[PASSED] Repeal "Marriage Equality"

[Scherzinger]

Even if My nations laws prohibit it outright. The Emperor doesn't have religion either. We simply allow them to be married if they do it outside of Scherzinger and they are married already when they cross Scherzingerian boarders

The current resolution at vote would override national laws prohibiting marriage of any sort such to create a state-sponsored conception of marriage which would then be accessible for homosexual couples.

And, yet again, this is why we have outlawed all of your laws and shite. The Emperor and Empress wish to express their hate, not just for Democracies, but for you and your nation specifiaclly

[Willania Imperium]

The current resolution at vote would override national laws prohibiting marriage of any sort such to create a state-sponsored conception of marriage which would then be accessible for homosexual couples.

And, yet again, this is why we have outlawed all of your laws and shite. The Emperor and Empress wish to express their hate, not just for Democracies, but for you and your nation specifiaclly

You know, placing all your decisions on just your opinion of the author isn't... how you say... intelligent. You need to base a proposal on its merit and use, as well as its form, presentation, and many other things.

[Separatist Peoples]

The current resolution at vote would override national laws prohibiting marriage of any sort such to create a state-sponsored conception of marriage which would then be accessible for homosexual couples.

And, yet again, this is why we have outlawed all of your laws and shite. The Emperor and Empress wish to express their hate, not just for Democracies, but for you and your nation specifiaclly

"So, you're saying we should ignore your input from now on? Perfect. We'll ignore your input from now on."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Gonna stave off submission until around half way through the voting for the Freedom of Language resolution.

[Aclion]

Adrienne: "I see a small mistake. You refer to '"regognizing" as a misspelling of recognising. I can't blame you for it. I made the same mistake until I was corrected by our compliance bureau. They had to work overtime on this one but eventually came up with a meaningful interpretation. The key is the rather obscure base word in regognising; "Gog."

"Gog" is an English loanword originating from Hebrew and originates in the Old Testament's Book of Ezekiel(refer to reports on theology and language on Earth C-137); as the name of a ruler whose nation was under the dominion of Satan. The word means "the name of enemies of God's people". Once you know this the rest begins to fall into place.
Gog, "an enemy of god's people" is combined with the suffix -nize "make or become" to make gognize "to make or become an enemy of god's people". To this we add the prefix re- "again" to make regognize "To make an enemy of god's people again". To that the prefix -ing is added to make the whole thing present tense.

It seems that the radical Christian lobby has succeeded in pushing through a resolution condemning gay marriage as an affront against god."

[Willania Imperium]

Adrienne: "I see a small mistake. You refer to '"regognizing" as a misspelling of recognising. I can't blame you for it. I made the same mistake until I was corrected by our compliance bureau. They had to work overtime on this one but eventually came up with a meaningful interpretation. The key is the rather obscure base word in regognising; "Gog."

"Gog" is an English loanword originating from Hebrew and originates in the Old Testament's Book of Ezekiel(refer to reports on theology and language on Earth C-137); as the name of a ruler whose nation was under the dominion of Satan. The word means "the name of enemies of God's people". Once you know this the rest begins to fall into place.
Gog, "an enemy of god's people" is combined with the suffix -nize "make or become" to make gognize "to make or become an enemy of god's people". To this we add the prefix re- "again" to make regognize "To make an enemy of god's people again". To that the prefix -ing is added to make the whole thing present tense.

It seems that the radical Christian lobby has succeeded in pushing through a resolution condemning gay marriage as an affront against god."

"So, we're making words now? No disrespect, but it's still a blatant disregard for grammar. Just because you can combine parts of words doesn't mean you're making new ones. Let's say I combine pre- and -it. There's nothing like "preit", but I could claim it's a word because it's a combination of prefixes and suffixes. So unless you have a dictionary that proves it to be true, I find you hard to believe."

[Bananaistan]

This august World Assembly,

Reminding itself that (i) legislation passed by the World Assembly cannot be amended or changed, only repealed, and that any correction of the problems noted in the target resolution would first require passage of a repeal, and (ii) there are no real good reasons to keep redundant legislation around,

Observing that this resolution creates no significant protection beyond that already established in article 1, section 3 of 35 GA 'The Charter of Civil Rights', which prohibits discrimination in any 'reductive categorisation' except in cases of 'compelling practical purposes', into which a discriminatory definition of marriage does not fall,

Astonished by the World Assembly's foresight in passing 35 GA 'The Charter of Civil Rights' to already prohibit discrimination in marriage not only on reasons of sex but on other reasons, including gender, race, faith, and all other reductive categorisations, something which this resolution, ostensibly creating 'marriage equality', does not do,

Troubled by the target resolution's imposition of a statist conception of marriage in section 1 of the target resolution upon nations in which no conception of marriage has existed in the first place, thereby imposing an oppressive institution with preferential rights upon nations in which no such oppression previously occurred,

Recalling similar legislation in the form of 15 GA 'Freedom of Marriage Act' that was already repealed on practically these exact grounds by 313 GA, which this Assembly passed and supported overwhelmingly at supermajority levels,

Concluding that repeal of this resolution will not eliminate the already-existing protections against discrimination in marriage that both predate this resolution in and are subsumed by 35 GA 'The Charter of Civil Rights', and

Calling for replacement of this legislation and its numerous spelling errors (e.g. recognising misspelt as 'regognizing', replacing the 'c' in the word with a 'g') with a well-drafted reasonably coherent replacement,

Hereby repeals 410 GA 'Marriage Equality'.

OOC: I still see this as an honest mistake violation which misrepresents the scope and extent of COCR and how it interacts with the target resolution.

[Aclion]

"So, we're making words now? No disrespect, but it's still a blatant disregard for grammar. Just because you can combine parts of words doesn't mean you're making new ones. Let's say I combine pre- and -it. There's nothing like "preit", but I could claim it's a word because it's a combination of prefixes and suffixes. So unless you have a dictionary that proves it to be true, I find you hard to believe."

"Gog is an existing word, which appears in several dictionaries, such as the one I referenced. And I'm not combining parts of words. I'm using prefixes and suffixes, which are an accepted part of the English language used to write proposals. And no you cannot simply throw together a prefix and a suffix to make a new word. Prefixes and suffixes have no meaning on their own, they exist to alter the meaning of existing words. You need to combine them with a base word."

OOC: Also it's a joke. Obviously it is a typo, but it is more fun to pretend to interpret it as real word.

[Agrination]

Thank you for starting this. Marriage Equality gets passed but looks like language equality won't

I would emphasize how Theocracies & heavily religious nations are basically being told to buzz off & get out of the WA
Currently, many conservatives & Theocracies are not part of the WA because it seeks to change their traditions. The WA is supposed to be for all nations. Not just progressives.

[The Great Boom]

Thank you for starting this. Marriage Equality gets passed but looks like language equality won't

I would emphasize how Theocracies & heavily religious nations are basically being told to buzz off & get out of the WA
Currently, many conservatives & Theocracies are not part of the WA because it seeks to change their traditions. The WA is supposed to be for all nations. Not just progressives.

Not all theocracies, just the ones that violate the human rights of their citizens in the name of religion. The Great Boom is far from secular, but our religious leaders insist on protecting the marginalized because that's one thing religion is supposed to be about.

[Agrination]

Thank you for starting this. Marriage Equality gets passed but looks like language equality won't

I would emphasize how Theocracies & heavily religious nations are basically being told to buzz off & get out of the WA
Currently, many conservatives & Theocracies are not part of the WA because it seeks to change their traditions. The WA is supposed to be for all nations. Not just progressives.

Not all theocracies, just the ones that violate the human rights of their citizens in the name of religion. The Great Boom is far from secular, but our religious leaders insist on protecting the marginalized because that's one thing religion is supposed to be about.

Some religions do not support homosexual marriage yes. They have traditions & their laws. For a long time, it has been up to nations. I have open borders to let people come & go as they please. Also, what is your definition of human rights? Plenty of conservatives have different definitions & who are you or I to say a definite one? The WA has become liberal, & 80% of conservative nations I know won't join it for this reason. The WA has become & Will continue to become an echo chamber of progrssive nations if this blatant contradiction of many old religions is enforced. & what will echo chambers accomplish? They won't change a whole group of nations boycotting the WA. Once out, you are not helping those nations. This act would never have passed if conservative nations weren't already boycotting the WA. It's supposed to be a place of open discussion & improvements, not a high palace for the most elite & progressive of nations

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I still see this as an honest mistake violation which misrepresents the scope and extent of COCR and how it interacts with the target resolution.

All burdens act from the presumption that the proposal is permitted. It is not the burden of the author to defend their proposal, but rather, that of the challenger to prove the proposal to be impermissible. For a proposal to be impermissible, it should require that the proposal is, without a doubt, a violation of proposal rules. This is for two reasons: (1) proposals writ large are good, since they promote activity and engagement in the World Assembly and (2) a less narrow conception of the rules creates incentives to engage with the rule structure rather than with the Assembly writ large.

Narrower conceptions of the rules raise the burdens required for proposal removal in the World Assembly. This makes it harder to pursue legality challenges, and therefore, there are fewer of such challenges, as people will choose to use political means to oppose proposals rather than technical means, seeing that technical means have a lower chance of succeeding.

This has two major impacts: (1) it lowers the size of the learning curve needed to deal with legality challenges in the World Assembly and (2) it means the World Assembly can refocus on political matters. With a smaller learning curve, it is easier for new players to enter the World Assembly and make progress. A significant part of the reason why people don’t interact in the WA is because they are intimidated by the fact there are so many arcane rules which they do not understand and have no reasonable way of learning. This expands the community and lowers the barriers to playing in this part of the game. This also allows for the World Assembly to move away from a legalistic framework and into a political framework, central to the purpose of the Assembly itself.

Furthermore, such an interpretive burden also means that there are fewer interventions by moderators and Councillors in the WA. This is good for two reasons. First, perceptively, it means that the Assembly appears less controlled by special interests who are looked upon with disdain and untrusted by most people outside the realm of GA regulars. Second, it means that there is more natural and community-driven activity, as opposed to it being restricted by moderation. This allows for political organisation and actual role-play above out-of-character legality challenges.

Striking down a proposal under the Honest Mistake rule has two major considerations: (1) the same considerations about the proliferation of legality challenges applies but, we must also consider that (2) most people will not consider the truth content of repeals. The fact that most players will not do the kind of textual analysis necessary to find untruths present in some repeal means that the proposal system itself carries a responsibility to ensure that repeals are, in some way, truthful.

Thus, the substance of acceptable proposals falls in between the interpretive space (the space in which all valid interpretations lie) and the conditions of truth. Of course, as the interpretive space helps to define the relevant truth conditions, the burden for the repeal is that the premises of the arguments in the repeal must themselves be reasonable interpretations of the targeted legislation. This doctrine of limiting the interpretive space to reasonable interpretations derives from RNT and [2017] GAS 7, 8, and 9.

This does not imply that there can only be one reasonable interpretation. Lacking direct analysis in the GA Secretariat rulings on whether a repeal can select from the possible reasonable interpretations that which best suits the arguments made, we fall back on moderator precedents. (The analysis so far being primarily about certain arguments can possibly even have truth value in of themselves.) Moderator precedent on this matter has been extremely clear. Repeals are legal so long as their arguments are based on a valid interpretation selected from the interpretive space. To quote Mousebumples in a decision on Repeal "Responsible Arms Trading" on 14 May 2015:

We only step in with the Honest Mistake rule when there is a clear misunderstanding that contradicts the intended effects. Using different language to say similar things is not illegal. While the interpretations put forward by the author of the repeal may not be what the original author of the resolution intended, in this case, they are viewed as being a possible interpretation of the resolution text.

Similarly, Frisbeeteria on 22 April 2012:

Differences in interpretation such as the one you're appealing are not subject to the "Honest Mistake" rule. That one is reserved for people who submit a proposal or a repeal that ends up in clear contradiction or duplication of the stated effects. The Secretariat isn't here to make arbitrary decisions about interpretation.

And Ardchoille on 16 August 2013:

Even then, for the most part, mods consider the validity of reasonably-written repeals is something best decided by the GA. Our standard is not Absolute Truth, but plausibility.

The main difference between the current jurisprudence and the moderator jurisprudence is that the interpretive space has been narrowed: from valid interpretations to reasonable ones. That does not change the fact that the burden for removal is still that the proposed repeal must contain an argument falls outside the interpretive space.

There is a reasonable interpretation, from the perspective of the World Assembly (a body which has repeatedly shown itself willing to protect such rights) that this is not in fact compelling, and therefore, the argument in paragraph 2 is a reasonable interpretation. While the perspective of member nations has been more recently brought to the fore, especially in [2017] GAS 8, the perspective of the World Assembly is still part of the interpretive space. So much so that in the past, Ardochille ruled on the 6 Nov 2010, that:

The nations that make up the WA may well be played as inhabited by a bunch of conniving, slippery rules-lawyers who read all WA resolutions with an eye to how they can best avoid them. But the in-game view of the WA, in official statements such as resolutions, is that it is the voice of the nations. Therefore it states the laws and the nations (having themselves decided by vote that the laws are good) hear and obey . . .

However, that means that, once passed, they are put into practice in WA nations. It's entirely possible that said nations may find the resolutions cumbersome or difficult to apply because of a lack of clarity in the wording that was not evident at the time the resolution passed*. This is effectively passing the buck from the WA itself to the original author -- ie, the hive mind of the WA is never wrong, but its components may be. So repeals have been accepted that highlighted "lack of clarity" or "ambiguous wording" without referring to the concept of playing the game of NS cleverly by finding a loophole.

While one implication of this ruling, namely, that non-compliance is impossible, has been overturned by [2017] GAS 5, but that does not change the fact that the World Assembly's perspective is part of the interpretive space.

[Lemuria Islands]

I for one am in favour of repealing this "Marriage Equality" resolution. I've never voted against anything in the World Assembly so full-heartedly before.

I personally believe that homosexuals shouldn't be prosecuted, and if a nation wants to have marriage equality, they should have it. One thing that gets to me about this resolution is that it extends this to the whole world! Which is a bit of a tough one considering all those... different humans.

I even wrote a lengthy reaction to the marriage equality resolution because it fit my nation's narrative quite well.

I hope this goes through. This will be interesting for the World Assembly. Some of them have even started a "Marriage Equality" redux in case this should be successful.

[Wrapper]

OOC: The Honest Mistake rule has been changed twice in the past couple years. You shouldn't rely on precedent that was based on a different version of the rule, which was last revised in mid-2016.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The Honest Mistake rule has been changed twice in the past couple years. You shouldn't rely on precedent that was based on a different version of the rule, which was last revised in mid-2016.

This doesn't have to do with the rule itself. It has to do with the burdens for application of the rule. Secondarily, this has to do with the old rule text's third part, "tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't", which is where most of the interpretation comes in. The philosophical justification and explicit test for the rule is still the same: a repeal argues that a resolution does something which the resolution does not do. That's what factual inaccuracies about a resolution means.

By the way, this raises an interesting question. There could be an argument made that the new ruleset, in which it simply states 'factual inaccuracies', would apply to general or abstract truth claims. This has not yet been tested. And current guidance on that matter states that 'you may possibly even get away with factual errors ("RECOGNISING that oxygen explodes on contact with water ..."), and mods will wash our hands, say, "What is Truth?" and, like jesting Pilate, not stay for an answer'.

[Wrapper]

OOC: The Honest Mistake rule has been changed twice in the past couple years. You shouldn't rely on precedent that was based on a different version of the rule, which was last revised in mid-2016.

This doesn't have to do with the rule itself. It has to do with the burdens for application of the rule. Secondarily, this has to do with the old rule text's third part, "tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't", which is where most of the interpretation comes in. The philosophical justification and explicit test for the rule is still the same: a repeal argues that a resolution does something which the resolution does not do. That's what factual inaccuracies about a resolution means.

I still think it's a bad idea. A different rule would have a different burden for application. Nevertheless, proceed at your own risk.

By the way, this raises an interesting question. There could be an argument made that the new ruleset, in which it simply states 'factual inaccuracies', would apply to general or abstract truth claims. This has not yet been tested. And current guidance on that matter states that 'you may possibly even get away with factual errors ("RECOGNISING that oxygen explodes on contact with water ..."), and mods will wash our hands, say, "What is Truth?" and, like jesting Pilate, not stay for an answer'.

A two-year-old post is most certainly not current guidance. Need I remind you that for a few months in 2016 the Honest Mistake rule allowed purposeful untruths, until there was an uprising that resulted in us re-revising the rule? If I'm not mistaken, it was on one of your own repeals, so I can't imagine you'd forget that fiasco. I still cringe when people bring it up. See? **cringes**

[Imperium Anglorum]

By the way, this raises an interesting question. There could be an argument made that the new ruleset, in which it simply states 'factual inaccuracies', would apply to general or abstract truth claims. This has not yet been tested. And current guidance on that matter states that 'you may possibly even get away with factual errors ("RECOGNISING that oxygen explodes on contact with water ..."), and mods will wash our hands, say, "What is Truth?" and, like jesting Pilate, not stay for an answer'.

A two-year-old post is most certainly not current guidance. Need I remind you that for a few months in 2016 the Honest Mistake rule allowed purposeful untruths, until there was an uprising that resulted in us re-revising the rule? If I'm not mistaken, it was on one of your own repeals, so I can't imagine you'd forget that fiasco. I still cringe when people bring it up. See? **cringes**

Well, (1) you brought that post up, you linked to it explicitly in this post. In fact, that's really the only reason why I know Ard's post exists. (2) It precedes the 'lying is fine' ruling. (3) I think the context is clear in that Ard is talking about abstract fact claims about the world as a whole (oxygen exploding and water), not about interpretation of some resolution. And (4) Bears Armed noted that moderator precedent is the current interpretation of the ruleset until such time that it is explicitly discarded.

EDIT (substantial additions): I think that the characterisation that Ard didn't care about factual interpretation (as opposed to abstract general fact claims about the world) is quite unfair. You'll see the next paragraph in the statement:

But what we won't say is, "We can't read." We do read the original Resolution, we do read the reasons given for repealing the Resolution, and where necessary we do weigh one against the other.

[Wallenburg]

"The republics of Wallenburg and, most importantly, my eyes, appreciate your final decision to convert to the standard format. You have our support."

[Bears Armed]

Adrienne: "I see a small mistake. You refer to '"regognizing" as a misspelling of recognising. I can't blame you for it. I made the same mistake until I was corrected by our compliance bureau. They had to work overtime on this one but eventually came up with a meaningful interpretation. The key is the rather obscure base word in regognising; "Gog."

"Gog" is an English loanword originating from Hebrew and originates in the Old Testament's Book of Ezekiel(refer to reports on theology and language on Earth C-137); as the name of a ruler whose nation was under the dominion of Satan. The word means "the name of enemies of God's people". Once you know this the rest begins to fall into place.
Gog, "an enemy of god's people" is combined with the suffix -nize "make or become" to make gognize "to make or become an enemy of god's people". To this we add the prefix re- "again" to make regognize "To make an enemy of god's people again". To that the prefix -ing is added to make the whole thing present tense.

It seems that the radical Christian lobby has succeeded in pushing through a resolution condemning gay marriage as an affront against god."

OOC:

(And there's also a 'Gog' who was one of Superman's enemies in the comics...)

[Arcturus Novus]

"I will admit, I had my concerns over this draft. But, having read it over, I fully support it. I am glad that it addresses issues in the resolution, without infringing upon the rights of others."

[The Candy Of Bottles]

This is now at vote, and I had the honor of casting the first ballot- in favor.

[Willania Imperium]

This is now at vote, and I had the honor of casting the first ballot- in favor.

"Seems to me that it has a favorable start. Still, keep watch on it. There's a chance the fate of "Marriage Equality" will be repeated."

[Freederickia]

I suggest if this issue comes up again that the resolution would be to remove marriage as something that is recognized by the WA as a legal institution.
If people wish to engage in a partnership concerning privileges and rights it should be done contractually between any two or more parties of sound mind regardless of gender race age or political orientation. That contract should be no different than any other contract in that sense.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-t ... n-marriage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cugo8aqSBu4

[Kokoku]

"The delegation of Kokoku votes in favor of repealing the poorly-written resolution. We sincerely hope that any future resolutions meet the writing standards worthy of the World Assembly."

[Otaku Stratus]

Well this was a no-brainer, and I tend to support repeals even if I don't despise the thing they're repealing..
However, the language in this resolution is really making me want to repeal this 'charter of civil rights' that it keeps mentioning