[PASSED] Foreign Marriage Recognition

[Damanucus]

It is the case that only the most "politically interested nations" vote on offsite forum polls. That is how it is everywhere. My main argument is that those sorts of offsite polls are now outdated. The original reason for them was for delegates to vote in accordance with the wills of their regions as best they could gauge them. Since March 20, the ability has existed to measure the exact support for World Assembly proposals in a given region. Because of this, I believe that it is now preferable for delegates to use exact numbers instead of measuring the pulse of the region through offsite polls. This doesn't mean that I believe delegates always need to vote with their regions, just that they should use exact numbers when considering how to vote. I do realize that such changes would require amendments to the laws of many regions.

We have to point out that there is no requirement that delegates bow to the will of the ambassador from Christian Democrats, and we are concerned that said ambassador is more interested in debating the procedures used by regional delegates to cast their votes than the merits of the resolution at vote. We very much doubt that any amount of pleading by the ambassador from Christian Democrats will convince other regions to change their procedures.

We ourselves have not yet cast a vote on this resolution. While it seems meritorious on its face, we are concerned that, given the known attitude of the ambassador from Christian Democrats towards marriage equality, there may be some hidden loophole that our delegation has not yet uncovered that permits member nations to undermine marriage equality. We are therefore likely to abstain unless we can be completely convinced that no such loophole exists.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

I raised a similar concern some time ago, and the Christian Democrats representative assured me that there was nothing underhanded. I hope, by all means, you can too, Lord Michael.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Linux and the X]

I raised a similar concern some time ago, and the Christian Democrats representative assured me that there was nothing underhanded. I hope, by all means, you can too, Lord Michael.

Oh, well as long as they say it's not underhanded, it obviously can't be.

[Datavia]

Datavia doesn't align with Christian Democrats, as a rule. So it saddens us to no end, to see a perfectly reasonable proposal being rejected on the assumption of some "secret agenda" being in place, which no ambassador has been able to prove. Count with our support, small as it be, in the face of the all-powerful delegates voting force!

[Chinese Regions]

Does this cover Polygyny (multiple spouses)?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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

Does this mean what I think it means? Nations are under no obligation to recognize any sort of union that isn't already legal in their own territory? So if first cousins can be married in Glen-Rhodes but can't be married in Omigodtheykilledkenny, we can legally tell those inbred hicks to hit the road?

[Datavia]

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

Does this mean what I think it means? Nations are under no obligation to recognize any sort of union that isn't already legal in their own territory? So if first cousins can be married in Glen-Rhodes but can't be married in Omigodtheykilledkenny, we can legally tell those inbred hicks to hit the road?

They simply won't be considered legally married in Omigodtheykilledkenny.

[Christian Democrats]

I do not know how else it is possible for me to convince other ambassadors of what I am thinking or not thinking.

The only thing unfortunate is that marriages won't transfer among member states if this proposal fails.

Crazy suspicions on a repeal that I never even have attempted and that I haven't talked about in depth since 2010 . . .

The South Califan delegation was universally surprised by the stark admission implied here. We consider the Christian Democrats delegation's admitted anti-equality convictions to be more indicative of their inner thoughts than the length of time during which they have successfully restrained themselves. Perhaps CD is due for a home run.

AGAINST

The Christian Democratic delegation, in the past, has commented that theocratic and quasi-theocratic states should be allowed to use different terms for unions between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, which current international law would consider discrimination. Our delegation considers this issue (and other contentious social issues, such as assisted suicide or prostitution) matters of national sovereignty and believes that only the most basic regulations, if any laws are made, should be legislated.

Does this cover Polygyny (multiple spouses)?

Yes, it covers polygyny . . . but only in the nations that already allow it.

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

Does this mean what I think it means? Nations are under no obligation to recognize any sort of union that isn't already legal in their own territory? So if first cousins can be married in Glen-Rhodes but can't be married in Omigodtheykilledkenny, we can legally tell those inbred hicks to hit the road?

Yes, that is the basic meaning of the clause. No member state would be required to recognize any kind of union (e.g., incestuous, polygamous, or child unions) that it does not already recognize. Strangely, opposition to this proposal is coming from people who hold the irrational belief that passing this proposal somehow would make it easier to repeal Resolution 15.

They argue that this proposal would mean that member states would not have to recognize foreign same-sex unions if Resolution 15 were ever repealed (which is highly unlikely). Newsflash: At the moment, member states do not have to recognize foreign same-sex unions. Contrary to what some ambassadors have claimed on offsite forums, this proposal is completely unlike the real-life DOMA because there isn't a "full faith and credit clause" in this Assembly that requires member states to recognize anything that happens in other member states.



Or, even worse . . .

While I'm generally supportive of this, I can't help but feel that with CD authoring I must have missed something obvious that gives religion more power.

As such, Abstain.

The conspiracy theories surrounding this proposal are about as logical as theories that Presiden Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.

[Datavia]

The conspiracy theories surrounding this proposal are about as logical as theories that Presiden Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.

I am with you here, as this is a perfectly clear and short proposal, as well as a needed one. You must have truly screwed someone to get this amount of bad feeling (or maybe it has to do with your nation's name...).

[Christian Democrats]

The conspiracy theories surrounding this proposal are about as logical as theories that Presiden Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.

I am with you here, as this is a perfectly clear and short proposal, as well as a needed one. You must have truly screwed someone to get this amount of bad feeling (or maybe it has to do with your nation's name...).

Nation name, home region, and my support for the pro-life movement

[Datavia]

It seems that people around here ends up taking things a bit too personally...

[New Octopucta]

Supported. I fail to see what the problem with this is. Good work CD.

[Christian Democrats]

Supported. I fail to see what the problem with this is. Good work CD.

Thanks, New Octopucta. I haven't seen you in months.

[Christian Democrats]

It seems that people around here ends up taking things a bit too personally...

I don't blame the delegates.

The delegates of 10000 Islands and Osiris approved this proposal before it reached the floor.

Another supporter of this proposal is the delegate of Gay. The internal vote in that region is currently 2 to 2. BearNation is a friendly guy who usually supports my proposals. He often responds to my campaign telegrams, and we've conversed quite a bit in the past.

In my opinion, some of the opposition to this proposal is based on unreasonable malice toward Catholics and the pro-life community instead of any actual problems with the resolution at vote itself.

[Ossitania]

Well, I'm aware that there are some people who just genuinely can't believe that you're taking a stance that makes life easier for gay married couples. On the other hand, I'm willing to take you at face value, which is why I cast my vote in favour. I can't even conceive of some ulterior motive that could be birthed from this, since FoMA is an act that no one is ever going to successfully repeal.

[Christian Democrats]

Well, I'm aware that there are some people who just genuinely can't believe that you're taking a stance that makes life easier for gay married couples. On the other hand, I'm willing to take you at face value, which is why I cast my vote in favour. I can't even conceive of some ulterior motive that could be birthed from this, since FoMA is an act that no one is ever going to successfully repeal.

This proposal would make life easier for all married couples, which is why I wrote it.

[Ossitania]

Well, I'm aware that there are some people who just genuinely can't believe that you're taking a stance that makes life easier for gay married couples. On the other hand, I'm willing to take you at face value, which is why I cast my vote in favour. I can't even conceive of some ulterior motive that could be birthed from this, since FoMA is an act that no one is ever going to successfully repeal.

This proposal would make life easier for all married couples, which is why I wrote it.

I know, I believe you, I'm just saying that I know some other people are skeptical of your good intentions. I think they're being too paranoid.

[Chinese Regions]

Does this cover Polygyny (multiple spouses)?

Yes, it covers polygyny . . . but only in the nations that already allow it.

Ah darn it.
It's legal here so...

[Free South Califas]

The South Califan delegation was universally surprised by the stark admission implied here. We consider the Christian Democrats delegation's admitted anti-equality convictions to be more indicative of their inner thoughts than the length of time during which they have successfully restrained themselves. Perhaps CD is due for a home run.

AGAINST

The Christian Democratic delegation, in the past, has commented that theocratic and quasi-theocratic states should be allowed to use different terms for unions between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, which current international law would consider discrimination. Our delegation considers this issue (and other contentious social issues, such as assisted suicide or prostitution) matters of national sovereignty and believes that only the most basic regulations, if any laws are made, should be legislated.

Your support of legal discrimination is duly noted.

dis·crim·i·nate/disˈkriməˌnāt/
    Verb:	
        Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
        Perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
    Synonyms:	
    distinguish - differentiate - discern
    More info »Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

The conspiracy theories surrounding this proposal are about as logical as theories that Presiden Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.

Well, what is your definition of "blew up"? Federal neglect is just as good as a bomb, as they found out in New Orleans and Minneapolis.

In my opinion, some of the opposition to this proposal is based on unreasonable malice toward Catholics and the pro-life community instead of any actual problems with the resolution at vote itself.

While you're probably right that such elements exist within the opposition, the FSC delegation wishes to clarify that we hold no ill will toward Catholics (Catholic Worker is a large and respected organization here) and that we consider the Christian Democrats position on unrelated issues like abortion irrelevant to this resolution. We remain concerned that this resolution will mandate recognition of marriage in a specific way that could indeed block the recognition of same-sex marriages if FOMA were repealed. We understand that member nations are not currently required to recognize foreign marriages and we consider this irrelevant, except re "in a specific way" above. We note that our motivation on this issue is not paranoia, but a level-headed assessment of the possible fallout, intentional or otherwise, from this bill. If Christian Democrats has the best of intentions, that delegation still represents a faction which has discussed FOMA repeal in depth quite recently.

We admire the Christian Democrats government for making a good-faith effort to reconcile the evolving definitions of romantic-administrative units with the lexicon of their religious traditions. However, we note that any resolution which would define recognition of marriage in such a way as to open a clear path for member nations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, written by any author, will do so only against our objections.

[Christian Democrats]

The Christian Democratic delegation, in the past, has commented that theocratic and quasi-theocratic states should be allowed to use different terms for unions between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, which current international law would consider discrimination. Our delegation considers this issue (and other contentious social issues, such as assisted suicide or prostitution) matters of national sovereignty and believes that only the most basic regulations, if any laws are made, should be legislated.

Your support of legal discrimination is duly noted.

dis·crim·i·nate/disˈkriməˌnāt/
    Verb:	
        Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
        Perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
    Synonyms:	
    distinguish - differentiate - discern
    More info »Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

The conspiracy theories surrounding this proposal are about as logical as theories that Presiden Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.

Well, what is your definition of "blew up"? Federal neglect is just as good as a bomb, as they found out in New Orleans and Minneapolis.

In my opinion, some of the opposition to this proposal is based on unreasonable malice toward Catholics and the pro-life community instead of any actual problems with the resolution at vote itself.

While you're probably right that such elements exist within the opposition, the FSC delegation wishes to clarify that we hold no ill will toward Catholics (Catholic Worker is a large and respected organization here) and that we consider the Christian Democrats position on unrelated issues like abortion irrelevant to this resolution. We remain concerned that this resolution will mandate recognition of marriage in a specific way that could indeed block the recognition of same-sex marriages if FOMA were repealed. We understand that member nations are not currently required to recognize foreign marriages and we consider this irrelevant, except re "in a specific way" above. We note that our motivation on this issue is not paranoia, but a level-headed assessment of the possible fallout, intentional or otherwise, from this bill. If Christian Democrats has the best of intentions, that delegation still represents a faction which has discussed FOMA repeal in depth quite recently.

We admire the Christian Democrats government for making a good-faith effort to reconcile the evolving definitions of romantic-administrative units with the lexicon of their religious traditions. However, we note that any resolution which would define recognition of marriage in such a way as to open a clear path for member nations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, written by any author, will do so only against our objections.

I don't consider 2010 "quite recently."

One reason for the clause that is causing controversy is so that nations don't have to recognize incestuous or child marriages from Backwateristan. That clause also discourages elopement.

[Free South Califas]

I don't consider 2010 "quite recently."

Reasonable nations can disagree on that, given that most of those never had a pro-discrimination position to walk back from in the first place. Two years is a mighty short time in our estimation.

[Sovreignry]

I don't consider 2010 "quite recently."

Reasonable nations can disagree on that, given that most of those never had a pro-discrimination position to walk back from in the first place. Two years is a mighty short time in our estimation.

Then since you have been around all of 12 days we shouldn't even consider your opinions? Because if 2 years isn't enough time to change an opinion then 12 days isn't enough to properly form one.

[Wewak]

Marriages should at first, be conducted according to religious practices, after which it must then be submitted for registration at civil registries in order to have full effect in member state nations. I presume this may be a reasonable standard which may be acceptable and subject to member's comments. For now I consider this issue needs elaboration so I will vote against it inoder for the ambassador to edit and resubmit.

[Syrkania]

The law means what the law says. Having inspected this proposed resolution, I see no reason to oppose it.

FOR

Harim Kelsis,
WA Special Envor for Syrkania

[Marcdonia Empire]

This whole proposal is hilarious. Nobody knows exactly what it means. It needs to be re-worded or something. At first I thought it meant that all marriages would be legal anywhere as long as it follows the laws of said nation. Either way, this obviously needs to be redone. I'm voting no.

[Free To Party Rock Empire]

Proposal Opposed. My people do not have freedoms like these and I shall not support it.