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

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

"Thank you, ambassador. I look forward to using this in the counter campaign."

[Bananaistan]

Well I am glad that is sorted then. You want to lock people into contracts without any hope for escape and prevent any intervention from the state to protect people's rights and freedoms. It is rather stunning about turn from your freedom to contract proposal which allowed significant lee way for states to restrict said freedom to contract in the public interest. It is ofc without question that there are many situations where it is in the public interest to restrict the freedom of contract. This situation is one of them, indentured servitude, restraint of trade and anti-competition are others that immediately spring to mind.

[Osnilic Asylum for the Mentally Insane]

I like this.

[Three Weasels]

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.

Provided that the individuals take traditional religious vows during the marriage ceremony. If they write their own vows, they may not include "until death do us part". In fact, secular vows may have something completely different. Then, there is also the issue that not all religions use the 'Judeo-Christian' vows nor adhere to those values. Meadowism for example has its own vows.

"Do you take each other; to play and frolic through the lush green meadows, to dance around the happy yellow daffodils;
To beguile, charm, confuse, and otherwise befuddle your enemies together;
To face life and all its challenges; its glorious highs, creamy middles, and its depressing lows;
With mutual respect, honour, trust, and love for each other?"

Meadowism equally has special divorce rules because it is unfair to force individuals to honour vows they no longer genuinely believe. Of course, it requires the act to be mutual. Individuals simply change and when they don't believe despite best efforts, it's wrong to force them into a life of misery and unhappiness.

Being trapped in a loveless, unhappy, unworkable marriage can potentially have psychological repercussions on an individual who wants the out but also feels it's wrong to pursue an extramarital relationship to fill that emotional void.

Also, simply because a right exists, it doesn't mean that an individual has an obligation to exercise that right. Part of having the right to do something is not having to do it. In this case, divorce. Married couples have the right to divorce. Whether they choose to use that right or not is theirs. Simply because divorce is an option, it doesn't mean that it will be the first resort when a couple has marital conflict. The decision to end it before it becomes an issue of "fault" is a sound one.

Consider an individual who fears abuse may happened but hasn't yet can't leave the union until they have been abused thereby making it a "fault" divorce. Verbal/physiological/emotional abuse is more likely to get a pass than physical abuse because without witnesses or evidence or even worse, social acceptance that allows this to happen; it is hard to prove. Essentially, your argument is saying that individuals MUST remain in an abusive relationship simply because no fault has been proven.

[Tinfect]

"And it seems the Cavalry has arrived. With all due respect, it's about damn time.
In any case, I certainly hope the Christian Democratic Delegation has no intentions to make a second attempt for vote. This proposal was an indefensible abomination, and your failure to so much as try to defend it, shows that you were fully aware of this fact."

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

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.

"Thank you, ambassador. I look forward to using this in the counter campaign."

"That sounds like a poor idea, considering you'd only be helping him, because his counterargument is 100% accurate. For once, it seems, the leftists in this assembly are the ones standing against personal freedoms."

[Greater Istanistan]

This can't go through - if one thinks about it, one can easily see that the endorsement of the argument within this proposal is implicitly stating that people have the freedom to sign away their freedom. In short, this deranged enshrinement of the contract paves the way for indentured servitude. And in a so-called "traditional" marriage, without love marriage might as well be that.

This is even more of a terrible idea every time it is thought about in anything approaching a serious fashion.

[Defwa]

"Thank you, ambassador. I look forward to using this in the counter campaign."

"That sounds like a poor idea, considering you'd only be helping him, because his counterargument is 100% accurate. For once, it seems, the leftists in this assembly are the ones standing against personal freedoms."

There's been a spill in the cafeteria. You should take care of it- its a slipping hazard.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Thank you, ambassador. I look forward to using this in the counter campaign."

"That sounds like a poor idea, considering you'd only be helping him, because his counterargument is 100% accurate. For once, it seems, the leftists in this assembly are the ones standing against personal freedoms."

"Guess I'll have to go ahead with it anyway. I'm banking on the majority of the. World. Assembly not being interested in turning marriage into a padlock."

[Caracasus]

"That sounds like a poor idea, considering you'd only be helping him, because his counterargument is 100% accurate. For once, it seems, the leftists in this assembly are the ones standing against personal freedoms."

"Guess I'll have to go ahead with it anyway. I'm banking on the majority of the. World. Assembly not being interested in turning marriage into a padlock."

Given the fact that this did not even come over halfway to the 90 "aye's" needed so to speak to reach quorum, I think the WA has already made this pretty clear. But yes, we agree.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Guess I'll have to go ahead with it anyway. I'm banking on the majority of the. World. Assembly not being interested in turning marriage into a padlock."

Given the fact that this did not even come over halfway to the 90 "aye's" needed so to speak to reach quorum, I think the WA has already made this pretty clear. But yes, we agree.

"The author is an experienced veteran of the General Assembly. It will make quorum in the future, I have no doubt."

[Greater Istanistan]

"Experienced =\= effective by any means."

[Christian Democrats]

Essentially, your argument is saying that individuals MUST remain in an abusive relationship simply because no fault has been proven.

Have you read my repeal proposal? Have you read my proposed replacement?

I don't want to force anybody to remain in an abusive relationship. When people choose to marry, however, they choose to accept certain rights and responsibilities; and, in my view, they ought to have the right to contract stricter terms if they so wish.

The only argument against this view is that individuals are too unreasonable to know what's good for their relationships.

This can't go through - if one thinks about it, one can easily see that the endorsement of the argument within this proposal is implicitly stating that people have the freedom to sign away their freedom.

That's what a contract is.

[The Two Jerseys]

"Thank you, ambassador. I look forward to using this in the counter campaign."

"That sounds like a poor idea, considering you'd only be helping him, because his counterargument is 100% accurate. For once, it seems, the leftists in this assembly are the ones standing against personal freedoms."

How are they going against personal freedoms? This supposed "right" to not get divorced exists whether divorce is legal or not.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Experienced =\= effective by any means."

"The author has successfully passed several resolutions in the past. I'd consider the Christian Democrats delegation highly effective in the grand scheme of things."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

"Experienced =\= effective by any means."

"The author has successfully passed several resolutions in the past. I'd consider the Christian Democrats delegation highly effective in the grand scheme of things."

Too effective at some things if you ask me....

[Three Weasels]

Have you read my repeal proposal? Have you read my proposed replacement?

We read your repeal, we don't agree. You see, individuals can already determine the terms of their marriage, prior to the union. Even with this current law.

It currently does not affect religions, which may require its members to see counselling and take other steps prior to divorce. This can also be taken to mean individuals are free to make their own determinations. the resolution simply spells out protections granted to individuals *if* they decide to undergo divorce proceedings.

6) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

It's for this reason that we don't agree with your proposal and see it as pointless as well as other reasons previously mentioned.

I don't want to force anybody to remain in an abusive relationship. When people choose to marry, however, they choose to accept certain rights and responsibilities; and, in my view, they ought to have the right to contract stricter terms if they so wish.

Accepting certain rights and responsibilities does not waive an individual's other rights because a draconian views on marriage.

The only argument against this view is that individuals are too unreasonable to know what's good for their relationships.

People change. Circumstances change. What was once viable may no longer be. The status quo may work for some but it isn't always going to work for everyone all the time.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

This can't go through - if one thinks about it, one can easily see that the endorsement of the argument within this proposal is implicitly stating that people have the freedom to sign away their freedom. In short, this deranged enshrinement of the contract paves the way for indentured servitude. And in a so-called "traditional" marriage, without love marriage might as well be that.

This is even more of a terrible idea every time it is thought about in anything approaching a serious fashion.

What is the point of freedom other than to surrender it to a purpose greater than one's own? A life spent in pursuit of total freedom is a life wasted in selfishness.

[Separatist Peoples]

What is the point of freedom other than to surrender it to a purpose greater than one's own? A life spent in pursuit of total freedom is a life wasted in selfishness.

"If thats you're idea of a wasted life, sign me up. You can keep your greater purpose."