You have constantly presented us and our fellow ambassadors with cases of abandonment and financial ruin, as if present legislation allows one member of the marriage to escape into the ether, never to be seen again. We believe this to be a strikingly dishonest mis-representation of the currently passed legislation.

As for your proposal that couples be allowed to draw up their own promises and terms of marriage contract, if such a resolution passes then we would see a striking precedent in law. As I am sure the ambassador is aware, in no area of legislation and contract law are the two or more contract members completely free to create their own terms.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"As with your other proposal, Ambassador, you have granted this abomination an incredibly misleading campaign. You are clearly attempting to appeal to the mindless voters who will not bother to read the Target Resolution, and who will instead base their vote on whatever inane ramblings happen to be placed in the Repeal Text. This act is, quite honestly, disgusting. We are not here to appeal to the lowest common denominator, we are here to create international law, this is not the place to be playing games with voting demographics. I will not stand by as you intentionally mislead members of this assembly in order to push your own misguided moralisms, and I find it quite reprehensible that you would further mislead the, shall we say, less discerning voters of this Assembly to push your own, horrid replacement of existing legislation. I would expect this behavior from a Dictatorship, or an Oligarchy, not a supposedly moralistic democracy, which, according to the documents you have provided to the world assembly, is clearly no better than the aforementioned classes of government. The Imperium will be assuming a stance of hostility towards any further proposals you make to this assembly, until you can prove that you will no longer be attempting to use it to push your own national interests."

"You would accuse him of tricking voters into voting for a resolution, and yet that is exactly how leftist resolutions like "Reproductive Freedoms" came into affect. Hypocrisy at its finest."

[Defwa]

"As with your other proposal, Ambassador, you have granted this abomination an incredibly misleading campaign. You are clearly attempting to appeal to the mindless voters who will not bother to read the Target Resolution, and who will instead base their vote on whatever inane ramblings happen to be placed in the Repeal Text. This act is, quite honestly, disgusting. We are not here to appeal to the lowest common denominator, we are here to create international law, this is not the place to be playing games with voting demographics. I will not stand by as you intentionally mislead members of this assembly in order to push your own misguided moralisms, and I find it quite reprehensible that you would further mislead the, shall we say, less discerning voters of this Assembly to push your own, horrid replacement of existing legislation. I would expect this behavior from a Dictatorship, or an Oligarchy, not a supposedly moralistic democracy, which, according to the documents you have provided to the world assembly, is clearly no better than the aforementioned classes of government. The Imperium will be assuming a stance of hostility towards any further proposals you make to this assembly, until you can prove that you will no longer be attempting to use it to push your own national interests."

"You would accuse him of tricking voters into voting for a resolution, and yet that is exactly how leftist resolutions like "Reproductive Freedoms" came into affect. Hypocrisy at its finest."

The mens restroom needs cleaning. You should get down there.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"That is an inappropriate and undiplomatic insinuation, ambassador."

[Defwa]

"That is an inappropriate and undiplomatic insinuation, ambassador."

Look, I know the custodial union assures your job through most of your faults, but dereliction of duty is not one of them.

[Separatist Peoples]

The mens restroom needs cleaning. You should get down there.

"Good lord, man! Don't send him to my office! The devil have I ever done to you?!"

"You would accuse him of tricking voters into voting for a resolution, and yet that is exactly how leftist resolutions like "Reproductive Freedoms" came into affect. Hypocrisy at its finest."

Bell shrugs, "Unless you can prove that the Tinfect delegation participated in, or otherwise actively supported the Reproductive Freedoms campaign, I'd say that the one being undiplomatic here is you. Regardless of the veracity of your claims against duplicitous nature of RF, laying blame on a different ambassadorial delegation at a later time in a separate subject under entirely different circumstances for your own benefit while decrying hypocrisy paints you as either very stupid or a very poor rhetorician. Or both."

[Christian Democrats]

Why do you want to force people to remain in loveless marriages?

Marriage is not only about love but also commitment among other values. I believe people should have the right to commit themselves to legally binding relationships, consensual unions that force them to deal with problems as they arise rather than running away. That marriage is based on love or happiness alone and that one should quit if marriage ever becomes unloving or unhappy are two of the myths of modern society, myths believed with such zeal that the public would force everybody to accept no-fault divorce when marrying. Till death do us part or till one of us unilaterally hath a change of heart. The freedom to impose obligations on oneself is a freedom that is undervalued. My attempt to repeal the Right to a Lawful Divorce seeks to restore balance by brining back the right to commit oneself freely.

[The Two Jerseys]

Why do you want to force people to remain in loveless marriages?

Marriage is not only about love but also commitment among other values. I believe people should have the right to commit themselves to legally binding relationships, consensual unions that force them to deal with problems as they arise rather than running away. That marriage is based on love or happiness alone and that one should quit if marriage ever becomes unloving or unhappy are two of the myths of modern society, myths believed with such zeal that the public would force everybody to accept no-fault divorce when marrying. Till death do us part or till one of us unilaterally hath a change of heart. The freedom to impose obligations on oneself is a freedom that is undervalued. My attempt to repeal the Right to a Lawful Divorce seeks to restore balance by brining back the right to commit oneself freely.

You do realize that couples can still choose not to get a divorce, right?