[PASSED] Forced Marriages Ban Act

[Speculine]

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

Wait, so theoretically I could marry everyone in the world without even telling the? There would be informed consent of at least one person (me).

I somehow failed to notice that. Along with a change to your fourth point this should be changed as well. Both parties should be required to have given informed consent.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik was nodding along in the debate and thought the Ambassador from Christian Democrats seemed reasonable enough. Then, as if his mind had been read, he was handed a report on the Ambassador's record within the General Assembly and the impression took a dire turn for the worse. But this proposal seemed reasonable enough, Lord Raekevik thought to himself, well, apart from the issues with clauses 1 and 4 that had been raised by other Ambassadors, those would need to be rectified. As he was going through clause 4 again, his eyes turned downwards to clause 5. Hold on a minute, he thought, that didn't look right.

5. Allows each member state to recognize or not to recognize and to determine the legality of arranged marriage, polygamy, and bigamy in its jurisdiction;

"Delegates and Ambassadors, the Queendom would be delighted to support this bill, if changes are made to clauses 1 and 4 as has been petitioned by other Ambassadors, and if..." He paused for a moment and looked at the other Ambassadors, as if trying to figure out how they would react to his next suggestion. "And if clause 5 is removed, alternatively changed to only include arranged marriage. Clause 5 would effectively block WA legislation either in favour or against these forms of marriage, and while the Queendom has no position on such blocking of legislation on arranged marriage, we cannot support allowing states to enforce monogamy. Removing polygamy and bigamy from this clause would not change the status quo, it would simply remove the proposed blocking of them."

Lord Raekevik contemplated, the debate on inter-species marriage fresh in his memory and the track record of Christian Democrats in mind, whether this bill could be an elaborate attempt to block WA legislation on polygamy and the blocker in clause 5 be the real incentive for Christian Democrats to propose a ban on forced marriages.

[Dizyntk]

Lord Raekevik was nodding along in the debate and thought the Ambassador from Christian Democrats seemed reasonable enough. Then, as if his mind had been read, he was handed a report on the Ambassador's record within the General Assembly and the impression took a dire turn for the worse. But this proposal seemed reasonable enough, Lord Raekevik thought to himself, well, apart from the issues with clauses 1 and 4 that had been raised by other Ambassadors, those would need to be rectified. As he was going through clause 4 again, his eyes turned downwards to clause 5. Hold on a minute, he thought, that didn't look right.

5. Allows each member state to recognize or not to recognize and to determine the legality of arranged marriage, polygamy, and bigamy in its jurisdiction;

"Delegates and Ambassadors, the Queendom would be delighted to support this bill, if changes are made to clauses 1 and 4 as has been petitioned by other Ambassadors, and if..." He paused for a moment and looked at the other Ambassadors, as if trying to figure out how they would react to his next suggestion. "And if clause 5 is removed, alternatively changed to only include arranged marriage. Clause 5 would effectively block WA legislation either in favour or against these forms of marriage, and while the Queendom has no position on such blocking of legislation on arranged marriage, we cannot support allowing states to enforce monogamy. Removing polygamy and bigamy from this clause would not change the status quo, it would simply remove the proposed blocking of them."

Lord Raekevik contemplated, the debate on inter-species marriage fresh in his memory and the track record of Christian Democrats in mind, whether this bill could be an elaborate attempt to block WA legislation on polygamy and the blocker in clause 5 be the real incentive for Christian Democrats to propose a ban on forced marriages.

The Dizyntk imperium would like to support the motion made by the Alqanian Delegate. The types of marriages you refer to as polygamous are common and normal among the Dizyntk and we would be very opposed to any moves towards retricting them.

[Syvorji]

While it has good point, it is the same guy who wants to ban abortion. Opposed.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

Is that really necessary? Would you have supported it if Flib proposed it? It seems unfair for CD that simply because he proposed something that you did not agree with (and neither did I) you have tagged and labeled him and all his work as rubbish. We find that very unprofessional.

Yes, I could have, but CD has opened Pandora's Box and seen too much of abortion. Thus, opposed.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

[Phing Phong]

Is that really necessary? Would you have supported it if Flib proposed it? It seems unfair for CD that simply because he proposed something that you did not agree with (and neither did I) you have tagged and labeled him and all his work as rubbish. We find that very unprofessional.

Yes, I could have, but CD has opened Pandora's Box and seen too much of abortion. Thus, opposed.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

We would agree with all those nations supportive of a progressive and balanced stance on abortion; however a past resolution proposal should have no effect on a nation's judgement of a present one.

[Geilinor]

How do you decide if a marriage was forced? The courts have many more important cases to deal with, they would be swamped with "forced marriage" complaints.

[Speculine]

Lord Raekevik was nodding along in the debate and thought the Ambassador from Christian Democrats seemed reasonable enough. Then, as if his mind had been read, he was handed a report on the Ambassador's record within the General Assembly and the impression took a dire turn for the worse. But this proposal seemed reasonable enough, Lord Raekevik thought to himself, well, apart from the issues with clauses 1 and 4 that had been raised by other Ambassadors, those would need to be rectified. As he was going through clause 4 again, his eyes turned downwards to clause 5. Hold on a minute, he thought, that didn't look right.

5. Allows each member state to recognize or not to recognize and to determine the legality of arranged marriage, polygamy, and bigamy in its jurisdiction;

"Delegates and Ambassadors, the Queendom would be delighted to support this bill, if changes are made to clauses 1 and 4 as has been petitioned by other Ambassadors, and if..." He paused for a moment and looked at the other Ambassadors, as if trying to figure out how they would react to his next suggestion. "And if clause 5 is removed, alternatively changed to only include arranged marriage. Clause 5 would effectively block WA legislation either in favour or against these forms of marriage, and while the Queendom has no position on such blocking of legislation on arranged marriage, we cannot support allowing states to enforce monogamy. Removing polygamy and bigamy from this clause would not change the status quo, it would simply remove the proposed blocking of them."

Lord Raekevik contemplated, the debate on inter-species marriage fresh in his memory and the track record of Christian Democrats in mind, whether this bill could be an elaborate attempt to block WA legislation on polygamy and the blocker in clause 5 be the real incentive for Christian Democrats to propose a ban on forced marriages.

There does seem to be a very real possibility of an alternative agenda there. Speculine's Council Of M-Theory has agreed and we stand in agreement with Lord Raekevik.

[Christian Democrats]

Since it appears my proposal to repeal the Living Wage Act has died, I guess it's time to get back to this draft. So far, these are the primary suggestions that have been made:

1. Define "informed consent."

2. Require nations to enforce provisions of resolution.

3. Establish a process by which some forced marriages performed before the resolution's passage are legal if the couple wishes to remain married.

4. Remove the blocker clause allowing each state to determine its own polygamy laws.

Concerning the first point, I still cannot think of an adequate definiton of "informed consent" nor do I understand why one is necessary when "informed consent" is a common phrase that is widely understood. I'm open to suggestions on point two. Regarding point three, I'll make revisions; though, I don't see what would be so difficult about remarrying. Concerning the fourth point, I don't understand why each state shouldn't be able to determine its own laws regarding issues such as polygamy. This is and always has been a controversial issue. I don't think a world government should legislate on it. Even states in a federation (such as the RL United States) are allowed to determine their own marriage laws. The World Assembly isn't a unitary state.

[Alqania]

Concerning the fourth point, I don't understand why each state shouldn't be able to determine its own laws regarding issues such as polygamy. This is and always has been a controversial issue. I don't think a world government should legislate on it. Even states in a federation (such as the RL United States) are allowed to determine their own marriage laws. The World Assembly isn't a unitary state.

"Your Excellency is aware that the World Assembly has already legislated on marriage with the Freedom of Marriage Act and the Right to a Lawful Divorce. Those issues are also controversial and could be legislated on a state level within a federation."

[Quadrimmina]

Clause 5 appears to be a very sneaky rider in light of the current title of this resolution. A resolution dealing with "forced marriage" should not have clauses related to polygamy and bigamy. We must urge the proposing delegation to either remove the reference to polygamy and bigamy or to change the title of the resolution.

[Dizyntk]

Clause 5 appears to be a very sneaky rider in light of the current title of this resolution. A resolution dealing with "forced marriage" should not have clauses related to polygamy and bigamy. We must urge the proposing delegation to either remove the reference to polygamy and bigamy or to change the title of the resolution.

We concur with the Quadrimmina Ambassador.

[Southern Patriots]

Clause 5 appears to be a very sneaky rider in light of the current title of this resolution. A resolution dealing with "forced marriage" should not have clauses related to polygamy and bigamy. We must urge the proposing delegation to either remove the reference to polygamy and bigamy or to change the title of the resolution.

We concur with the ambassador from Quadrimmina.

[Christian Democrats]

Concerning the fourth point, I don't understand why each state shouldn't be able to determine its own laws regarding issues such as polygamy. This is and always has been a controversial issue. I don't think a world government should legislate on it. Even states in a federation (such as the RL United States) are allowed to determine their own marriage laws. The World Assembly isn't a unitary state.

"Your Excellency is aware that the World Assembly has already legislated on marriage with the Freedom of Marriage Act and the Right to a Lawful Divorce. Those issues are also controversial and could be legislated on a state level within a federation."

I oppose both of those resolutions because I believe those should be national issues. I consider myself an international federalist. I don't support a unitary state. General Assembly Resolution 16, the Sexual Privacy Act, is sufficient to protect personal relations.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Apart from removing clause 5, will this draft continue to allow us to prohibit overseas spouses from entering our country to join victims of forced marriages?

[Christian Democrats]

Apart from removing clause 5, will this draft continue to allow us to prohibit overseas spouses from entering our country to join victims of forced marriages?

Yes.

Furthermore, this proposal:

3. Forbids member states and their political subdivisions from enforcing or providing legal recognition to forced marriages performed in other countries

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Apart from removing clause 5, will this draft continue to allow us to prohibit overseas spouses from entering our country to join victims of forced marriages?

Yes.

Furthermore, this proposal:

3. Forbids member states and their political subdivisions from enforcing or providing legal recognition to forced marriages performed in other countries

And nationally as well, honoured ambassador? Just wishing to verify the solidness of this draft.

[Alqania]

"Your Excellency is aware that the World Assembly has already legislated on marriage with the Freedom of Marriage Act and the Right to a Lawful Divorce. Those issues are also controversial and could be legislated on a state level within a federation."

I oppose both of those resolutions because I believe those should be national issues. I consider myself an international federalist. I don't support a unitary state. General Assembly Resolution 16, the Sexual Privacy Act, is sufficient to protect personal relations.

"I would think Your Excellency did. Just so we are clear that the voting majority and Your Excellency have different opinions on what the World Assembly should and should not legislate on. I note also that other Ambassadors have questioned the relevance of polygamy and bigamy in a proposal on forced marriages. Would Your Excellency care to comment on that?"

[Christian Democrats]

I've revised the proposal. I removed the polygamy blocker only because I believe it possibly would prevent this proposal from passing.

Yes.

Furthermore, this proposal:

And nationally as well, honoured ambassador? Just wishing to verify the solidness of this draft.

I don't understand your question. The proposal would ban forced marriages, which means that member states and their subdivisions would be prohibited from allowing such unions.

[Quelesh]

6. Allows each member state to recognize or not to recognize and to determine the legality of arranged marriage in its jurisdiction;

7. Allows member states to privatize marriage so long as they abide by the provisions of this resolution; and

8. Allows member states that recognize marriages to establish marriageable ages that do not discriminate on the basis of sex.[/box]

All three of these clauses are unnecessary. Arrange marriage, privatized marriage and marriageable ages are already at the discretion of member states. These clauses therefore have only a blocking effect.

[Quadrimmina]

6. Allows each member state to recognize or not to recognize and to determine the legality of arranged marriage in its jurisdiction;

7. Allows member states to privatize marriage so long as they abide by the provisions of this resolution; and

8. Allows member states that recognize marriages to establish marriageable ages that do not discriminate on the basis of sex.[/box]

All three of these clauses are unnecessary. Arrange marriage, privatized marriage and marriageable ages are already at the discretion of member states. These clauses therefore have only a blocking effect.

We also feel that these clauses go against the intentions alluded to in the resolution's title.

[Christian Democrats]

All three of these clauses are unnecessary. Arrange marriage, privatized marriage and marriageable ages are already at the discretion of member states. These clauses therefore have only a blocking effect.

We also feel that these clauses go against the intentions alluded to in the resolution's title.

Clauses removed. Does anyone see any other problems with this proposal, or is it ready for submission?

[Quelesh]

Thank you for removing those clauses.

[Alqania]

5. Recommends that member states establish special law enforcement divisions to investigate claims of forced marriage and communities that supposedly countenance such unions.

"While I realise this is a non-binding clause, I wonder if special law enforcement divisions are needed for this purpose. And I certainly do not like the implications of the community part. I hope the recommendation is not that we establish a special police for specific demographic groups. I would prefer if this clause was removed, though I must say, I think the Queendom will be able to support this proposal with or without this clause."

[Christian Democrats]

5. Recommends that member states establish special law enforcement divisions to investigate claims of forced marriage and communities that supposedly countenance such unions.

"While I realise this is a non-binding clause, I wonder if special law enforcement divisions are needed for this purpose. And I certainly do not like the implications of the community part. I hope the recommendation is not that we establish a special police for specific demographic groups. I would prefer if this clause was removed, though I must say, I think the Queendom will be able to support this proposal with or without this clause."

As you mentioned, it's a nonbinding clause. A "forced marriage" division could be staffed by only one or two officers. The kinds of communities that I'm describing are ones such as the FLDS in the United States. I thought of writing this proposal after seeing coverage of the Warren Jeffs' trial on television. (Yesterday, he was sentenced to life in prison.)

[Christian Democrats]

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

I'm thinking of submitting this proposal after the next update cycle begins. Does everyone think this definition of forced marriage is adequate? Do you have any other suggestions?