Page 1 of 10
[PASSED] Marriage Equality (The Provisional State of Nevada)
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:22 amby States of Glory WA Office
Marriage Equality
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Provisional State of Nevada
The World Assembly:
REGOGNIZING: That the historical and cultural significance of marriage,
REGOGNIZING: That throughout history marriage has been the cornerstone of civilization
FURTHER REGOGNIZING: That many member state prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits and legal recognition of marriage.
RESOLVED: That all member states are required allow same-sex couples to apply for and receive state-authorized marriage,
RESOLVED: That all member states are prohibited from discriminating against same-sex marriages and treating them any differently than opposite gender marriages
RESOLVED: That same-sex couples have the right to be free from discrimination in regards to their public or private affection of one another
RESOLVED: That no member of a religious organization will be required to officiate over, or required to attend a same-sex marriage contrary to their religious belief
RESOLVED: that no legal difference shall be made between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages.
CO-AUTHORED BY: New Gren Artle
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:29 amby Araraukar
OOC: You may want to make it clearer, SoG, that it's not your proposal and you're just posting it because it doesn't have a drafting thread.
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:41 amby States of Glory WA Office
Araraukar wrote:OOC: You may want to make it clearer, SoG, that it's not your proposal and you're just posting it because it doesn't have a drafting thread.
OOC: I can't think of something clever right now, so I'll just make it painfully obvious.
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:05 amby Essu Beti
Iksana reads aloud from a sheet of paper, clearly bored. "The nation of Essu Beti is firmly against any and all marriage-related proposals because other nations are- wow this is not very diplomatic, who wrote this?- godless heathens who wouldn't know how to take into account the samar gender even if we wrote up an infobook about it."
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:20 pmby Araraukar
Essu Beti wrote:"who wrote this?- godless heathens who wouldn't know how to take into account the
samar gender even if we wrote up an infobook about it."
"Your samar marry other samar, right? You must have some kind of definition somewhere in your laws, right? Just put in there that theyr're not just same gender but also same sex, and you're covered. However, the author does show great ignorance in presuming that sex and gender mean the same thing..."
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:44 pmby Essu Beti
"Not so much, no. It's just something that's understood. Like what makes someone samar or not is just understood. Our laws themselves are rather... plainly written. When they are written. We don't really do all the legal mumbo-jumbo. We really rely a lot more on tradition, to be honest."
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:24 pmby Araraukar
Essu Beti wrote:"We really rely a lot more on tradition, to be honest."
"Well, WA resolutions are laws, so presumably you at least have those as legal laws. But if you don't have specific definition of a samar, or any other sex or gender, then you're either not affected or you'll have no problem with the wording of this thing."
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:40 pmby Essu Beti
Iksana shrugs. "I don't think a good-faith interpretation would allow for using a lack of specific legal definitions as a means of getting around a resolution, Ambassador. As for not having a problem, we traditionally only accept the following marriages: man and woman, and samarid and samarid. And only if both members of the pair are of the same tribe, which for the purpose of this includes the Exiled as its own tribe. It would be outside of a good-faith interpretation of the proposal to use word-witchery to delare that only samarid-samarid pairs count as the same-sex couples that would be subject to the same legal rights as man-woman pairs."
"And while other nations may be content to use wordplay and definition stretching to get out of resolutions they don't like, Essu Beti kinda has a vested interest in being cooperative with the WA. Our good-faith attempts have to actually be in good faith."
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:51 pmby The Bible Baptist Republic
When preparing to join the World Assembly, The Bible Baptist Republic noted resolution 205, Freedom to Contract. As the act of state recognition of the ecclesiastical ritual and blessing known as marriage rendered such an act a form of contract. Recognizing that as a contract per 205, no Bible Baptist citizen could legally be prohibited from entering into such a contract based solely upon their sex or gender (per resolution 91).
To solve the problem, our laws were amended so that the terms “marriage” and “marriage license” were removed and replaced with “civil union” and “contract of civil union” and such contracts were opened to any two parties regardless of gender or sex. Marriage was defined as an ecclesiastical blessing and ritual separate and distinct from contracts of civil union and such marriage rites are solely under the auspices and laws of our National Church and those non-National Church ecclesiastical bodies registered with the Ministry of the Interior.
Civil unions are handled by clerk-magistrates and judges while marriages are handled by various members of the clergy. One may have a civil union and a marriage (and for the record there are small registered ecclesiastical bodies that perform marriage rites for same sex/gender couples), some couples only have a civil union, and others only have marriage rites performed (especially the elderly for whom contracting a civil union would reduce their government retirement stipends).
As I see Ambassador Fairburn is readying to instruct Mr. Johnson to strike me with a cream pie, the point is that in each country the term “marriage” or its equivalent construct means radically different things both culturally and legally. In light of this fact it is ill advised to enact a wholly unvetted and undebated resolution imposing a one-size fits all solution where no solution, and in some cases no problem to be solved even exist.
Full support
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:56 pmby Lt Col Tahir Hussain
The proposal has my full support .
I'am impressed by the content of the proposal , especially :
" RESOLVED: That no member of a religious organization will be required to officiate over, or required to attend a same-sex marriage contrary to their religious belief "
Well-struck
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:51 pmby Oresland
The fact that the person writing the proposal misspelled recognize 3 times is appalling. Also, opposed.
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:20 pmby Imperium Anglorum
Oresland wrote:The fact that the person writing the proposal misspelled recognize 3 times is apalling. Also, opposed.
Recognise is spelt with an 's'. Appalling is spelt with two 'p's.
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:42 pmby Keshiland
'
Essu Beti wrote:Iksana reads aloud from a sheet of paper, clearly bored. "The nation of Essu Beti is firmly against any and all marriage-related proposals because other nations are- wow this is not very diplomatic, who wrote this?- godless heathens who wouldn't know how to take into account the
samar gender even if we wrote up an infobook about it."
Sackeshi slams his fist on the table "I HAVE HAD IT WITH ESSU! THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THEN A PEST!" Sackeshi grabs the embassitor "Guards take him to military court" Sackeshi handcuffs him and the guard walk away "Now if you want to be let go you must vote yes or else face 20 years hard labour!"
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:46 pmby Tinfect
Keshiland wrote:'
Essu Beti wrote:Iksana reads aloud from a sheet of paper, clearly bored. "The nation of Essu Beti is firmly against any and all marriage-related proposals because other nations are- wow this is not very diplomatic, who wrote this?- godless heathens who wouldn't know how to take into account the
samar gender even if we wrote up an infobook about it."
Sackeshi slams his fist on the table "I HAVE HAD IT WITH ESSU! THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THEN A PEST!" Sackeshi grabs the embassitor "Guards take him to military court" Sackeshi handcuffs him and the guard walk away "Now if you want to be let go you must vote yes or else face 20 years hard labour!"
OOC:
Okay, you were just an annoyance before, now this is just outright godmodding. Knock it the fuck off Keshiland.
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:03 pmby Essu Beti
((OOC: Yeah I'm just going to ignore the blatant godmodding here))
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:08 pmby Keshiland
Tinfect wrote:Keshiland wrote:'
Sackeshi slams his fist on the table "I HAVE HAD IT WITH ESSU! THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THEN A PEST!" Sackeshi grabs the embassitor "Guards take him to military court" Sackeshi handcuffs him and the guard walk away "Now if you want to be let go you must vote yes or else face 20 years hard labour!"
OOC:
Okay, you were just an annoyance before, now this is just outright godmodding. Knock it the fuck off Keshiland.
Really abduction is godmodding -_-
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:18 pmby Essu Beti
((OOC: If you prose actions happening to someone else's character without permission and without giving them the chance to act against it, that's godmodding.
Also you can't just take a flock of guards into the WA- it's basically an invasion at that point. How did you get them into the building without other ambassadors or just the general staff stopping you? How are they getting past the Weapon's Nullifiers? Powerplaying is seriously bad rp form.))
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:44 pmby Araraukar
Essu Beti wrote:"As for not having a problem, we traditionally only accept the following marriages: man and woman, and
samarid and
samarid. And only if both members of the pair are of the same tribe, which for the purpose of this includes the Exiled as its own tribe. It would be outside of a good-faith interpretation of the proposal to use word-witchery to delare that only
samarid-samarid pairs count as the same-sex couples that would be subject to the same legal rights as man-woman pairs."
"Right, I forgot you've still got the affliction of a restricting religion - though if you're compliant with the resolutions, even without this proposal you're not allowed to discriminate against gay couples."
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:57 pmby Tinfect
Keshiland wrote:Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Okay, you were just an annoyance before, now this is just outright godmodding. Knock it the fuck off Keshiland.
Really abduction is godmodding -_-
OOC:
One wouldn't think that'd have to be said, but yes. And it wouldn't be a good idea besides. There are individuals in several delegations who could easily floor anyone who attempted it. And one of them is mine, in case you thought of trying anything.
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:14 pmby Willania Imperium
"It wasn't drafted with peer review, one of the co-authors is known for making shoddy material, and much of it is already covered by
GA #35: The Charter of Civil Rights, leaving very little original content. Plus, misspelling and a support by the Keshilandian ambassador has me saying no."
Posted:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:33 pmby Damanucus
I have read—well, attempted to read—this proposal, and, simply put, I can only just determine most of the intentions of this proposal. That said, while the main intention is hidden behind a line of illegible text, all other (legible) intentions get lost in confusion and mistranslation. Additionally, we agree with other ambassadors that Article 1c of GAR#35 sufficiently covers the intention of this resolution.
Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Posted:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:44 amby The Bible Baptist Republic
Damanucus wrote:I have read—well, attempted to read—this proposal, and, simply put, I can only just determine most of the intentions of this proposal. That said, while the main intention is hidden behind a line of illegible text, all other (legible) intentions get lost in confusion and mistranslation. Additionally, we agree with other ambassadors that Article 1c of GAR#35 sufficiently covers the intention of this resolution.
Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Enough for someone of sufficient stature to throw down the Legality Challenge gauntlet?
Posted:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:20 amby Araraukar
The Bible Baptist Republic wrote:Enough for someone of sufficient stature to throw down the Legality Challenge gauntlet?
OOC: You don't need "stature" to write up a Legality Challenge. Go ahead, make one, if you think it's necessary.
Posted:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:00 amby Oresland
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Oresland wrote:The fact that the person writing the proposal misspelled recognize 3 times is apalling. Also, opposed.
Recognise is spelt with an 's'. Appalling is spelt with two 'p's.
Recognize and recognise are both accepted words.
Posted:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:35 amby Keshiland
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.