NationStates

Even after reading GAR #15, I found that same-sex marriages could enjoy the necessary privileges, however, they are bound to the concept of person-hood not declared under any of the following laws. And unfortunately far too often, the liberal definition of person-hood causes the bases for discrimination, being the first to be withdrawn from the sentient individuals segregated against.

If such laws exist, to define person as a sentient individual able to give independent and free consent, regardless of ethnicity, religion, race, species or physical form, please mention it before the Assembly or propose such laws to be created.

Tomiislav wrote:The representative of Tomiislav stands up, looking confused.

"To me, it appears the aim of this bill is to support segregation anurld racism. For example, if a country or leadership wants to keep out a race it finds inferior, this bill can be used to filter out, or discourage legal immigration to their nation. This could cause possible problems and wars. For example, if the leadership of a member nation wants to keep the Jewish faith out of there nation without breaking WA laws, they could just make a law saying that Jews can not marry, therefore, no Jewish people would be able to live in that nation as a couple. Clearly taking away the Civil Rights the WA wants to preserve. Our stance will be against until someone can disprove or relieve me of these worries."

The World Assembly has passed a law preventing religious discrimination and discrimination on other grounds:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=34

Currently, there is no requirement that member states recognize any foreign marriages.

I still have my doubts about the intentions of this proposal. I fear that this proposal may be an attempt to prevent a more all-encompassing recognition of foreign marriage (like what Quaddrimmina once proposed) - one that would not permit member nations to refuse to recognize valid marriages from other places on the grounds that "we don't recognize such unions 'round here."

That said, I'm giving CD the benefit of the doubt. This proposal would improve civil rights in a relevant way - namely, by prohibiting discrimination against married persons solely on the grounds that they were married someplace else.

As such, my nation casts its vote FOR this proposal.

Best Regards.

Starkindler wrote:Even after reading GAR #15, I found that same-sex marriages could enjoy the necessary privileges, however, they are bound to the concept of person-hood not declared under any of the following laws. And unfortunately far too often, the liberal definition of person-hood causes the bases for discrimination, being the first to be withdrawn from the sentient individuals segregated against.

If such laws exist, to define person as a sentient individual able to give independent and free consent, regardless of ethnicity, religion, race, species or physical form, please mention it before the Assembly or propose such laws to be created.

A proposal like this failed with 40 percent support on December 19, 2011.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=90687

I found that GAR # 35 Clause 1/c sufficiently protects the rights of individuals.

However I found that Clause #4 creates a loophole and automatically voids the entire law.
"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."
The text in bold defeating the purpose of the entire resolution, rendering it null and void, despite the best intents of the Editor, who probably thought that it shall not force the Churches of the member States to accept other marriages, or the Member States to accept Church marriages.

We in my regiona and AV2 see no harm in this bill and will vote for it seeing it shall incorperate what we already believe to be a non-harmful motion.

Rust Gle,
Ambassodor of AV2

Starkindler wrote:I found that GAR # 35 Clause 1/c sufficiently protects the rights of individuals.

However I found that Clause #4 creates a loophole and automatically voids the entire law.
"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."
The text in bold defeating the purpose of the entire resolution, rendering it null and void, despite the best intents of the Editor, who probably thought that it shall not force the Churches of the member States to accept other marriages, or the Member States to accept Church marriages.

That clause would not void the law; rather, it would allow anarchist and libertarian member states to have privatized marriages.

Two hours into voting:

FOR: 838 (52%)AGAINST: 760 (48%)

Non-delegate nations are voting in favor of this proposal 309 to 167 (65% support).

Delegate vote: 529 to 593 (47% of votes in support).

While this proposal guarantees the transfer of acknowledgement/recognition of marriage, it does not guarantee set rights associated with marriage causing further issues in areas of adoption, next of kin in case of emergency and will entitlements. I see this a grossly unfair and a negative aspect of this resolution.

Malicuria wrote:While this proposal guarantees the transfer of acknowledgement/recognition of marriage, it does not guarantee set rights associated with marriage causing further issues in areas of adoption, next of kin in case of emergency and will entitlements. I see this a grossly unfair and a negative aspect of this resolution.

I do not wish to require that member states provide any additional rights to foreign spouses that they do not provide to their own citizens.

We already do this, but we like having the option to take it away. Against.

It always annoys me when the delegate vote is grossly out of line with the will of regular nations:

Overall vote: 1100 to 1081 (50% support)

Non-delegate vote: 443 to 207 (68% support)

Delegate vote: 657 to 874 (43% support)

Difference: 25 points

Christian Democrats wrote:

Starkindler wrote:I found that GAR # 35 Clause 1/c sufficiently protects the rights of individuals.

However I found that Clause #4 creates a loophole and automatically voids the entire law.
"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."
The text in bold defeating the purpose of the entire resolution, rendering it null and void, despite the best intents of the Editor, who probably thought that it shall not force the Churches of the member States to accept other marriages, or the Member States to accept Church marriages.

That clause would not void the law; rather, it would allow anarchist and libertarian member states to have privatized marriages.

The South Califas delegation recognizes and appreciates the work of Christian Democrats to protect national sovereignty on this matter.

We stand tentatively FOR this resolution, but will wait for the political winds to show us where this bill is heading, before casting our vote. The reason for this is not that we wish to begin jumping on bandwagons, but rather that we remain concerned about clause 1c. Wishing to protect the legal contracts of WA member citizens, we will nevertheless vote for this resolution if it appears there is no other alternative. Should it become apparent that the political scenario would support a resolution without clause 1c, we will vote AGAINST this one.

For now, we will not yet cast our WA vote, but we shall lodge a tentative AGAINST vote with the honorable Ananke II delegation and with the Liberals United Action Committee of 10000 Islands, to increase the pressure against clause 1c.

We note with rising alarm the suspicion which clause 1c has generated in these chambers, and express our fervent desire to see an alternative resolution which takes this sentiment into account.

Clause 1C reeks of nefarious intent.
The Sublime Island Kingdom stands in opposition.

Four hours into voting:

Overall vote: 1,489 to 2,013 (43% support)

Non-delegate vote: 674 to 289 (70% support)

Delegate vote: 815 to 1724 (32% support)

Difference: 38 points

Undemocratic?

Astrolinium wrote:Clause 1C reeks of nefarious intent.
The Sublime Island Kingdom stands in opposition.

In what way?

As it stands, we only allow marriage between Consenting Human Adults, and if this would force us to recognize arranged marriages, marriages between minors and adults, or marriages between humans and non-humans, we would stand firmly in opposition.

Firstaria wants to kindly ask why this resolution has been so voted down. We fail to see errors, but we try to not vote resolutions before fully understand the possible negative outcome.

New Corda wrote:As it stands, we only allow marriage between Consenting Human Adults, and if this would force us to recognize arranged marriages, marriages between minors and adults, or marriages between humans and non-humans, we would stand firmly in opposition.

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:

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;

The marriage does not violate World Assembly law; and

The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

I think this covers your points...

Christian Democrats wrote:Four hours into voting:

Overall vote: 1,489 to 2,013 (43% support)

Non-delegate vote: 674 to 289 (70% support)

Delegate vote: 815 to 1724 (32% support)

Difference: 38 points

Undemocratic?

Delegates with more than 100 votes who have voted AGAINST this proposal:



Only one regional delegate (295 votes) with more than 100 votes has voted FOR this proposal. In The North Pacific, the vote of region members is 28 to 15 (65% support).

The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

It looks like this clause covers my concerns

I have voted against as i feel this situation is somewhat manufactured and is far from being a significant international problem.

Cerberion wrote:I have voted against as i feel this situation is somewhat manufactured and is far from being a significant international problem.

I don't see how, there is no resolution that clarifies this point, and International law (OOC: that I studied) cannot be based on mere assuptions, being kinda abstract itself to begin with.

Christian Democrats wrote:Four hours into voting:

Overall vote: 1,489 to 2,013 (43% support)

Non-delegate vote: 674 to 289 (70% support)

Delegate vote: 815 to 1724 (32% support)

Difference: 38 points

Undemocratic?

Have to ask, have you counted the delegate votes in the NON-delegate votes? Even if we didn't use the delegate rule, their vote would still count as 1. If you didn't count it, then you can cover those 38 points easily.

Firstaria wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Four hours into voting:

Overall vote: 1,489 to 2,013 (43% support)

Non-delegate vote: 674 to 289 (70% support)

Delegate vote: 815 to 1724 (32% support)

Difference: 38 points

Undemocratic?

Have to ask, have you counted the delegate votes in the NON-delegate votes? Even if we didn't use the delegate rule, their vote would still count as 1. If you didn't count it, then you can cover those 38 points easily.

38 points = 38 percent