NationStates

Posted: **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.

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

You may fire when ready, Gridley.

*cowers*

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:18 pm**

And for ease of reference:

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:20 pm**

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

SUPPORT

Posted: **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

Posted: **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.

- Random dude from the Kennyite State Dept.

Posted: **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....

Posted: **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

Posted: **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.

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:51 pm**

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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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....

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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."

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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."

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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'."

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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?

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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

Posted: **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

Posted: **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.

NationStates

PASSED: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

PASSED: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"