[DRAFT] Interracial Marriage Act

[Tekcirb]

At the moment I think Eternal Yerushalayim's Redraft is the best to submit and I think that EY should submit it as he is much more experienced and influential than I am.

[Quadrimmina]

Please, I understand your point of view but Arcs marrying Humans, do you know what the result could be?

This is valid, hmmm...how about the resolution has a bit of a multi-article mechanism?

1) Declaration of equal rights and immunities of married persons.
2) Mandate that any two persons of the same taxonomical species must be allowed to marry.
3) Clarification that member states shall have the final say regarding interspecies marriage and bestiality.

This would be much more broad than the existing resolution, and would mean that marriage could finally be totally free.

We must also urge the delegation of Tekcirb to reconsider allowing a resolution of such a narrow scope when a much broader solution is available.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I say we leave this thread here for a week or so before coming up with a final draft.

[Morlago]

Given that this is not covered by any resolution currently, we can support this.

We would like to see this Act expanded such that any two sapient beings can be married in any member nation. Close all the loopholes at once!

We cannot support a proposal with this idea as bestiality is banned in Morlago.

1) Declaration of equal rights and immunities of married persons.
2) Mandate that any two persons of the same taxonomical species must be allowed to marry.
3) Clarification that member states shall have the final say regarding interspecies marriage and bestiality.

Now this we can support.

[Quadrimmina]

I say we leave this thread here for a week or so before coming up with a final draft.

Maybe, but the competing drafts should also be put forward to the front of the thread in that case so that they can be compared by people entering this debate.

[Darenjo]

I say we leave this thread here for a week or so before coming up with a final draft.

Maybe, but the competing drafts should also be put forward to the front of the thread in that case so that they can be compared by people entering this debate.

I agree. I also agree with the three points Quad made. However, I feel that you may need to repeal FoMA first - and we all know how fun that's going to be.

[Christian Democrats]

repeal FoMA

I agree.

[Morlago]

Maybe, but the competing drafts should also be put forward to the front of the thread in that case so that they can be compared by people entering this debate.

I agree. I also agree with the three points Quad made. However, I feel that you may need to repeal FoMA first - and we all know how fun that's going to be.

But with a better replacement like the one Quad wrote, I would think that people will support.

[Quadrimmina]

I agree. I also agree with the three points Quad made. However, I feel that you may need to repeal FoMA first - and we all know how fun that's going to be.

However, I do question whether repeal of FoMA would have to come first. I mean, as a consequence, FoMA would become a useless resolution. Can't we just repeal it after?

[Christian Democrats]

I agree. I also agree with the three points Quad made. However, I feel that you may need to repeal FoMA first - and we all know how fun that's going to be.

However, I do question whether repeal of FoMA would have to come first. I mean, as a consequence, FoMA would become a useless resolution. Can't we just repeal it after?

No. There would be a duplication violation.

[Mallorea and Riva]

repeal FoMA

I agree.

Oh no you don't. We're not going down this road.

[Mahaj]

I agree.

Oh no you don't. We're not going down this road.

What he said.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Also:

Please, I understand your point of view but Arcs marrying Humans, do you know what the result could be?

This is valid, hmmm...how about the resolution has a bit of a multi-article mechanism?

1) Declaration of equal rights and immunities of married persons.
2) Mandate that any two persons of the same taxonomical species must be allowed to marry.
3) Clarification that member states shall have the final say regarding interspecies marriage and bestiality.

This would be much more broad than the existing resolution, and would mean that marriage could finally be totally free.

We must also urge the delegation of Tekcirb to reconsider allowing a resolution of such a narrow scope when a much broader solution is available.

1) Ok.
2) Really? Under any circumstances? You might want to allow a little leeway there.
3) Why? Just make it a "sentient beings" clause.

[Southern Patriots]

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.

[Quadrimmina]

Also:

This is valid, hmmm...how about the resolution has a bit of a multi-article mechanism?

1) Declaration of equal rights and immunities of married persons.
2) Mandate that any two persons of the same taxonomical species must be allowed to marry.
3) Clarification that member states shall have the final say regarding interspecies marriage and bestiality.

This would be much more broad than the existing resolution, and would mean that marriage could finally be totally free.

We must also urge the delegation of Tekcirb to reconsider allowing a resolution of such a narrow scope when a much broader solution is available.

1) Ok.
2) Really? Under any circumstances? You might want to allow a little leeway there.
3) Why? Just make it a "sentient beings" clause.

2) For what, may I ask? Is there some extenuating circumstance I am overlooking?
3) That works too.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Also:
1) Ok.
2) Really? Under any circumstances? You might want to allow a little leeway there.
3) Why? Just make it a "sentient beings" clause.

2) For what, may I ask? Is there some extenuating circumstance I am overlooking?
3) That works too.

2) Interfamilial marriages? Underage marriages? Etc etc etc.
3) It simplifies things.

[Morlago]

2) For what, may I ask? Is there some extenuating circumstance I am overlooking?
3) That works too.

2) Interfamilial marriages? Underage marriages? Etc etc etc.
3) It simplifies things.

Ah, true... Incest and underage marriages are banned in Morlago... so that does create a giant loophole and so we are opposed...

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.

True... maybe this is not needed after all.

[Quadrimmina]

However, I do question whether repeal of FoMA would have to come first. I mean, as a consequence, FoMA would become a useless resolution. Can't we just repeal it after?

No. There would be a duplication violation.

I'm gonna have to ask a mod about that. It seems as though Article 3 of the FoMA is not being contradicted at all. We're just adding a new criterion. I guess it depends on what the draft says though.

2) Interfamilial marriages? Underage marriages? Etc etc etc.
3) It simplifies things.

2) I suppose. Hmmm...how about this:
"Marriage between two sapient beings of the same taxonomical species must be allowed except for the following 2 exceptions:
a) Where one party in the marriage is not considered of the proper mental capacity to agree to marriage due to age, unless consent is provided by the party's parent or legal guardian.
b) In the case of reasonable restriction that can be applied equitably amongst all citizens in the nation, and which do not discriminate against a specific group as defined by national or international law.

[Christian Democrats]

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.

I've thought the same thing; however, if that were the correct interpretation, then FOMA would prevent nations from establishing any conditions for marriage (age, residency, etc.).

[Quadrimmina]

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.

I read that to mean that the same requirements that are placed upon a union of a heterosexual couple must be placed upon a union of a homosexual couple, and none more. In other words, you can't let a heterosexual couple get married immediately, and apply like a 200 year wait period on a homosexual couple or something like that. Just a method of providing equal treatment, and etc.

[Unibot II]

repeal FoMA

I agree.

"Well of course, *you* agree. So, The Ecclesiastical Altar-Boy Wonder wants to reduce the internationally-recognised rights of the LGBT community again, eh? Perhaps he's forgotten about our little discussion? If only we could channel this 'moral courage'^1. into something productive like getting clean water and food to needy children -- we'd solve those problems in a week, as opposed to worrying about whose bums are being ridden. " Eduard said smoking a pipe whilst snickering with a mischievous grin.

^1. Moral Courage. n. to do what is wrong in spite of community outrage for the sake of doing something that is wrong and please master in this devout process.

[Connopolis]

I agree.

"Well of course, *you* agree. So, The Ecclesiastical Altar-Boy Wonder wants to reduce the internationally-recognised rights of the LGBT community again, eh? Perhaps he's forgotten about our little discussion? If only we could channel this 'moral courage'^1. into something productive like getting clean water and food to needy children -- we'd solve those problems in a week, as opposed to worrying about whose bums are being ridden. " Eduard said smoking a pipe whilst snickering with a mischievous grin.

^1. Moral Courage. n. to do what is wrong in spite of community outrage for the sake of doing something that is wrong and please master in this devout process.

Perhaps that was slightly uncalled for? You can express your disagreement without being so cynical.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.

I've thought the same thing; however, if that were the correct interpretation, then FOMA would prevent nations from establishing any conditions for marriage (age, residency, etc.).

Show me where it says any such thing.

Freedom of Marriage Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Mendosia

Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,

DETERMINED to further the rights of persons that have been oppressed and discriminated against for ages,

RESOLVED to provide a legal framework that enhances the social recognition of these minorities,

RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,

ADOPT the following resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

(b) The protection referred to in the previous section does not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.

(c) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence.

Article 3 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.

[Unibot II]

[...] You can express your disagreement without being so cynical.

"And surely you can express your disagreement of my conduct without being so *optimistic*?" Eduard said blowing some smoke rings into the Connopolis ambassador's face.

[Nature-Spirits]

What about handfasting? Would interracial handfasting be safe from oppression?