Equality In Marriage

[Old Hope]

Member states absolutely may not:
- make procreation a criterion for marriage
- restrict the number of times a person may be married

First of all, please change it to:

- make procreation, or the ability to procreate, a requirement for marriage

The other version prohibits governments to reward procreation for those who are married. A very bad idea.

Defines Marriage as a contract between two legally competent people recognizing an emotional, legal, and economic bond and outlining obligations, duties, and privileges shared between those two people,

Bans member states from holding any other definition of marriage for substantive legal purposes than that which is outlined here,

That sounds like a contradiction of GAR#160.
Edit: In fact, the whole proposal contradicts it.

[Melvonia]

I'm interested in hearing the creative (or completely bonkers) ways nations would creatively comply to avoid their obligations.

The Doge and Cabinet Council of Melvonia support the spirit of the proposal. However, the social historians at the University of New Caerphilly (inveterate troublemakers that they are) have brought to our attention the following:

Historically, the psychiatric profession and the mental health movement in general have taken it upon themselves to police many areas of human sexuality, diagnosing sexual minorities as "deviant" and therefore, implicitly or explicitly, mentally ill.

A person's sanity, or lack thereof, is naturally a determining factor in their classification as a "legally competent" individual.

We suggest that a nation could well "creatively comply" by deciding, for example, that wanting to enter into a homosexual or multi-racial marriage was prima facia evidence of severe psychological disturbance, rendering the individuals concerned, by definition, legally incompetent. The issue has been described by our Minister for Foreign Affairs as a "massive can of seriously disruptive worms".

This is, of course, completely bonkers, and would never enter into serious international discussions in the real world.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm interested in hearing the creative (or completely bonkers) ways nations would creatively comply to avoid their obligations.

The Doge and Cabinet Council of Melvonia support the spirit of the proposal. However, the social historians at the University of New Caerphilly (inveterate troublemakers that they are) have brought to our attention the following:

Historically, the psychiatric profession and the mental health movement in general have taken it upon themselves to police many areas of human sexuality, diagnosing sexual minorities as "deviant" and therefore, implicitly or explicitly, mentally ill.

"That seems against the spirit, at least, of existing international law:

5. No perceived threat to the social, political or cultural values of the majority (e.g., sexual orientation, unconventional gender roles or political ideology), or the suppression of dissent shall ever be the justification for a patient’s admittance to a mental health facility;

"But even if your interpretation were true, The Charter of Civil Rights still doesn't permit any exception to anti-discrimination law, which would apply to the Freedom to Contract established elsewhere in international law, unless there's a "compelling practical purpose"."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'm interested in hearing the creative (or completely bonkers) ways nations would creatively comply to avoid their obligations.

...Historically, the psychiatric profession and the mental health movement in general have taken it upon themselves to police many areas of human sexuality, diagnosing sexual minorities as "deviant" and therefore, implicitly or explicitly, mentally ill.

A person's sanity, or lack thereof, is naturally a determining factor in their classification as a "legally competent" individual.

We suggest that a nation could well "creatively comply" by deciding, for example, that wanting to enter into a homosexual or multi-racial marriage was prima facia evidence of severe psychological disturbance, rendering the individuals concerned, by definition, legally incompetent. ...

While GAR #299 doesn't completely close off that avenue of social malfeasance, it does make it substantially more difficult to navigate lawfully.

[Grays Harbor]

Member states absolutely may not:
- make procreation a criterion for marriage
- restrict the number of times a person may be married

First of all, please change it to:

- make procreation, or the ability to procreate, a requirement for marriage

.

Why should an ability to pop spawn out have any bearing whatsoever on the emotional bonds between people?

[Old Hope]

Why should an ability to pop spawn out have any bearing whatsoever on the emotional bonds between people?

That was intended to be a change to what nations must not do. Sorry for the confusion.

[Christian Democrats]

Against. It's not the WA's place to force a single definition of marriage on all cultures.

[Kaboomlandia]

Can you define "legally competent" for me? It seems a little contradictory to what this is trying to do.

Against.

[Separatist Peoples]

Can you define "legally competent" for me? It seems a little contradictory to what this is trying to do.

Against.

"The term tends to be a common one in law.

Competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts.

"Any reason you're against, specifically?"

[Kaboomlandia]

So if person Q has a brain disorder that prevents them from walking or talking, they can't get hitched?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

So if person Q has a brain disorder that prevents them from walking or talking, they can't get hitched?

Where does it say that? Many people with serious brain disorders live very productive lives, and have the ability to make their own decisions.

[Separatist Peoples]

So if person Q has a brain disorder that prevents them from walking or talking, they can't get hitched?

"That has no bearing on competence. If the are considered outright mentally retarded, then possibly, as they do not have the mental ability or maturity to make informed decisions. It depends on the nature and severity of the disability and the jurisdiction they reside in."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can you define "legally competent" for me? It seems a little contradictory to what this is trying to do.

From Barron's Law Dictionary — competent: (1) 'capable of doing a certain thing; capacity to understand and act reasonably'; (2) about criminal proceedings, 'has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and ... has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him'; (3) about wills, 'is competent to make a will if he understanding the extent of his property, the identity of the natural objects of his bounty, and the consequences of the act of making a will'.

Against.

Reasons, perhaps?

[Kaboomlandia]

Can you define "legally competent" for me? It seems a little contradictory to what this is trying to do.

From Barron's Law Dictionary — competent: (1) 'capable of doing a certain thing; capacity to understand and act reasonably'; (2) about criminal proceedings, 'has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and ... has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him'; (3) about wills, 'is competent to make a will if he understanding the extent of his property, the identity of the natural objects of his bounty, and the consequences of the act of making a will'.

Against.

Reasons, perhaps?

I feel like their should be something in there regarding forced marriage.

EDIT: Nevermind, I looked it up and found that there is already a resolution covering forced marriage.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Against.

Reasons, perhaps?

Lemmings don't often give reasons. They just go with the flow.

[Separatist Peoples]

From Barron's Law Dictionary — competent: (1) 'capable of doing a certain thing; capacity to understand and act reasonably'; (2) about criminal proceedings, 'has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and ... has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him'; (3) about wills, 'is competent to make a will if he understanding the extent of his property, the identity of the natural objects of his bounty, and the consequences of the act of making a will'.


Reasons, perhaps?

I feel like their should be something in there regarding forced marriage.

EDIT: Nevermind, I looked it up and found that there is already a resolution covering forced marriage.

OOC: you really ought to read the passed resolutions. You've been doing this with such frequency that I'm starting to think you never bother checking first. Handily, it's at the top of the forum.

[Kaboomlandia]

I feel like their should be something in there regarding forced marriage.

EDIT: Nevermind, I looked it up and found that there is already a resolution covering forced marriage.

OOC: you really ought to read the passed resolutions. You've been doing this with such frequency that I'm starting to think you never bother checking first. Handily, it's at the top of the forum.

My bad.

[Melvonia]

is competent to make a will if he understanding the extent of his property

I thinking maybe this dictionary, he not exampling English usage so well heself...

[Old Hope]

I see some problems in this proposal.
A contradiction issue with GAR#160:
Your proposal states:

Defines Marriage as a contract between two legally competent people recognizing an emotional, legal, and economic bond and outlining obligations, duties, and privileges shared between those two people,

Bans member states from holding any other definition of marriage for substantive legal purposes than that which is outlined here,

GAR#160 states:

1. Defines forced marriage, for the purposes of this resolution, as the contractual or covenantal union of persons without the informed consent of every person being joined or a similar nonconsensual or coerced union of persons;

Unless enforcement of GA resolutions and those resolutions themselves somehow don't fall under substantive legal purpose, you have to change that.

And this:

Member states absolutely may not:
- make procreation a criterion for marriage
- restrict the number of times a person may be married

While we simply don't like the first prohibition, the second one is something different.
First of all, if the person is already married, the other person cannot do anything against that
Second, it creates difficult legal implications- what is shared with whom? You are probably allowing bonding persons together against the will of one of them because they are bonded through a third person. Or even more persons. Explain why this is a good idea, please!

[Imperium Anglorum]

is competent to make a will if he understanding the extent of his property

I thinking maybe this dictionary, he not exampling English usage so well heself...

Copying error. Should be 'understands'. In my dictionary, page 82. Its in print, so no copy/paste.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

WA resolution 35 is still in effect.

"More socially backwards and culturally primitive nations like to argue that the need to reproduce is a valid state interest and therefore qualifies as an exception by being "non-arbitrary or categorically reductive"."

We find the Ambassador's use of the terms "socially backwards and culturally primitive" ironic here, considering they're trying to defend a proposal to legalize incest, polygamy and adultery.

[Shazbotdom]

"More socially backwards and culturally primitive nations like to argue that the need to reproduce is a valid state interest and therefore qualifies as an exception by being "non-arbitrary or categorically reductive"."

We find the Ambassador's use of the terms "socially backwards and culturally primitive" ironic here, considering they're trying to defend a proposal to legalize incest, polygamy and adultery.

"While we here in the Empire see incest as wrong, we feel that there is nothing wrong with Polygamy. And with Polygamy legal, adultery would not even come into play. With that said, though, we cannot support this proposal as it currently stands."

[Christian Democrats]

And with Polygamy legal, adultery would not even come into play.