NATION

PASSWORD

PASSED: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Dear World Assembly...

"...Your latest act to repeal Freedom of Marriage Act is the most unconscionably evil proposition to hit the GA floor in a long while. It is well established from previous debates that the author, this "Kenny" dude, is a BIG GAY HOMOPHOBE and his hellish efforts must be shot down!"
10
14%
"...While we respect the motives of the lovably buffoonish sponsors of this repeal, we simply cannot risk striking out one resolution protecting gay couples when leaving both in place will do twice the job. Thanks but no thanks on your bridge to nowhere."
6
9%
"...This much-ballyhooed COCR may APPEAR to protect gay marriage on its face, but everyone knows that the Magic Invisible Clauses actually order us to pump all gay couples full of lead as soon as they reach the courthouse! Just ask the Secretariat!"
5
7%
"...We tend to agree with the Railanan ambassador that the institution of marriage is nothing but a glorified baby factory, and opening the door to loving gay couples -- adorable though they are -- poses a direct threat to our birthrate. Our NS country may already have 20 billion citizens, but that's still not enough! REPEAL FOMA!"
5
7%
"...The Kennyites actually make a good point here. Although that probably means the world is ending, and everybody should run for cover, we have to agree that redundant legislation should be stricken out when other resolutions already do a better job at it than the original. The Gittin'-Jiggy-with-It Republic of $NAME votes FOR."
19
27%
"...Thanks for pointing out that even though FOMA only protects same-sex couples, COCR protects couples of any kind seeking marriage. I can't wait to tie the knot with my Hot Alien Cousin! Mom and Dad probably won't talk to me anymore, but I fail to see the downside! WOOHOO! Me and Kalinda are hitting Vegas as soon as I hit "Send"!"
13
19%
"...Your latest episode, "Kenny versus the Gay Mafia," kicks so much ass it's not even funny! Slanderous accusations! Heavy Wild Turkey intake! Saber-rattling threats against Chechnya! A frickin' DEATH STAR, man! Let the critics grouse that it's just a rerun from 2006; you guys deserve an Emmy!"
1
1%
"...Alright, I'm confused. That maniac threatening to blow up the GA wants to repeal FOMA, yes? But won't blowing up the GA effectively repeal ALL standing legislation? Tell him to press the damned button already and let's avoid another corrupt and hollow debate!"
11
16%
 
Total votes : 70

User avatar
Omigodtheyclonedkenny
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Jan 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

PASSED: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

Postby Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:16 pm

Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #15
Proposed by: Omigodtheyclonedkenny

Description: WA Resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to the cause of human rights and extending protections for LGBT persons across the NS world,

Resolving itself, however, of the need to remove wasteful, redundant and unnecessary legislation from its books,

Recalling that subsequent to Freedom of Marriage Act's adoption, Resolution #35: The Charter of Civil Rights was enacted, forbidding discrimination by governments and/or public-service providers based on any "reductive categorisation," not just sex or sexual preference,

Contending that the passage of COCR eclipses the need for a Freedom of Marriage Act, as COCR effectively outlaws discrimination in the performance and recognition of marriages, and in a far more efficient manner,

Believing that this is evidenced by the fact that Freedom of Marriage Act only addresses discrimination in marriage based on sex, whereas COCR also outlaws discrimination against interracial, interfaith or intercultural couples,

Further condemning the confusing and needlessly complicated legal structure created by Freedom of Marriage Act, in which undefined "religious communities" are exempted from its terms, leaving theocratic regimes and nations with privatized marriage in doubt as to which set of rules they are meant to follow,

Reminding member states that repealing this act will not authorize discrimination against same-sex couples in any way,

Hereby REPEALS Resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act.

none significant



OK, so...questions? Comments? Suggestions? Unfounded allegations? Crackpot conspiracy theories?

You may fire when ready, Gridley.

*cowers*
Last edited by Ardchoille on Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:07 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Omigodtheyclonedkenny
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Jan 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:18 pm

And for ease of reference:

Human Rights/Significant

Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,

DETERMINED to further the rights of persons that have been oppressed and discriminated against for ages,

RESOLVED to provide a legal framework that enhances the social recognition of these minorities,

RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,

ADOPT the following resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

(b) The protection referred to in the previous section does not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.

(c) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence.

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.

(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.

User avatar
Moderate Republican
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jan 14, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Moderate Republican » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:20 pm

This appears to be very logical. It does not seem to be needed at all.

SUPPORT
Anti-Tea Party Voice of the GOP
Accounting Graduate Student
Strong supporter of gay and lesbian rights
Political Compass:
Econ: 0.88 , Lib/Auth: -1.64
OOC Political Positions
Moderate Republican - He does exist!
Member of the Conservative League - (Info Thread)
TRIGGER WARNING: User's posts may contain depictions of reality

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:28 pm

"We were considering a repeal along these lines at some points. Your argument appears sensible, concise, and doomed to failure.

"I also wonder if it's worth noting that the definition of marriage used here is quite limited. It only covers estate rights, and not things like taxes or benefits.

"Good luck!"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

User avatar
Omigodtheyclonedkenny
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Jan 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:31 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"We were considering a repeal along these lines at some points. Your argument appears sensible, concise, and doomed to failure.

"I also wonder if it's worth noting that the definition of marriage used here is quite limited. It only covers estate rights, and not things like taxes or benefits.

Excellent point, though I'd rather not bog down the argument with legal particulars. Thanks for the vote of confidence. :p

- Random dude from the Kennyite State Dept.

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:57 pm

And all the same-sex community is going to read is "OH NO! WE DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MARRY EACH OTHER ANYMORE!" and vote no. While I would vote for it, it will go over like a shit balloon and you know it....
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:05 pm

Chester Pearson wrote:And all the same-sex community is going to read is "OH NO! WE DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MARRY EACH OTHER ANYMORE!" and vote no. While I would vote for it, it will go over like a shit balloon and you know it....

"I imagine that's what they thought last time and it still passed?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic
Last edited by The Dark Star Republic on Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:32 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Chester Pearson wrote:And all the same-sex community is going to read is "OH NO! WE DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MARRY EACH OTHER ANYMORE!" and vote no. While I would vote for it, it will go over like a shit balloon and you know it....

"I imagine that's what they thought last time and it still passed?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic


Sorry for the OOC, but it the only way to respond to this comment: How many players were actively expressing those LGBT leanings publicly back in 2006 in the game? It really didn't take off until around 2010, when it became cool to be gay.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Omigodtheyclonedkenny
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Jan 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:51 pm

:roll:

Yeah, trust me, there was quite the pro-gay backlash against the repeal -- despite the fact that it did not address the issue of gay rights at all, just redundant legislation. I was afraid Aram Koopman might have an aneurysm, right there on the GA floor. We were accused of everything, from the standard "homophobia" card, to "lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas," to wanting to "abolish the erotic liberties of the human race." They had it out on the UNOG forum, with everyone throwing down. It's all right here in the NSwiki archive, if you want to have a look.

At any rate, people are just as liable now to misread a repeal as they were before. I don't think it's going to affect our chances of success much.
Last edited by Omigodtheyclonedkenny on Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tinfect
Senator
 
Posts: 4728
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tinfect » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:27 pm

This looks good, although bringing up GAR 35 might be a House of Cards violation.
Good luck with this, you will need it seeing as how people not reading the proposal has just resulted in some of the worst legislation ever passed by the WA.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Aeravahn occupy 1/5 of Exterior Territories, battered Third Fleet withdrawn from combat | Dejected Intelligence Operative enrolled in children's school, claims 'punishment for disobeying orders' | Experimental agricultural fungus accidentally released in New Kol, infects plant life, HLE teams deployed to remove infected plants | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:45 pm

Tinfect wrote:This looks good, although bringing up GAR 35 might be a House of Cards violation.


There is no "house of cards" in a repeal, as the repeal doesn't have to support itself. It can be all lies of you want it to be....
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Tinfect
Senator
 
Posts: 4728
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tinfect » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:47 pm

Chester Pearson wrote:
Tinfect wrote:This looks good, although bringing up GAR 35 might be a House of Cards violation.


There is no "house of cards" in a repeal, as the repeal doesn't have to support itself. It can be all lies of you want it to be....


I was not aware of that.
In that case, this seems fairly Ironclad.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Aeravahn occupy 1/5 of Exterior Territories, battered Third Fleet withdrawn from combat | Dejected Intelligence Operative enrolled in children's school, claims 'punishment for disobeying orders' | Experimental agricultural fungus accidentally released in New Kol, infects plant life, HLE teams deployed to remove infected plants | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Normlpeople
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1597
Founded: Apr 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Normlpeople » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:49 pm

"As usual, this anti-gay assembly and the homophobic author wish to set back the clock of human rights by denying homosexual couples equal rights given toward heterosexual people. You need to be ashamed of your homophobic attitude!" Clover chuckled "There, Since that was coming anyway at some point, you got it now. Reality is, its so badly written its overdue for repeal, especially since marriage is a domestic issue. Full support."
Words and Opinion of Clover the Clever
Ambassador to the WA for the Armed Kingdom of Normlpeople

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:58 pm

Normlpeople wrote:Reality is, its so badly written its overdue for repeal, especially since marriage is a domestic issue. Full support."


The problem being, we are not going to get a decent blocker in the deal.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5617
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:08 am

"I think you should focus on the "religious communities" and the problem that the DSR ambassador identified," said Percy. "A lot of members would probably like to see a separate act regarding same-sex marriage. However, I think it's a major issue that there is a rather ambiguous loophole that easily allows religious member-states to curtail same-sex marriage. "

"I'd also point out that the resolution requires a 'common estate' within the union," adds Percy. "Bearing in mind, marriage does not necessarily have to feature a common estate and Unibotians have longer regarded the practice as sexist, calvinist nonsense."
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL? // The Transpacific Trade
Paradise Found // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78 // The Polysemes of Nativeness;

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
The Eternal Kawaii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1749
Founded: Apr 21, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Eternal Kawaii » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:45 am

Unibot III wrote:"I think you should focus on the "religious communities" and the problem that the DSR ambassador identified," said Percy. "A lot of members would probably like to see a separate act regarding same-sex marriage. However, I think it's a major issue that there is a rather ambiguous loophole that easily allows religious member-states to curtail same-sex marriage. "

"I'd also point out that the resolution requires a 'common estate' within the union," adds Percy. "Bearing in mind, marriage does not necessarily have to feature a common estate and Unibotians have longer regarded the practice as sexist, calvinist nonsense."


On the other hand, Kawaiian family law requires the creation of a common estate, since the whole point of marriage in Kawaiian culture is to create a new family unit from two existing ones. It's an organic process that really can't be replicated by civil unions where the familes are not involved.
Learn More about The Eternal Kawaii from our Factbook!

"Aside from being illegal, it's not like Max Barry Day was that bad of a resolution." -- Glen Rhodes
"as a member of the GA elite, I don't have to take this" -- Vancouvia

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5617
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:43 pm

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:
Unibot III wrote:"I think you should focus on the "religious communities" and the problem that the DSR ambassador identified," said Percy. "A lot of members would probably like to see a separate act regarding same-sex marriage. However, I think it's a major issue that there is a rather ambiguous loophole that easily allows religious member-states to curtail same-sex marriage. "

"I'd also point out that the resolution requires a 'common estate' within the union," adds Percy. "Bearing in mind, marriage does not necessarily have to feature a common estate and Unibotians have longer regarded the practice as sexist, calvinist nonsense."


On the other hand, Kawaiian family law requires the creation of a common estate, since the whole point of marriage in Kawaiian culture is to create a new family unit from two existing ones. It's an organic process that really can't be replicated by civil unions where the familes are not involved.


"On the other hand, neither of us should be required by international law to structure marriage in terms of a common estate," says Percy. "Unibotian culture has never been particularly concerned with 'family units'."
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL? // The Transpacific Trade
Paradise Found // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78 // The Polysemes of Nativeness;

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Omigodtheyclonedkenny
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Jan 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:00 pm

I'd rather not get into that, mostly because FOMA, to the best of my reading ability, doesn't even require a common estate. It's only offered as an example of the rights and benefits of married couples, and stipulates that only the rights and benefits presently offered by the State be extended to all married couples regardless of sex, and that no new rights are automatically granted to married couples.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:46 pm

OOC: Out of interest, is there a reason for the reference to "the NS world", rather than just "the world"? You could also mentioned that Sexual Privacy Act provides an additional protection against discrimination.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2281
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:46 pm

Omigodtheyclonedkenny wrote:I'd rather not get into that, mostly because FOMA, to the best of my reading ability, doesn't even require a common estate. It's only offered as an example of the rights and benefits of married couples, and stipulates that only the rights and benefits presently offered by the State be extended to all married couples regardless of sex, and that no new rights are automatically granted to married couples.


Agreed, I think talking about a poor definition of marriage is barking up the wrong tree. FOMA merely states the regulations shall include stuff about common estate rights and inheritance. A state could mention these things in its marriage laws without extending any additional rights over what might exist between two unmarried people.

In any case, we are inclined to disagree with the proposal. Not that we find any of your arguments objectionable but that it might be no harm to keep it on the books due to the, admittedly highly unlikely, possibility that COCR could be repealed.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Omigodtheyclonedkenny
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Jan 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:09 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: Out of interest, is there a reason for the reference to "the NS world", rather than just "the world"? You could also mentioned that Sexual Privacy Act provides an additional protection against discrimination.

How so?

("NS world" is just a phrase I like to use. Besides, if I just said "the world" it might give more cause to planetwankers telling me I can't count.)

Bananaistan wrote:In any case, we are inclined to disagree with the proposal. Not that we find any of your arguments objectionable but that it might be no harm to keep it on the books due to the, admittedly highly unlikely, possibility that COCR could be repealed.

Would it be worth pointing out here that repeal is being sought not only because the resolution is redundant, but because it's also actively harmful - and that nations have actually tried using the "religious communities" loophole to curtail same-sex marriage rights?

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:16 pm

Omigodtheyclonedkenny wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: Out of interest, is there a reason for the reference to "the NS world", rather than just "the world"? You could also mentioned that Sexual Privacy Act provides an additional protection against discrimination.

How so?

("NS world" is just a phrase I like to use. Besides, if I just said "the world" it might give more cause to planetwankers telling me I can't count.)

Fair enough. Re: SPA, I meant that even if FoMA were repealed and CoCR were repealed, they still couldn't ban same-sex relationships. But, I don't have a problem with your argument as is, so n/m.
Last edited by The Dark Star Republic on Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Breko
Attaché
 
Posts: 70
Founded: Jan 11, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Breko » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:17 pm

"No, no, no! Since COCR has not been seen to rule in favor of the affirmation of same sex marriage throughout all nations, it is not covered!" Yells a gelatinous blob like alien known as a Breki whom everyone around him seems to have ignored for quite some time. The Breki ambassador raises and oozing tentacle in protest. " 'Reminding member states that repealing this act will not authorize discrimination against same-sex couples in any way,' is simply and utterly false! Us Brekis shall no longer be divided in skoobograbal (marriage) anymore!"

~Ambassador Mook-Mooki Cho
BISEXUAL
Political Compass #1(politicalcompass.org):
Ec: -5.38 Soc: -5.79

Political Compass #2 (gotoquiz.com):
Ec: -5.06 Soc: -6.14

User avatar
Omigodtheyclonedkenny
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Jan 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:12 pm

How has COCR not been shown to hold favor with same-sex marriage? Unless you've read the resolution (which I highly doubt), and point to specific language within the text to support your claims, I see little reason to lend your gelatinous, flailing, tentacular protests any credence.

- Random dude

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3386
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:05 pm

Omigodtheyclonedkenny wrote:How has COCR not been shown to hold favor with same-sex marriage? Unless you've read the resolution (which I highly doubt), and point to specific language within the text to support your claims, I see little reason to lend your gelatinous, flailing, tentacular protests any credence.


No, it's a fair question. Since the repeal text makes the claim that CoCR protects marriage rights as part and parcel of its requirements, it behooves advocates to show exactly what part of CoCR does this, since the terms "marriage," "matrimony," and "union" appear nowhere in the text.

It appears that your best shot would be to say that CoCR protects the right of any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult because to enact otherwise would violate Article 2, clause a. Your argument there is that a marriage license falls under "access to services provided to the general public."

But there is nothing in the text to indicate that it's not allowed for a nation to make policy along the lines of, "Well, any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult of the opposite sex. We're not discriminating against gay people, we hold straight people to exactly the same standard and are therefore in full compliance with GAR #35."

There's also nothing in the text to prohibit a nation from using the "compelling practical purpose" exception of CoCR, for example by saying "Marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation because like the ancient Sirealites, we're surrounded on all sides by enemies and we really need the warm bodies; therefore you may only marry for making children."

Leave aside for the moment the clear fact that these claims are, factually speaking, bullshit; it's still a pair of legal loopholes big enough to drag race locomotives through.

The other big argument for the repeal, the "religious communities" language, is a red herring. The actual rules of FOMA apply explicitly to states; all member states are therefore required to follow those rules, full stop. The preambulatory exception can therefore only apply to non-state level communities, e.g. individual churches, scout troops, cults, retreat camps, seminaries, etc. etc. etc. Even if these other communities need not recognize such marriages, states may not restrict them. There's really no difficulty interpreting this.

Therefore, barring some new and truly compelling argument, we see no redundancy and no fatal flaw in the target resolution, and thus oppose its repeal.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
Stephanie Athena Zakalwe
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279



Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads