[PASSED] Foreign Marriage Recognition

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Well, yeah, they can just refuse to recognise marriage, but that hardly seems like the sort of loophole that meets the needs of states wishing to restrict gay marriage.

Doesn't it? If all marriages were extralegal and outsourced to the church...and the church is exempt from the conditions set by FOMA...are you following me?

Such as in the case of the Kawaiians, where all of our public institutions--including marriage--are conducted through the Church.

According to this resolution's author, this proposal if enacted will have no effect on our laws. So, yeah. We're considering taking a page from the good but unwholesome Sentator Sulla and offering our vote up for sale. Any takers?

[Christian Democrats]

I am going to hold fire on this one. "The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically" means we would not have to recognise forced or violent marriages, but another country could exclude secular ones. Can you clarify on this?

As intended, the proposal would allow countries not to recognize kinds of marriages that they oppose (subject to other legislation passed by the Assembly). For example, member states that oppose polygamous, incestuous, arranged, and child marriages would not be required to recognize any of those unions.

Recall that, in August, a resolution was passed prohibiting forced marriage: Forced Marriages Ban Act.

If that resolution were ever repealed, however, clause 1c of my current proposal would have the exact same effect.

I have not yet considered any questions of secularity. Concerning that, I believe nations following my proposal would be considering only questions about those who entered the marital union, such as: were they the proper age at the time of marriage? and so forth. This is because those partners would have been allowed to enter a marriage if that union had taken place domestically.

For example:

A marriage between two people who are in their 20s would be legally valid if it had taken place domestically.

I believe I have a better way to explain this:

The actual procedures that take place when one marries are accidental properties of the marriage's performance that have absolutely no effect on the essence of the union.

If Bob, 26, and Sally, 24, had chosen to marry in Nation B instead of Nation A, then they would have undergone different procedures; but those procedures are part of the marriage's performance ("if it had been performed domestically") while having no effect on the essence of the union (the persons entering the union).

Doesn't it? If all marriages were extralegal and outsourced to the church...and the church is exempt from the conditions set by FOMA...are you following me?

But marriage then could not have legal relevance.

This actually occurs in real life. In Israel, marriage has been "outsourced" to the religious organizations. There are no marriages whatsoever performed by secular authorities, yet married couples still have additional legal privileges.

Wait . . . I just double checked this. That is how it used to be in Israel, but the law recently changed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/israel-to-allow-civil-mar_n_779183.html

"Until now, all Israeli marriages had to be performed as religious unions in order to be recognized by the state. Jews, Muslims, Christians and others wishing to marry first had to register with their respective religious authorities."

[Christian Democrats]

Could anyone tell me what the internal vote (forum vote) is right now in 10000 Islands?

[Halteria]

Amongst 10,000 Islands residents, voting is currently 169-154 (52% For).

As Halteria recognizes all marriages between consenting adults, we oppose this resolution, though we appreciate the authors' attempts to respect national sovereignty in their drafting.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina would like to voice our concerns that this resolution would block any further legislation on marriage recognition and nothing more. 1(c) is toothless, Reasonable Nation Theory states that if a marriage is legal, it will be recognized. The concern we have brought forward in the past is cases in which the marriage is illegal, and thus unrecognized. This resolution serves only as a blocker, by regulating only a subset of recognition, it forbids a further resolution expanding recognition. (Ironically, it is much in the same way that our resolution respecting full marriage equality was blocked due to illegality by FoMA, which legalized a smaller subset of marriages.)

As such, we are vehemently against this resolution, and hope that all delegations that seek true marriage rights join us in this opposition.

[Datavia]

Amongst 10,000 Islands residents, voting is currently 169-154 (52% For).

As Halteria recognizes all marriages between consenting adults, we oppose this resolution, though we appreciate the authors' attempts to respect national sovereignty in their drafting.

Is that a reason to oppose? The current proposal won't make less valid your nation's marriages in your own nation, plus it would make most of them valid when your citizens move abroad – I grant, not all of them, but you hardly can expect a foreign nation to recognize a marriage between siblings if that nation doesn't for their own citizens.

The Republic of Quadrimmina would like to voice our concerns that this resolution would block any further legislation on marriage recognition and nothing more. 1(c) is toothless, Reasonable Nation Theory states that if a marriage is legal, it will be recognized. The concern we have brought forward in the past is cases in which the marriage is illegal, and thus unrecognized. This resolution serves only as a blocker, by regulating only a subset of recognition, it forbids a further resolution expanding recognition. (Ironically, it is much in the same way that our resolution respecting full marriage equality was blocked due to illegality by FoMA, which legalized a smaller subset of marriages.)

As such, we are vehemently against this resolution, and hope that all delegations that seek true marriage rights join us in this opposition.

A while ago I prevented Mardoniac's Ambassador against some true legal gibberish, and here it is! If we vote against a well-balanced proposal as this, I don't think we'll ever agree on a Foreign Marriage Recognition resolution at all.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina would like to voice our concerns that this resolution would block any further legislation on marriage recognition and nothing more. 1(c) is toothless, Reasonable Nation Theory states that if a marriage is legal, it will be recognized. The concern we have brought forward in the past is cases in which the marriage is illegal, and thus unrecognized. This resolution serves only as a blocker, by regulating only a subset of recognition, it forbids a further resolution expanding recognition. (Ironically, it is much in the same way that our resolution respecting full marriage equality was blocked due to illegality by FoMA, which legalized a smaller subset of marriages.)

As such, we are vehemently against this resolution, and hope that all delegations that seek true marriage rights join us in this opposition.

A while ago I prevented Mardoniac's Ambassador against some true legal gibberish, and here it is! If we vote against a well-balanced proposal as this, I don't think we'll ever agree on a Foreign Marriage Recognition resolution at all.

This resolution is ineffective, though. Nations already recognize marriages that are legal in their nations. Why wouldn't they? There's no practical purpose not to. This resolution does nothing.

[Christian Democrats]

A while ago I prevented Mardoniac's Ambassador against some true legal gibberish, and here it is! If we vote against a well-balanced proposal as this, I don't think we'll ever agree on a Foreign Marriage Recognition resolution at all.

This resolution is ineffective, though. Nations already recognize marriages that are legal in their nations. Why wouldn't they? There's no practical purpose not to. This resolution does nothing.

OOC: I guess there's no purpose for the Hague Marriage Convention either . . .

Article 9. A marriage validly entered into under the law of the State of celebration or which subsequently becomes valid under that law shall be considered as such in all Contracting States, subject to the provisions of this Chapter. . . .

Article 14. A Contracting State may refuse to recognise the validity of a marriage where such recognition is manifestly incompatible with its public policy ("ordre public").

Or the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the United States Constitution . . .

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

And, just doing a quick search on the internet, it seems that foreign marriage recognition is a concern of real people: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091113160559AAbjkQp.

[Free South Califas]

This resolution is ineffective, though. Nations already recognize marriages that are legal in their nations. Why wouldn't they? There's no practical purpose not to. This resolution does nothing.

OOC: I guess there's no purpose for the Hague Marriage Convention either . . .

Reasonable Nations Theory does not apply in real life. I don't know if you noticed, but they don't use a stat tracker to enforce the law there.

[Datavia]

This resolution is ineffective, though. Nations already recognize marriages that are legal in their nations. Why wouldn't they? There's no practical purpose not to. This resolution does nothing.

Do they, Ms. Kerrigan? Do they? You fail to acknowledge the importance of this resolution, however small, in order to improve the freedom of movement of the families around the world. You can't presume to know the laws of all nations. If yours simply accepts any marriage certificate issued by another nation, good for you. But, as this acceptance is not mandatory for all nations, it is possible that such restrictions do exist, because of discrimination against foreigners, excessive bureaucracy, etc. That simple convenience of avoiding such restrictions is what this proposal is trying to guarantee.

[Christian Democrats]

Hypothetical:

When a married couple is visiting a foreign country, one of the spouses is arrested and imprisoned. That country allows someone to see his or her spouse if that individual is in prison. The government, which does not recognize foreign marriages, disallows the spouse outside of prison from visiting the spouse in prison because those two people are not considered legally married.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

A while ago I prevented Mardoniac's Ambassador against some true legal gibberish, and here it is! If we vote against a well-balanced proposal as this, I don't think we'll ever agree on a Foreign Marriage Recognition resolution at all.

This resolution is ineffective, though. Nations already recognize marriages that are legal in their nations. Why wouldn't they? There's no practical purpose not to. This resolution does nothing.

"This argument falls flat on its face. Due to a lack of a constituency pushing for such a law and (if you believe the rumours) spitefulness by some deputies against the non-recognition of Zemnaya Svobodan marriages in certain extra-regional states, at this time Zemnaya Svoboda only recognizes marriages of persons married in a nation in The North Pacific."

[Treehall]

This does nothing to allow other nations to recognize same-sex marriages.
Why would I vote for something that allows to loving people to become second class citizens should they choose to move to another nation, regardless of their sex?

[Goobergunchia]

We have to point out yet again the existence of the resolution "Freedom of Marriage Act".

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Thatchland]

We have to point out yet again the existence of the resolution "Freedom of Marriage Act".

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

And while we agree that repeal of said Act is highly improbable - that does not mean we could not see a rabid submission of continuous repeal attempts from opponents of same-sex marriage should this Resolution at vote come to fruition. This would not be unlike the continuous attempts on other Acts and Repeals that we are currently seeing in regards to Habeas Corpus, Double Jeopardy, Male Circumcision by one stubborn Ambassador. Or the repeated attempts to repeal Abortion act by several others ...

Do we really want to open ANOTHER can of worms that will do nothing but cause more of a bottleneck in this Assembly?

Therefore, we have been - since day one of the vote - AGAINST the passage of this resolution.

Had it been a 'full faith, credit, rights and privileges' act - where the marriage in one nation was fully given equal treatment in foreign nations, this would be a different story. However, since it hinges upon what is allowed 'domestically' it would be best that all are hindered the same way, than a privileged few receiving recognition and others cast out.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

"I beg that the representative from Thatchland recognize that they are demanding that the World Assembly force their nation to recognize any and all marriages performed in any and all member states, including polygamous, incestuous, and perhaps bestial marriages. My government however does not wish that."

[Datavia]

We have to point out yet again the existence of the resolution "Freedom of Marriage Act".

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

Yes. Just in case someone doesn't click on the link, Freedom of Marriage Act (currently in force in all WA nations) states:

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.

And while we agree that repeal of said Act is highly improbable - that does not mean we could not see a rabid submission of continuous repeal attempts from opponents of same-sex marriage should this Resolution at vote come to fruition. This would not be unlike the continuous attempts on other Acts and Repeals that we are currently seeing in regards to Habeas Corpus, Double Jeopardy, Male Circumcision by one stubborn Ambassador. Or the repeated attempts to repeal Abortion act by several others ...

Do we really want to open ANOTHER can of worms that will do nothing but cause more of a bottleneck in this Assembly?

Therefore, we have been - since day one of the vote - AGAINST the passage of this resolution.

Had it been a 'full faith, credit, rights and privileges' act - where the marriage in one nation was fully given equal treatment in foreign nations, this would be a different story. However, since it hinges upon what is allowed 'domestically' it would be best that all are hindered the same way, than a privileged few receiving recognition and others cast out.

Again, that's judging on mere intent. On the other hand, your own proposal would allow in your nation, for example, forced marriages performed in other nations. Maybe someone is OK with that, but some others won't be, so that such open-handed view would probably be defeated in the GA. Meanwhile, we will be without a legislation that is useful and non-discriminatory as it is in this proposal.

[Thatchland]

"I beg that the representative from Thatchland recognize that they are demanding that the World Assembly force their nation to recognize any and all marriages performed in any and all member states, including polygamous, incestuous, and perhaps bestial marriages. My government however does not wish that."

Then let us not require any WA nation to recognize any marriages - and let current national policies stand. Let us not be a WA that legislates implied discrimination - as in "we know that Nation A will never recognize some of Nation B's marriage - but at least it will recognize those that Nation A currently allows" ... that is nothing but legislation of bigotry. It would be best not to legislate in this case, in our opinion, and let nations do as they see fit.

[New Octopucta]

This does nothing to allow other nations to recognize same-sex marriages.
Why would I vote for something that allows to loving people to become second class citizens should they choose to move to another nation, regardless of their sex?

As a result of past legislation, either the nation in question recognizes same sex marriage as legal, in which case if this passes then it has to recognize foreign same sex marriages, or it doesn't recognize marriage at all, in which case this piece of legislation has no effect on the nation.

[Christian Democrats]

In effect, this is what the proposal does.

Right now, since there is no law on this topic:

Member states with marriage can choose to recognize foreign marriages never, sometimes, or always.

If this proposal passes:

Member states with marriage must recognize most or all foreign marriages.

"I beg that the representative from Thatchland recognize that they are demanding that the World Assembly force their nation to recognize any and all marriages performed in any and all member states, including polygamous, incestuous, and perhaps bestial marriages. My government however does not wish that."

Then let us not require any WA nation to recognize any marriages - and let current national policies stand. Let us not be a WA that legislates implied discrimination - as in "we know that Nation A will never recognize some of Nation B's marriage - but at least it will recognize those that Nation A currently allows" ... that is nothing but legislation of bigotry. It would be best not to legislate in this case, in our opinion, and let nations do as they see fit.

I don't understand the all-or-nothing logic . . . it's better for a country to recognize no foreign marriages than to recognize most foreign marriages.

As things are right now, a member state could choose to recognize only certain foreign marriages. If this proposal passes, then member states, at the very least, will be required to recognize most marriages from foreign countries. Of course, there is nothing in this proposal restricting member states from providing recognition to all foreign marriages, including incestuous marriages, child marriages, marriages between people and animals, marriages between people and objects, and so forth.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We have to point out yet again the existence of the resolution "Freedom of Marriage Act".

Which contains a loophole...something I apparently have to point out yet again.

[Free South Califas]

We have to point out yet again the existence of the resolution "Freedom of Marriage Act".

Which contains a loophole...something I apparently have to point out yet again.

Could you, please? Seriously.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Which contains a loophole...something I apparently have to point out yet again.

Could you, please? Seriously.

The Kennyites are famous for their loopholes. The one in FoMA that they like to brag about is that nations may refuse to recognize marriages at all, at least, as a matter of civil law. That way, they don't have to let gay folks marry, since no one in their country can get a civil marriage and gay folks are not being treated any differently than any other couple. Meanwhile the churches of those nations are allowed to recognize religious marriages as they please, and discriminate against gay folks till their hearts' content.

Now, it also just so happens that those nations provide huge subsidies to their religious houses, and those subsidies tend to get passed down to the religiously married faithful (almost like a tax break...). Of course, the government has "no idea" that's what's going on (wink wink), and they "certainly didn't intend" for their subsidies to be used that way (cough cough). That's just how the church ended up using those subsidies, don't you know; religious freedom and all!

That's what the Kennyite ambassador is speaking of when he talks of the FoMA loophole. Nations can refuse to acknowledge any marriages civilly, while "outsourcing" marriage to religious institutions.

---

Just realized all of the above might be considered threadjacking. So I'll try to get us back on subject...

...Ehem...

"Damn you CD and your proposal that recognizes some rights but not others. This clearly goes too far or not far enough!! Yargle Bargle!!!"

[Linux and the X]

Could you, please? Seriously.

The Kennyites are famous for their loopholes. The one in FoMA that they like to brag about is that nations may refuse to recognize marriages at all, at least, as a matter of civil law. That way, they don't have to let gay folks marry, since no one in their country can get a civil marriage and gay folks are not being treated any differently than any other couple. Meanwhile the churches of those nations are allowed to recognize religious marriages as they please, and discriminate against gay folks till their hearts' content.

Now, it also just so happens that those nations provide huge subsidies to their religious houses, and those subsidies tend to get passed down to the religiously married faithful (almost like a tax break...). Of course, the government has "no idea" that's what's going on (wink wink), and they "certainly didn't intend" for their subsidies to be used that way (cough cough). That's just how the church ended up using those subsidies, don't you know; religious freedom and all!

That's what the Kennyite ambassador is speaking of when he talks of the FoMA loophole. Nations can refuse to acknowledge any marriages civilly, while "outsourcing" marriage to religious institutions.

That doesn't actually cover all the benefits of marriage. Do they also outsource probate law, immigration law, and healthcare (and those are just the first three things I think of) entirely to the Church?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

That doesn't actually cover all the benefits of marriage. Do they also outsource probate law, immigration law, and healthcare (and those are just the first three things I think of) entirely to the Church?

If you're clever enough you could think of a way to do it. Many nations do outsource probate law to religious institutions (think Sharia for the obvious example); immigration is relatively easy (religious marriage to someone in the church = church membership; church membership = automatic legal residency); as is healthcare (Our Lady of the Worthless Miracle, a state-subsidized religious hospital).

It's obviously a ridiculously circuitous plan and I'm not saying it would be fun or practical. I'm just saying clever nations can find a way.

Also, I'm quite sure at this point that we're threadjacking. So I'll continue this discussion via TG if folks want and I'll try once more to get us back on subject...

...Ehem...

"Damn you CD and your proposal that recognizes some rights but not others. This clearly goes too far or not far enough!! Yargle Bargle!!!"