[PASSED] Foreign Marriage Recognition

[Christian Democrats]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 200
Foreign Marriage Recognition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recognizing civil marriage as a secular institution that exists in many, if not most, member states,

Realizing that people who are married often migrate or travel to different member states,

Believing that such marriages should remain valid in foreign member states and that those people should not be burdened with having to remarry after moving to different member states,

1. Requires every member state to provide every foreign marriage that meets all of the following conditions the same legal recognition as a domestic marriage:

1. The marriage was performed legally under the jurisdiction of a foreign member state, and that marriage remains legally valid in that same foreign member state;
2. The marriage does not violate World Assembly law; and
3. The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

2. Declares that marriage, as used in this resolution, refers to civil marriages (social unions of individuals provided legal recognition by governmental authorities) as well as other sorts of civil unions or civil partnerships of similar legal effect;

3. Further declares that member state, as used in this resolution, refers to member states as well as their political subdivisions; and

4. Affirms that this resolution has absolutely no effect on religious practices and that member states are not required by this resolution to recognize marriage or similar unions.

PASSED 6,045 TO 5,079 ON JUNE 5, 2012

Approvals: 141 (New Chesterfield, New Hayesalia, Dagnia, IIIIIDaoistsIIIII, Armed British Federation, Nurdia, Britandul, Ruzalka, Jamesburgh, Anthony Fridas, Aeternus Terra, Abaven, Mikeswill, Etnofaz, Collector of Souls, Turanic Lands, Lyanna Stark, West Vandengaarde, Damanucus, Ventei, Valedia, The Arenales Republic, Char Aznable Neo Zeon, ELITE GEEKS, BearNation, Erasticanius, The Black Cactus, Lower Poseidonia, Badziew, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Kingdom of Navo, Wu Wei Shan, Musgoria, Purifination, King Rankmore, Bhavva, Chin-Chillas, Zarquon Froods, Ivorii, Eco-Educa, Troasta, Ananke II, USSARC, Proloteriat, Aeronos, The Committed, Dissant Machine Empire, United Dependencies, CLU, Romanelia, Kauvara, Faranai, Samuraikoku, Splendiferousness, Trektopolis, Kellan, Guanshiyin, Robanistania, East Klent, New Conglomerate, Genoveia, Ariusgrad, New North Symphonia, Democatia, South Salmona, Human people federation, Harikulade, Dragon Corporation, Neostalsis, Jakexbox10, Seazyr, Sangrivia, Free Peoples Cheese, SomeColorMage, Zeontarg, Castiel, Grand America, Northheim, Oyly, Razakia, Starlightia, Zibzibwe, Bald Brummies, PrussianEmpire, Beerithica, Huskarian, The-_Sicarii, GSSR, Obaman WA Mission, RJ H, Terra serena, Naboompu, Aravea, Basilon, The Borderlands of the Wastelandss, Saint Gladiolus, Kingsley Bedford, Bannanahail, The Wiggle, Republic of Shanka, Tyhcoon, The Eternal City, The Communist Empire of Platypus, General Hammond, Goodclark, Kizania, Ivanoland, Tepes Imperium, Fenrisfels, Gerzam, Metallicanistan, Ambibia, Not to be known, Wilkshire, Igualland, Storm and Rage, Abisburgo, Hosbiarna, Glorious Equality, Brezevski, Paynezania, The Land of the Grand Master, Frenequesta, Citigroup, Cooliestan, VinVachia, The Derrak Quadrant, Rendiga, Denfrunt, Zeorus, Zemnaya Svoboda, United Socialist States of Redoisa, Canadian Davsland, Yoh-en-Boeit, Aysidinan, Socratic Utopia, Kramerboy, The Unmentionables, The Finlandia Peoples, Queentain, Carlos Harry)

[Paper Flowers]

We find nothing immediately objectionable in this proposal and as such tentatively support.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Grays Harbor]

1. Requires every member state to provide every foreign marriage that meets all of the following conditions the same legal recognition as a domestic marriage:


a.The marriage was performed legally under the jurisdiction of a foreign member state, and that marriage remains legally valid in that same foreign member state;
b.The marriage does not violate World Assembly law; and
c.The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

2. Declares that marriage, as used in this resolution, refers to civil marriages as well as other sorts of civil unions or civil partnerships of similar legal effect;

3. Further declares that member state, as used in this resolution, refers to member states as well as their political subdivisions; and

4. Affirms that this resolution has absolutely no effect on religious practices and that member states are not required by this resolution to recognize marriage or similar unions.

This all sounds like "Keep doing what you are already doing, but now you'll have the benevolent hand of the WA giving you permission to keep doing what you are already doing." and as such seems a bit pointless.

[Hirota]

Reads to me as a blocker to stop gay marriages in other member states being recognised....well, if Resolution #15 wasn't in place. In fact this duplicates a lot of #15.

[Sanctaria]

The Ambassador really has a thing for legislating on marriages.

[Zaklen]

I'd suggest defining Civil Marriage. I also question why people always use the term "marriage" when discussing things like this. Calling something "marriage" legally just gives conservative religious people something to complain about, as the term itself has religious roots. I think "Civil Union" would be a more effective legal term. Marriage needs to be left as a religious institution.

OOC:For once, my NS political views and IRL ones match perfectly.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik for once had a poker face as he took the floor. "This may sound positive, but it really does not do much. It only requires recognition of marriages that would have been legal domestically, which is different from earlier proposals on marriage recognition and we could only speculate that this proposal is intended to preempt future proposals going in that direction. Furthermore, the Queendom takes issue with the language of this proposal, which seems to assume that marriages are between two people as it uses the word 'couples', whilst in some member states, such as the Queendom, marriages are legal also between three or more parties."

[Embolalia]

I'm sure my Lieutenant Ambassador will love this, but I'm afraid I don't see the need. It's harmless, I'll grant you that. But I'm not of the opinion that "meh, it can't hurt" is enough to vote in favor.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Laversia]

I'd suggest defining Civil Marriage. I also question why people always use the term "marriage" when discussing things like this. Calling something "marriage" legally just gives conservative religious people something to complain about, as the term itself has religious roots. I think "Civil Union" would be a more effective legal term. Marriage needs to be left as a religious institution.

OOC:For once, my NS political views and IRL ones match perfectly.

We at Laversia agree with the above comments, the terminology of 'marriage' rather than 'Civil Union' troubles us. However, we would support this proposal with the recommended changes.

[Philimbesi]

Nigel stands up.

"I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding.... if Nation A allows, say... gay marriage, you know just as an example, and a couple is in Nation B and Nation B doesn't allow gay marriage..... what would happen to the couple in Nation B, are they still married ?"

[Embolalia]

Nigel stands up.

"I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding.... if Nation A allows, say... gay marriage, you know just as an example, and a couple is in Nation B and Nation B doesn't allow gay marriage..... what would happen to the couple in Nation B, are they still married ?"

They would not be married in Nation B. Of course, if Nation B is in the World Assembly, neither would an opposite-sex couple from Nation A, because in the World Assembly, marriage is all or nothing, at least from the civil perspective.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Nigel stands up.

"I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding.... if Nation A allows, say... gay marriage, you know just as an example, and a couple is in Nation B and Nation B doesn't allow gay marriage..... what would happen to the couple in Nation B, are they still married ?"

They would not be married in Nation B. Of course, if Nation B is in the World Assembly, neither would an opposite-sex couple from Nation A, because in the World Assembly, marriage is all or nothing, at least from the civil perspective.

Indeed. It is too late for CD to "protect" WA nations from recognizing gay marriage (if they recognize marriage at all).

This draft is likely a response to Quadrimmina's long-suffering International Marriage Accords. While this draft cannot prevent member nations from recognizing homosexual unions, it can prevent them from recognizing unions between a man and a man and a man. Or a man and a woman and a sentient fish. Or a man and his cousin.

(Actually, I don't see an explicit blocker in there, so the WA could still expressly pass a law requiring non-discrimination of certain unions (say, incestuous ones)... maybe I've got CD all wrong. Then again, it's pretty hard to imagine this assembly ever passing the "Incestuous Marriage Accord" so I'm sure this proposal is as good as a blocker.)

CD is a wonderfully persistent and creative advocate for his constituency. As written this bill does do something: it requires recognition of certain foreign marriages. So presumably, there would be less red tape and no possibility of having your marriage voided simply because it wasn't officiated within a particular nation. On the other hand, this is clearly a blocker in large part - meant to prevent a future bill that would require CD (and any other nation) to recognize the polygamous, incestuous, or inter-species marriages of other nations.

I stand befuddled and un-opinionated. I shall wait to see additional argument on this subject before commenting further.

[Christian Democrats]

Reads to me as a blocker to stop gay marriages in other member states being recognised....well, if Resolution #15 wasn't in place. In fact this duplicates a lot of #15.

In what ways?

I think "Civil Union" would be a more effective legal term. Marriage needs to be left as a religious institution.

I agree.

Lord Raekevik for once had a poker face as he took the floor. "This may sound positive, but it really does not do much. It only requires recognition of marriages that would have been legal domestically, which is different from earlier proposals on marriage recognition and we could only speculate that this proposal is intended to preempt future proposals going in that direction. Furthermore, the Queendom takes issue with the language of this proposal, which seems to assume that marriages are between two people as it uses the word 'couples', whilst in some member states, such as the Queendom, marriages are legal also between three or more parties."

I don't see how this would preempt any future proposals. Right now, there aren't any other marriage proposals being drafted. Also, I can't remember anyone proposing this in any recent drafts for marriage laws.

References to couples are only in the preambulatory clauses (for lack of a better word). None of the active clauses contain such language.

As written this bill does do something: it requires recognition of certain foreign marriages. So presumably, there would be less red tape and no possibility of having your marriage voided simply because it wasn't officiated within a particular nation.

That is the only thing this proposal would do.

On the other hand, this is clearly a blocker in large part - meant to prevent a future bill that would require CD (and any other nation) to recognize the polygamous, incestuous, or inter-species marriages of other nations.

No, there isn't a blocker provision. The main reason for clause 1c is for some sort of situation like this:

1) Nation A has a marriageable age of 12.

2) Nation B has a marriageable age of 18.

3) Two citizens of Nation B who are 14 and 16 elope to Nation A and then later return to Nation B. Nation B is not required to recognize the marriage because it would be illegal if it had been performed domestically.

I want to add that this proposal also has the benefit of making it easier for people to have weddings at vacation spots in foreign countries; though, calling this a "free trade" proposal would be a stretch.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

On the other hand, this is clearly a blocker in large part - meant to prevent a future bill that would require CD (and any other nation) to recognize the polygamous, incestuous, or inter-species marriages of other nations.

No, there isn't a blocker provision. The main reason for clause 1c is for some sort of situation like this:

1) Nation A has a marriageable age of 12.

2) Nation B has a marriageable age of 18.

3) Two citizens of Nation B who are 14 and 16 elope to Nation A and then later return to Nation B. Nation B is not required to recognize the marriage because it would be illegal if it had been performed domestically.

I want to add that this proposal also has the benefit of making it easier for people to have weddings at vacation spots in foreign countries; though, calling this a "free trade" proposal would be a stretch.

This is absolutely correct and I retract my prior statement. The proposal would not block any future action by the WA to legislate on marriage. To use CD's example above, Nation B could refuse to recognize the underage marriage entered into in Nation A unless the WA came along at some later date and forbid discrimination on the basis that a party is too young to enter into a marriage.

Indeed, the WA could presumably pass a future law prohibiting discrimination in marriage on any grounds (though obviously, that's not too likely).

Best Regards.

[Zaklen]

Preventing discrimination in a "Civil Union" on any grounds could actually be useful. As many nations give legal benefits to people who are married, such as joint filing of taxes, allowing a "Civil Union" between any two people could actually be useful. I think I just came up with an idea for a proposal...though I think I'd need to repeal a certain piece of legislation first so that I could make said adjustments without having a duplication violation.

[Paper Flowers]

Preventing discrimination in a "Civil Union" on any grounds could actually be useful. As many nations give legal benefits to people who are married, such as joint filing of taxes, allowing a "Civil Union" between any two people could actually be useful. I think I just came up with an idea for a proposal...though I think I'd need to repeal a certain piece of legislation first so that I could make said adjustments without having a duplication violation.

Or we could just allow "marriages" and ignore religions that stamp their feet and sulk because someone else used a word?

Ambassador Walker

[Zaklen]

Even if I remove the religious connection, the idea I have come up with has a massive amount of potential. Why don't you wait for me to propose it before you shoot it down? Main issue I'm concerned with is that if I do this, I'll have to act quickly so that nations have as little time to abuse the removal of the Freedom of Marriage Act as possible.

As for getting this discussion back on track, Zaklen lends its support to this legislation.

[Paper Flowers]

Even if I remove the religious connection, the idea I have come up with has a massive amount of potential. Why don't you wait for me to propose it before you shoot it down? Main issue I'm concerned with is that if I do this, I'll have to act quickly so that nations have as little time to abuse the removal of the Freedom of Marriage Act as possible.

As for getting this discussion back on track, Zaklen lends its support to this legislation.

Perhaps I should have quoted the ambassadors original statement rather than their most recent one, it was simply that their most recent comment made it even clearer where they stand.

With regards to this proposal, the introduction of the "civil union" phrase would simply serve to create a massive loophole for untrustworthy and criminal organisations that masquerade as religions would be easily able to abuse. As such we are opposed to it.

[Merfurian]

We have a slight quibble with the following clause:

4. Affirms that this resolution has absolutely no effect on religious practices and that member states are not required by this resolution to recognize marriage or similar unions.

Clause 4 will just act as a blocker for the entire Resolution. The Resolution has the laudable aim of ensuring that nations recognise marriages undertaken in other nations. However, the fourth clause grants nations carte blanche to not recognise marriage. How, therefore can a person be married if his/her home nation does not recognise marriage? I demonstrate my point that clause 4 defeats the purpose of the resolution.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

[Viens]

The great nation of Viens must approve all marriages and thus refuses to support this act, as it would go against our great leader's ideals.

Sincerely,
Representative Abraham Weiss

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik for once had a poker face as he took the floor. "This may sound positive, but it really does not do much. It only requires recognition of marriages that would have been legal domestically, which is different from earlier proposals on marriage recognition and we could only speculate that this proposal is intended to preempt future proposals going in that direction. Furthermore, the Queendom takes issue with the language of this proposal, which seems to assume that marriages are between two people as it uses the word 'couples', whilst in some member states, such as the Queendom, marriages are legal also between three or more parties."

I don't see how this would preempt any future proposals. Right now, there aren't any other marriage proposals being drafted. Also, I can't remember anyone proposing this in any recent drafts for marriage laws.

References to couples are only in the preambulatory clauses (for lack of a better word). None of the active clauses contain such language.

"Can't remember? We were debating international marriage recognition up until a month and a half ago. A proposal including recognition of foreign marriages is at the ready in case FoMA is repealed. Such a repeal is now being drafted. For someone who so often debates marriage, Your Excellency seems a bit ignorant of the current GA marriage discourse. But knowing the Christian Democrats' position against polyamory, I cannot help but wonder if Your Excellency is well aware of all this and the real reason for drafting this proposal is so that if in the future a proposal comes along that would require Christian Democrats to recognise polyamorous marriages, then that proposal would be illegal for duplicating or contradicting this one.

And still knowing the Christian Democrats' position on polyamory and reading this proposal in that light, the Queendom cannot accept any limitation of marriage to only two people within the proposal language, no matter how meaningless the clause including it may be.

And on a further, unrelated, note: why does this proposal exclude religious marriages? If two Alqanians get married in the Alqanian Evangelical Church, why should their marriage not be recognised as automatically in Christian Democrats as if they had gotten a civil marriage?"

[Auralia]

And on a further, unrelated, note: why does this proposal exclude religious marriages? If two Alqanians get married in the Alqanian Evangelical Church, why should their marriage not be recognised as automatically in Christian Democrats as if they had gotten a civil marriage?"

Most religious marriages have a civil component - that is to say, they are recognized both by the church and by the state. They would therefore be covered under this resolution. However, should a couple decide to get married solely through their church, their government would not recognize their marriage as legally valid; why, then, should other nations do so?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Lord Richard took to his feet. "We believe our position here is with Lord Raekevik: This is too much of a blocker on the ability of the General Assembly to further legislate on non-discrimination in marriages or civil unions. With an elegantly inevitable consequentialness, we are opposed to the proposal at hand."

[Alqania]

And on a further, unrelated, note: why does this proposal exclude religious marriages? If two Alqanians get married in the Alqanian Evangelical Church, why should their marriage not be recognised as automatically in Christian Democrats as if they had gotten a civil marriage?"

Most religious marriages have a civil component - that is to say, they are recognized both by the church and by the state. They would therefore be covered under this resolution. However, should a couple decide to get married solely through their church, their government would not recognize their marriage as legally valid; why, then, should other nations do so?

"All marriages performed by the Alqanian Evangelical Church are automatically recognised by Her Majesty's Government. Why would a government not recognise religious marriages as legally valid? That sounds wrong. The recognition of a religious marriage as legally valid does not make it a 'civil marriage', does it?"

[Embolalia]

Yes, in fact. As with FoMA, this proposal relates to marriage as recognized by the state (though, admittedly, it does not phrase it as well). Whether or not that marriage is also recognized by a religion is completely irrelevant to the law.

With regards to this proposal, the introduction of the "civil union" phrase would simply serve to create a massive loophole for untrustworthy and criminal organisations that masquerade as religions would be easily able to abuse. As such we are opposed to it.

Quite right. FoMA used the word, and there is little confusion over the fact that it is unrelated to the religious concept. Can we at least wait until people actually make the noise before we cower to it?

Clause 4 will just act as a blocker for the entire Resolution. The Resolution has the laudable aim of ensuring that nations recognise marriages undertaken in other nations. However, the fourth clause grants nations carte blanche to not recognise marriage. How, therefore can a person be married if his/her home nation does not recognise marriage? I demonstrate my point that clause 4 defeats the purpose of the resolution.

FoMA already notes that nations have the right not to recognize marriage. The point here, as with FoMA, is that you can either recognize the type of marriage targeted (same-sex marriage in FoMA, foreign marriage here) or not recognize marriage at all. The two resolutions are really quite comparable in that respect.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia