[PASSED] Marriage Equality (The Provisional State of Nevada)

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Why do you think this is illegal?

It duplicates CoCR.

OOC: Minor overlap at best and this would close off any "compelling practical purposes" exception that member states could apply to same sex marriage. There's also the acres of modly precedent that duplication of COCR gets a higher bar than duplication of any other resolution.

[Smilidonia]

No world governing body has any right or basis to dictate religious ceremonies in any country. Marriage is meaningless in Smilidonia and we don't prohibit or recognize it in any meaningful way because it is simply a ceremonial ritual with no legal recognition. As such we will defend our citizens right to recognize or not recognize any religious ceremony they see fit.

[Rhodesika]

In Rhodesika, and by extension the Federal Union of Africa, national sovereignty and the national regulation of institutions is a top priority. This proposal not only requires nations to redefine their definitions on marriage as an institution but also in regards to religion. Rhodesika is a deeply religious nation, going so far as to have an official religion for the government and making priests of said religion government workers. To create a system where the government must recognize same sex marriage, you are not only violating the national sovereignty of many nations to regulate a civil institution but also requiring many nations, like my own, to bend their religious and moral standards to an outside interpretation. Whether or not one believes that to vote no is bigoted or incorrect, they cannot deny that one's right to religion and a nation's right to government regulation triumphs over international standards of morality.

[Willania Imperium]

The Felniiri Ambassador rises from his chair, raising his fist over his heart.
"The people of The Free Land of Felniir vote in favor of this legislation. People will be glad to know that no matter what their beliefs are, and no matter what religion says it's a sin, that they are safe at night, protected by the finest police force the Felniiri have to offer. Our stance is final.'' he says, sitting back down in his black, sleek chair.

The Felniiri Have Spoken.

“You may think that just because it has a good intention it is immediately a good proposal. It is not. This proposal has not been publicly drafted, allowing mistakes to get in. Plus, it is already adequately covered by the CoCR in GA Article #35, making it not that necessary enough for actual passing. Do you really want that into the WA?”

As it currently stands, the Kingdom of Cyll supports this resolution. The misspelling of the word "recognize" does not impact the understandability of this resolution. Cyll full heartedly supports the principle behind this resolution. The Kingdom of Cyll supports marriage equality for everyone. Cyll is a majority atheist nation, and its government is extremely secular. Religious beliefs will never impact the civil rights of the Cyllian people.

OOC: For clarification, I am American. I use the American spelling of things. I literally just joined the WA yesterday and this is only the second thing I've voted on. I'm still very new to NationStates. I am still learning how this works. Furthermore, the atheist comment was not intended to offend anyone. It is a simple statement of fact. Religion plays no part in the government of Cyll.

“While I respect your ideas, as they are relatively due to your inexperienced nature, this has already been covered before in CoCR. It is not that important. Plus, it has not been peer-reviewed, allowing mistakes to be made. We can’t allow work like like this in the WA!”

[Wallenburg]

It duplicates CoCR.

OOC: Minor overlap at best and this would close off any "compelling practical purposes" exception that member states could apply to same sex marriage.

Furthermore, we have the contradiction rule. The international community cannot take any action in contravention of COCR so any future resolution or instructions to a committee further to the encouragement in the target resolution and therefore cannot discriminate against LGBTQs.

Make up your mind.

There's also the acres of modly precedent that duplication of COCR gets a higher bar than duplication of any other resolution.

I thought mod precedent wasn't an argument anymore?

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Minor overlap at best and this would close off any "compelling practical purposes" exception that member states could apply to same sex marriage.

Furthermore, we have the contradiction rule. The international community cannot take any action in contravention of COCR so any future resolution or instructions to a committee further to the encouragement in the target resolution and therefore cannot discriminate against LGBTQs.

Make up your mind.

Eh, what? Duplication =/= contradiction. What's the point in quote mining a comment I made about contradiction when you're talking about duplication? Also, it's bloody irrelevant: going from memory rather than reading back through an old thread, IIRC my view of that proposal was that it acted on "the international community" rather than member states. So on the one hand we have here a proposal acting on member states with minor duplication, IE it only duplicates a small part of COCR, and OTOH we have some comment I made before I became a GenSec member in a theoretical discussion about contradiction by the international community.

There's also the acres of modly precedent that duplication of COCR gets a higher bar than duplication of any other resolution.

I thought mod precedent wasn't an argument anymore?

I am utterly unsurprised that you can remember some comment I made 4 or 5 months ago about an issue completely unrelated to this proposal but you have also somehow missed the many posts by members of GenSec that mod precedent is persuasive but not binding. To clear up any lingering confusion: mod precedent is persuasive but it is not binding.

[HerpDeDerp]

Nighteye walks up to a stand "HERPDEDERP believes in equality and freedom for all" an agent then whispers in his ear and he quickly walks away and out of the building.He later is forcing homeless people to join the army.

[Mushat]

The Commonwealth doesn't support marriage equality as marriage is a religious word and therefore points to religious teachings. Marriage equality seems to imply that religious marriage should be applied to atheists or alternate religions. The other problem is separation and divorce where married, unmarried couples will separate because they choose to change preference. This then proves that there is a need for variety in preferences therefore any attempt at a union can get increasingly out dated. So any enactment of marriage equality is often a pointless exercise because of couples not religious, not stixlong to the lifetime for the marriage, understanding what marriage or civil union is or understanding their own gender.

In short, you'd need to be practicing religiously to marry and you must be both aware of your genders as a result of corrective therapy BEFORE you spend the next 10 years wrecking other people's lives because you've decided to be confused about your own gender. On that basis, the commonwealth has voted no.

Civil rights groups may challenge this but they'll all know to well that it is an issue of process and funding. We're also not a nanny state either. Mushat chooses not to Nanny the working class but will choose to Nanny the children and elderly to a point.

[New Ex Patria]

I feel that this resolution is a massive violation of national sovereignty. Think about it; many nations will be religious, highly traditionalist or based in the past. It ruins their theme greatly because in those sort of nations, such a thing would be unthinkable.

[Valaistu]

I normally would of voted for a proposal like this, but the wording is so terrible and absurd. If this proposal would return with better grammar, then maybe this proposal could pass.

[Coaequales]

Ahem Who in their right mind would be against this proposal? The USSC would like to publicly declare its support of inclusiveness and total equality for all. Any nation or individual opposed to the ideal of equality is hereby officially denounced by the USSC.

[Wallenburg]

Make up your mind.

Eh, what? Duplication =/= contradiction. What's the point in quote mining a comment I made about contradiction when you're talking about duplication?

You assert that the proposal to "discourage LGBTQs" contradicted CoCR. That would require its mandates to already protect equal rights for LGBTQ individuals. If CoCR's mandates do that, then this resolution is illegal for duplicating those mandates.

Also, it's bloody irrelevant: going from memory rather than reading back through an old thread, IIRC my view of that proposal was that it acted on "the international community" rather than member states.

What the fuck are you talking about?

So on the one hand we have here a proposal acting on member states with minor duplication, IE it only duplicates a small part of COCR, and OTOH we have some comment I made before I became a GenSec member in a theoretical discussion about contradiction by the international community.

Tell me, what does this do that CoCR does not already do?

I thought mod precedent wasn't an argument anymore?

I am utterly unsurprised that you can remember some comment I made 4 or 5 months ago about an issue completely unrelated to this proposal but you have also somehow missed the many posts by members of GenSec that mod precedent is persuasive but not binding. To clear up any lingering confusion: mod precedent is persuasive but it is not binding.

I don't remember any particular post by any GenSec member. I remember the lot of you repeatedly stressing that you don't care about mod precedent, and that anyone trying to hold you to it wouldn't have any real argument. If that is the case, GenSec members don't have any real argument if they are leaning on mod precedent to support their decisions.

[Abyrvalg]

If we allow non-traditional marriage, then any marriage should be allowed: with any number of participants, of any age and gender. Restricting non-traditional marriage to "couples" makes no sense and is discriminative, e.g. for polyamories, Muslims etc., which should have the right to have the same rights.

[Vandario]

I feel that this resolution is a massive violation of national sovereignty. Think about it; many nations will be religious, highly traditionalist or based in the past. It ruins their theme greatly because in those sort of nations, such a thing would be unthinkable.

"Agreed it meddles in affairs too varied within a nation without thinking or knowing of the drastic consequences. As well on top a massive intrusion of National Sovereignty, I vote very AGAINST, and would like to tell the WA to back off, stop breathing down our necks."

[Bananaistan]

Eh, what? Duplication =/= contradiction. What's the point in quote mining a comment I made about contradiction when you're talking about duplication?

You assert that the proposal to "discourage LGBTQs" contradicted CoCR. That would require its mandates to already protect equal rights for LGBTQ individuals. If CoCR's mandates do that, then this resolution is illegal for duplicating those mandates.

This is where I stop entertaining your dishonest arguing. I specifically disagreed with the challenge to that other proposal and in the very post you stripped your quote from. I suggest you take more care with your quote mining and attempted gotchas in future.

[Auralia]

OOC: Why do you think this is illegal?

It duplicates CoCR.

((OOC: CoCR does not require that member states provide any recognition for same-sex sexual relationships. This proposal does.))

[Kenmoria]

Ahem Who in their right mind would be against this proposal? The USSC would like to publicly declare its support of inclusiveness and total equality for all. Any nation or individual opposed to the ideal of equality is hereby officially denounced by the USSC.

I voted against it purely for the awful grammar and spelling. I am very pedantic about grammar and generally vote against any proposal with misspellings purely because of that.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't remember any particular post by any GenSec member. I remember the lot of you repeatedly stressing that you don't care about mod precedent, and that anyone trying to hold you to it wouldn't have any real argument. If that is the case, GenSec members don't have any real argument if they are leaning on mod precedent to support their decisions.

Not strictly true. We use mod precedent to form our own opinions, we don't necessarily hold up mod precedent on it's own legs. Its like accepting a neighboring jurisdiction's rule: it's guiding in making a decision, but not authoritative in its own right.

Mod precedent entirely on its own isn't binding, just persuasive. Sometimes highly persuasive. But we don't have to accept it.

[Zelldynia]

If you're arguing over spelling and one is American and the other in a English speaking country that is not America, then the American is wrong. We neither spell or pronounce English right.

I think we should debate the issue, not the spelling.

[Wallenburg]

You assert that the proposal to "discourage LGBTQs" contradicted CoCR. That would require its mandates to already protect equal rights for LGBTQ individuals. If CoCR's mandates do that, then this resolution is illegal for duplicating those mandates.

This is where I stop entertaining your dishonest arguing. I specifically disagreed with the challenge to that other proposal and in the very post you stripped your quote from. I suggest you take more care with your quote mining and attempted gotchas in future.

This isn't dishonest arguing. This isn't quote mining. This isn't a "gotcha" argument. This is basic, very basic, absurdly basic logic that even a kindergartener could understand. Your refusal to engage in a perfectly legitimate discussion hardly makes my argument dishonest.

[Based Kentuckians]

The Region of Vault 69, operates on a no-homosexual zone. We could not allow such a disgusting proposal be forced upon our sacred land. Remember Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve.

[Serrus]

The Region of Vault 69, operates on a no-homosexual zone. We could not allow such a disgusting proposal be forced upon our sacred land. Remember Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve.

Dude, Steve is the coolest! (So is Satan, actually, but I might be biased because I eat lunch with him.)
Also, there's already legislation mandating marriage equality and non-compliance is frowned upon, so :/

[Separatist Peoples]

The Region of Vault 69, operates on a no-homosexual zone. We could not allow such a disgusting proposal be forced upon our sacred land. Remember Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve.

Bell looks up from placing a raw, greasy fish between pages of the Bible.

"Maybe in your religion, but were I come from, it's Thor and Sergio, not Adam and Eve. Your god has no power here." Bell gently replaces the Bible on it's owners desk.

[Nouvel Acadie]

I am - in "real life" - a gay married man, who has fought for over a decade for marriage equality in the US.

I also voted AGAINST the proposal.

It is *not* the purview of the World Assembly to determine the marriage laws of nations throughout the world. When you give the WA the authority to require social contracts in a way in which you agree, you have also given it the power to require social contracts in ways in which you disagree. The WA should stay out.

[Bananaistan]

You assert that the proposal to "discourage LGBTQs" contradicted CoCR. That would require its mandates to already protect equal rights for LGBTQ individuals. If CoCR's mandates do that, then this resolution is illegal for duplicating those mandates.

This isn't dishonest arguing. This isn't quote mining. This isn't a "gotcha" argument. This is basic, very basic, absurdly basic logic that even a kindergartener could understand. Your refusal to engage in a perfectly legitimate discussion hardly makes my argument dishonest.

I did not assert that the proposal "discourage LGBTQs" contradicted CoCR. In the comment you quote mined, but not in the part you quoted here, I specifically stated that I disagreed with the challenge to "discourage LGBTQs". You are directly misrepresenting my position on the "discourage LGBTQs" to further your point here and that is dishonest. Excuse me for being offended.

And excuse me for wondering wtf my opinion on a do nothing clause that only encouraged the WA to take action has to do with potential duplication here.