NationStates

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:According to this resolution's author, this proposal if enacted will have no effect on our laws.

Well, yea, sort of, wait a second here. You have a pretty large sized diaspora out there, are you suggesting that if your members in a diaspora nation get married under the ceremonies of the faith of The Eternal Kawaii in a diaspora nation they have to marry again should they move to another diaspora nation therein?

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.

I think that the author of this law should have taken a deeper look on this part of his bill... He is actually denying every thing he told before in his act. Clearly, there is a writting problem and , althought Vagabundas aproove the idea of this bill, we can't vote in favou of this law.

Looking forward to see a new proposal as soon as possible. Yours,

Christian Democrats wrote:

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.

Thatchland wrote:
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.

That is a nation's right to do so - to recognize what they wish - by passing this resolution, the WA will now give legitimacy to these acts of bigotry and discrimination. If the WA is not for the removal of the current discrimination, it should at least not codify said discrimination.

So, yes - all or nothing. By doing nothing, at least the WA isn't actively stating that the discrimination is ok. Yes, we would prefer it be all - however, we do not feel the WA body has 'evolved' its views to a point that a Resolution doing such would pass.

Retired WerePenguins wrote:

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:According to this resolution's author, this proposal if enacted will have no effect on our laws.

Well, yea, sort of, wait a second here. You have a pretty large sized diaspora out there, are you suggesting that if your members in a diaspora nation get married under the ceremonies of the faith of The Eternal Kawaii in a diaspora nation they have to marry again should they move to another diaspora nation therein?

Kawaiians are married under Kawaiian law. Whether or not the host nation of that Kawaiian couple's tribe recognizes that marriage is of no concern to us. Should that couple move from one Kawaiian tribal land to another, the marriage would still be valid. All Kawaiian tribes recognize Kawaiian law equally; our version of the "full faith and credit clause" referred to by some of the representatives here.

Thatchland wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:

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 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.

That is a nation's right to do so - to recognize what they wish - by passing this resolution, the WA will now give legitimacy to these acts of bigotry and discrimination. If the WA is not for the removal of the current discrimination, it should at least not codify said discrimination.

So, yes - all or nothing. By doing nothing, at least the WA isn't actively stating that the discrimination is ok. Yes, we would prefer it be all - however, we do not feel the WA body has 'evolved' its views to a point that a Resolution doing such would pass.

Elena stared, dumbfounded, at the Thatchlandian for several long seconds before turning around and swiftly departing the chambers. "I really need a drink."

Vagabundas wrote: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.

I think that the author of this law should have taken a deeper look on this part of his bill... He is actually denying every thing he told before in his act. Clearly, there is a writting problem and , althought Vagabundas aproove the idea of this bill, we can't vote in favou of this law.

Looking forward to see a new proposal as soon as possible. Yours,

That clause doesn't do what you think it does. This proposal would require that member states provide equal recognition to foreign marriages. Some member states do not have marriage at all; therefore, they would not be required to recognize any foreign marriages. The second part of Section 4 is an affirmation that this proposal would not infringe on the right of anarchist or libertarian member states not to have marriage.

Thatchland wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:

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 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.

That is a nation's right to do so - to recognize what they wish - by passing this resolution, the WA will now give legitimacy to these acts of bigotry and discrimination. If the WA is not for the removal of the current discrimination, it should at least not codify said discrimination.

So, yes - all or nothing. By doing nothing, at least the WA isn't actively stating that the discrimination is ok. Yes, we would prefer it be all - however, we do not feel the WA body has 'evolved' its views to a point that a Resolution doing such would pass.

In our nation, recognizing "marriages" between people and objects would be considered a devolution and devaluation of true marriage. The so-called bigots of my nation will not feed into the delusions of some individuals.

It occured to me in the shower today: if the contested clause is intended to give member states an 'out' from recognizing marriages with some element of coercion or statutory rape, or involving objects or interspecies relationships, etc., why not explicitly give states that right? Why dance around it with a clause that clearly leaves the door open for unacceptable discrimination, if a WA of the future should choose to permit it? And instead of being so broad, why can't the resolution explicitly grant the right not to recognize any marriage whatsoever if the state applies this equally to foreign and domestic partnerships? Why the big sweeping general clause?

It is said that we can't read the proposing delegation's minds, and perhaps this is the right approach: even if we trust CD are above board, shouldn't we be stress-testing this resolution and voting it down if it has such potential to be exploited?

We are very interested in passing a foreign marriage recognition bill that would be almost the same as this one, but without an open pathway to discrimination.

In consideration of my reason for voting against the proposal to Repeal Liberate United Kingdom of Great Britain, I submit for leave to withdraw my vote against this resolution for Foreign Marriage Recognition. I wish to remain in a neutral position so I hope the Assembly comes up with something which, if not generally acceptable, maybe a sort of process for foreign marriages to be recognized by member nation states. I hereby accordingly REMOVE my vote against this proposal.

Wewak wrote:In consideration of my reason for voting against the proposal to Repeal Liberate United Kingdom of Great Britain, I submit for leave to withdraw my vote against this resolution for Foreign Marriage Recognition. I wish to remain in a neutral position so I hope the Assembly comes up with something which, if not generally acceptable, maybe a sort of process for foreign marriages to be recognized by member nation states. I hereby accordingly REMOVE my vote against this proposal.

What is the relevance of the Current Resolution at vote in the Chambers of the Security Council to this Resolution?

I am also of the opinion that it may not be appropriate to codify the act of foreign marriage recognition. It is fact that some member states may not recognize some form of marriages conducted in other member nation states. In that way, some may argue on the point of discrimination whatsoever. So inorder to balance the scale, the I wish to remain neutral by way of not taking part in this proposal or otherwise as per consideration of my previous vote.

The honorable Wewak delegation is recognized for its stance of non-intervention into this legislation.

However, if you believe that it is inappropriate to codify the act of foreign marriage recognition, we believe you are obliged to vote against. While Wewak and South Califas disagree with this resolution for different reasons, we strongly urge Wewak to consider that an 'abstain' vote would only help this bill become law, and remind them that neither of us wants that.

Christian Democrats wrote: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.

"And we are therefore, so far, voting in its favour."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly

Foreign Marriage Recognition was passed 6,045 votes to 5,079

The Ossitanian delegation to the World Assembly would like to offer our most sincere congratulations to our colleagues from the Christian Democratic representation on the passage of this fine resolution.

I must congratulate the Author. This Resolution has been inscribed on the statute books as GAR #200. Congratulations on the passage of the two hundredth Resolution. It is an accolade that is very well deserved.

Dr Jonas K. Lazareedes
etc

The delegate from Phing Phong wishes to congratulate the nation of Christian Democrats and their World Assembly delegate as a result of the successful passage of this worthwhile piece of international legislation.

Foreign Marriage Recognition was passed 6,045 to 5,079 (54% support).

I thank all of those (about three-fifths of the representatives here) who voted in favor of this resolution.

From one prominent ambassador spreading outright lies about what this resolution would do (and not withdrawing his comments even after I sent him a telegram) to another ambassador voting against this resolution on the forums of three different game-created regions (and trying to vote on a fourth, where she is not able to vote), this measure survived to become a resolution.

This 200th resolution of the General Assembly now ensures that no member state can discriminate against married persons solely on the basis of the place where their marriage was solemnized. Once again, thank you for your support.

Christian Democrats wrote:Foreign Marriage Recognition was passed 6,045 to 5,079 (54% support).

[..]

This 200th resolution of the General Assembly now ensures that no member state can discriminate against married persons solely on the basis of the place where their marriage was solemnized.

Congratulations on a tough win, CD.

Let us all hope that discrimination based on nationality won't be replaced by other forms of discrimination.

We hope the future proves us paranoid and wrong on this resolution.

Congrats CD.

I've already drafted a repeal of this Act, and if I even sniff an attempt to repeal FoMA I'll submit it faster than you can say "marriage is between a man and a woman."

Best Regards, old friend.

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Congrats CD.

I've already drafted a repeal of this Act, and if I even sniff an attempt to repeal FoMA I'll submit it faster than you can say "marriage is between a man and a woman."

Best Regards, old friend.

SEEING that a repeal of the Foreign Marriage Act has been written,
NOTING that it will only be submitted if there is an attempt to repeal FoMA,
BELIEVING that using cheap tricks to get other people to do the dirty work is a damn good idea,
The World Assembly
REPEALS the Freedom of Marriage Act.

The Republic of Quadrimmina is extremely disappointed to see that this resolution has passed. If its provisions are, as we suspect, in contradiction of Quadrimmina's policies with respect to full marriage equality, we will pursue a full repeal effort without prejudice. This resolution is as much a blocker as it is irrelevant. RNT is quite clear.

Quadrimmina wrote:The Republic of Quadrimmina is extremely disappointed to see that this resolution has passed. If its provisions are, as we suspect, in contradiction of Quadrimmina's policies with respect to full marriage equality, we will pursue a full repeal effort without prejudice. This resolution is as much a blocker as it is irrelevant. RNT is quite clear.

Nothing in this resolution prevents member states from having more liberal foreign marriage recognition policies.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Quadrimmina wrote:The Republic of Quadrimmina is extremely disappointed to see that this resolution has passed. If its provisions are, as we suspect, in contradiction of Quadrimmina's policies with respect to full marriage equality, we will pursue a full repeal effort without prejudice. This resolution is as much a blocker as it is irrelevant. RNT is quite clear.

Nothing in this resolution prevents member states from having more liberal foreign marriage recognition policies.

Those are not our objections. Our objections stem from the fact that this resolution codifies into law what Reasonable Nation Theory would suggest anyway, and does so in a way that may block further requirements of recognition of foreign marriages. It's a token gesture, if anything, that will prevent any real acceptance of full marriage equality from taking hold.

Quadrimmina wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Nothing in this resolution prevents member states from having more liberal foreign marriage recognition policies.

Those are not our objections. Our objections stem from the fact that this resolution codifies into law what Reasonable Nation Theory would suggest anyway, and does so in a way that may block further requirements of recognition of foreign marriages. It's a token gesture, if anything, that will prevent any real acceptance of full marriage equality from taking hold.

Freedom
Of
Marriage
Act.

Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:

Quadrimmina wrote:Those are not our objections. Our objections stem from the fact that this resolution codifies into law what Reasonable Nation Theory would suggest anyway, and does so in a way that may block further requirements of recognition of foreign marriages. It's a token gesture, if anything, that will prevent any real acceptance of full marriage equality from taking hold.

Freedom
Of
Marriage
Act.

Nations can still make interracial marriage illegal. Your argument is invalid.