[PASSED] Foreign Marriage Recognition

[Datavia]

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.

I find paranoid views to be even more reasonable than the approach of people who can't even read a legal text. Sit around here for a while and you will stumble upon some genuine gibberish to compare with. For WA standards, this proposal is about as complex as an EXIT sign.

[Burninati0n]

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

This resolution is an excuse for governments to control and annul marriages pretty much at will...

Very much against.

[Datavia]

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

This resolution is an excuse for governments to control and annul marriages pretty much at will...

Very much against.

Explain why. By no means does this proposal affect national legislation on marriages (except if a nation doesn't currently recognize foreign marriages that would be perfectly legal if performed inside that nation). If a government can "control and annul marriages pretty much at will", it won't be certainly because of this resolution.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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proposal would mean that member states would not have to recognize foreign same-sex unions if Resolution 15 were ever repealed (which is highly unlikely).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.

Repealing Resolution #15? Like that time you were trying to repeal it, until I showed you that loophole in FOMA that allowed member states to outlaw same-sex marriage anyway? Forgive the cynic in me if I think this is more about denying same-sex marriage in your own country, and not forcing other nations to accept it in a sudden fit of "tolerance" among the CD delegation.

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal is now ahead: 4,282 to 4,279.

[Zachtia]

We fail to see anything wrong with this proposal. You can count on our support!

[Av2]

This will be a close vote.

[Mirage Paradise]

Don't rape my nation's sovereignty. Vote AGAINST to preserve a national identity, and to reject this global uniformity nonsense.

[Christian Democrats]

Ahead
Behind
Ahead
Behind
Ahead
Behind again

The fifth lead change just occurred. Hopefully, a sixth lead change will happen.

Don't rape my nation's sovereignty. Vote AGAINST to preserve a national identity, and to reject this global uniformity nonsense.

What provision would require global uniformity? This proposal respects the cultures of individual countries.

[Datavia]

This proposal is now ahead: 4,282 to 4,279.

Don't brag too much about it! I am for this resolution, but its too close a vote.

[Christian Democrats]

Just as an historical note:

The closest vote in General Assembly history ended on Monday, January 10, 2011. Resolution 127, the Conscientious Objector Act, was passed 4,616 to 4,578 (50.2% support, a margin of 38 votes).

[Christian Democrats]

Ahead
Behind
Ahead
Behind
Ahead
Behind again

The fifth lead change just occurred. Hopefully, a sixth lead change will happen.

Sixth lead change . . . this proposal is back in front

[P0tt34 Land]

So, let me get this straight. Since my nation recognizes gay marriage...does that mean that (as an example) Allonsy (another nation) would have to recognize gay marriage if they do not currently (or ban gay marriage)?

That's why I'm torn on this vote and feel it needs clarification.

[Datavia]

So, let me get this straight. Since my nation recognizes gay marriage...does that mean that (as an example) Allonsy (another nation) would have to recognize gay marriage if they do not currently (or ban gay marriage)?

That's why I'm torn on this vote and feel it needs clarification.

Allonsy wouldn't have to recognize a marriage which wouldn't be legal if performed in its own territory. So, the short answer is: no.

However, all WA nations must recognize at least civil gay marriage, according to the Freedom of Marriage resolution. So the convoluted answer is: that's only a hypothetical scenario.

[Retired WerePenguins]

This is a very interesting resolution. I'm going to abstain from making any comments about what the vote may imply as I am not convinced, in spite of WA resolutions to the contrary, people are actually reading the actual resolution. I'm almost starting to get renewed faith in my fellow delegates. Emphasis on "almost."

For the record, I have voted in favor.

[Christian Democrats]

So, let me get this straight. Since my nation recognizes gay marriage...does that mean that (as an example) Allonsy (another nation) would have to recognize gay marriage if they do not currently (or ban gay marriage)?

That's why I'm torn on this vote and feel it needs clarification.

The General Assembly has passed same-sex marriage legislation in the past.

This proposal would require member states to recognize only those kinds of marriages performed in foreign countries that are already legal in their own nations. Examples of controversial kinds of marriages that some member states might choose not to recognize include incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, and child marriages. This proposal, however, would not prevent the General Assembly from passing legislation on these kinds of marriages in the future. Currently, the legal status of these sorts of marriages is left to each individual member state.

Right now, no nation is obliged to recognize any kinds of foreign marriages.

[Horusland]

Now the delegate vote is FOR. More people said FOR than AGAINST. Yeah! No more people remarrying again and again and again! Why would anyone want that?

[Linux and the X]

We note an unfortunate loophole: this only requires that foreign marriages receive the same recognition as domestic marriages, but does not ensure that they receive the same rights. While, of course, most of us would agree that this is a distinction without a difference, we doubt that those seeking a way out of compliance would refuse to acknowledge a loophole merely because it is silly, unless they find a better one.
We further note that 1(b) is superfluous, as no marriage could meet 1(a) while failing to meet 1(b).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

However, all WA nations must recognize at least civil gay marriage, according to the Freedom of Marriage resolution.

*psst!* [whispering hoarsely:] Loophole! Loophole! They don't actually have to!

[Linux and the X]

However, all WA nations must recognize at least civil gay marriage, according to the Freedom of Marriage resolution.

*psst!* [whispering hoarsely:] Loophole! Loophole! They don't actually have to!

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.

[Christian Democrats]

We note an unfortunate loophole: this only requires that foreign marriages receive the same recognition as domestic marriages, but does not ensure that they receive the same rights. While, of course, most of us would agree that this is a distinction without a difference, we doubt that those seeking a way out of compliance would refuse to acknowledge a loophole merely because it is silly, unless they find a better one.
We further note that 1(b) is superfluous, as no marriage could meet 1(a) while failing to meet 1(b).

What the heck? The proposal would require member states to provide foreign marriages that meet certain conditions "the same legal recognition as a domestic marriage." What do you think "legal recognition" means? A legal right is nothing more than a privilege that is recognized by law (i.e., it receives legal recognition).

I realize that clause 1b is superfluous. I just wanted to clarify that point.

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.

[Linux and the X]

We note an unfortunate loophole: this only requires that foreign marriages receive the same recognition as domestic marriages, but does not ensure that they receive the same rights. While, of course, most of us would agree that this is a distinction without a difference, we doubt that those seeking a way out of compliance would refuse to acknowledge a loophole merely because it is silly, unless they find a better one.
We further note that 1(b) is superfluous, as no marriage could meet 1(a) while failing to meet 1(b).

What the heck? The proposal would require member states to provide foreign marriages that meet certain conditions "the same legal recognition as a domestic marriage." What do you think "legal recognition" means? A legal right is nothing more than a privilege that is recognized by law (i.e., it receives legal recognition).

Of course, that's a very reasonable interpretation. A nation trying to avoid compliance, however, would claim that they provide the same legal recognition (as in "yes, we recognise that these people are married") while refusing to provide the associate rights.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*psst!* [whispering hoarsely:] Loophole! Loophole! They don't actually have to!

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?

[Linux and the X]

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?

But marriage then could not have legal relevance.