[PASSED] Repeal "Marriage Equality"

[Imperial Siber]

So the proposals ideals are good, but written badly? Is that really why most people are against it?

[Separatist Peoples]

So the proposals ideals are good, but written badly? Is that really why most people are against it?

"Yes. Poorly written laws have poorly considered effects. For example, the target resolution gives the right to marry to homosexual couples, but not heterosexual couples."

[Imperial Siber]

So the proposals ideals are good, but written badly? Is that really why most people are against it?

"Yes. Poorly written laws have poorly considered effects. For example, the target resolution gives the right to marry to homosexual couples, but not heterosexual couples."

That's Becuase heterosexual marriage is not as big a civil rights issue as homosexual. I can't think of a single nation that has heterosexual marriage banned. Saying that about the proposal is like saying that there shouldn't be equal pay for women if they are doing the same work at the same quality as men as a bill is wrong becuase it doesn't say that for men.

[Willania Imperium]

So the proposals ideals are good, but written badly? Is that really why most people are against it?

“Yes. It was never peer reviewed, it has multiple grammatical errors, and it was written by people known for writing pieces of crap.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"Yes. Poorly written laws have poorly considered effects. For example, the target resolution gives the right to marry to homosexual couples, but not heterosexual couples."

That's Becuase heterosexual marriage is not as big a civil rights issue as homosexual. I can't think of a single nation that has heterosexual marriage banned. Saying that about the proposal is like saying that there shouldn't be equal pay for women if they are doing the same work at the same quality as men as a bill is wrong becuase it doesn't say that for men.

"If there isn't a right to it, I promise you that there is a nation that has banned it. Marriage as a whole can be banned in a nation, or simply not exist as a legal conception (left entirely to churches), and the target resolution effectively tramples over that. After all, denial of state recognition means denial of tax benefits. Whether something is a bigger civil rights issue does not excuse blatantly ignoring the overwhelming majority of marriages in the world. Nor either does it excuse blatant spelling errors."

[Imperial Siber]

That's Becuase heterosexual marriage is not as big a civil rights issue as homosexual. I can't think of a single nation that has heterosexual marriage banned. Saying that about the proposal is like saying that there shouldn't be equal pay for women if they are doing the same work at the same quality as men as a bill is wrong becuase it doesn't say that for men.

"If there isn't a right to it, I promise you that there is a nation that has banned it. Marriage as a whole can be banned in a nation, or simply not exist as a legal conception (left entirely to churches), and the target resolution effectively tramples over that. After all, denial of state recognition means denial of tax benefits. Whether something is a bigger civil rights issue does not excuse blatantly ignoring the overwhelming majority of marriages in the world. Nor either does it excuse blatant spelling errors."

In those cases, it's a matter of marriage, not strictly heterosexual marriage. Having only homosexual marriages in a country is not a big problem, anywhere. If it exists somewhere, realistically, that nation would remove it quickly. But Communist pizza imperialist unicorn loving fascist meme states exist here, so...

[Separatist Peoples]

In those cases, it's a matter of marriage, not strictly heterosexual marriage. Having only homosexual marriages in a country is not a big problem, anywhere. If it exists somewhere, realistically, that nation would remove it quickly. But Communist pizza imperialist unicorn loving fascist meme states exist here, so...

"And because there is no general right to marriage, granting the right only to one group and not another creates an inequitable situation. Really, ambassador, I'm amazed that this particularly irony is lost upon you." Bell rolls his eyes in utter contempt.

"There are plenty of reasons a state wants nothing to do with marriage and to leave it to their religious institutions. Not the least of which is that governments may have no state interest in marriage. They sure won't have any reason to recognize heterosexual marriage if no marriage was previously recognized and only homosexual marriage is recognized now. Thus, inequity."

[Scherzinger]

We again refuse and repeal this heinous act. good luck whackjob

[Willania Imperium]

We again refuse and repeal this heinous act. good luck whackjob

“Which one are you talking about? The one at-vote or the repeal? Because this is the repeal.”

[The Atlae Isles]

OOC: Many of us are voting against "Marriage Equality" not because we oppose the ideals it stands for but rather because of the poor quality of the draft and the lack of consultation before submitting it.

Understandable, and anyone volunteering to be an éditer? Yeah. Ok. My freind could edit it. Or my regions founder. Both grammar lovers.

Also, people are going to be using that as an excuse to go against it, while not every one, homophobic beings will just use it as an excuse.

We can't edit it if it's passed. It's against the rules and game code.

So the proposals ideals are good, but written badly? Is that really why most people are against it?

Think it like this. Let's say, for example, oh, I don't know, a good healthcare bill was in place (unlike the one trying to be passed in the US but I digress). If it didn't specify anything or was written badly, that'd be a bad law/resolution that would leave open a grey area for misinterpretation.

This is why laws have to be legalistic and specific even though some of us don't like it.

"Yes. Poorly written laws have poorly considered effects. For example, the target resolution gives the right to marry to homosexual couples, but not heterosexual couples."

That's Becuase heterosexual marriage is not as big a civil rights issue as homosexual. I can't think of a single nation that has heterosexual marriage banned. Saying that about the proposal is like saying that there shouldn't be equal pay for women if they are doing the same work at the same quality as men as a bill is wrong becuase it doesn't say that for men.

Just because you've never heard of a nation that outlaws heterosexual marriage doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have quite a few nations eccentric enough to do that, even going so far as to outlaw marriage itself and let people reproduce without it.

Your equal pay thing could be phrased as "Everyone, regardless of gender, race, or sexuality, shall be paid on the merits of quality of their work." This leaves no room for interpretation (subject to WA drafting, which the author was inconsiderate enough to do). This proposal at vote is very vague and doesn't cover much of the important things needed for the issue.

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

The Bible Baptist Republic supports an immediate repeal and replace effort in the event Marriage Equality passes. Not because we oppose same gender marriage, as we already have that. We're opposed to misspelled gibberish being raised to the level of international law because it made people feel good to vote for it no matter how much of an illiterate embarrassment the actual text might be.

[Ransium]

It might be helpful to use the American spelling of "recognizing" to make clear your not complaining about US versus U.K. English.

[Main]

It might be helpful to use the American spelling of "recognizing" to make clear your not complaining about US versus U.K. English.

Not sure what the correct format for emphasis is in a proposal (italics, bolding, quotation marks, asterisks?), but I agree that some way to demarcate the "g" in particular as being the issue would be advantageous.

[Imperial Siber]

In those cases, it's a matter of marriage, not strictly heterosexual marriage. Having only homosexual marriages in a country is not a big problem, anywhere. If it exists somewhere, realistically, that nation would remove it quickly. But Communist pizza imperialist unicorn loving fascist meme states exist here, so...

"And because there is no general right to marriage, granting the right only to one group and not another creates an inequitable situation. Really, ambassador, I'm amazed that this particularly irony is lost upon you." Bell rolls his eyes in utter contempt.

"There are plenty of reasons a state wants nothing to do with marriage and to leave it to their religious institutions. Not the least of which is that governments may have no state interest in marriage. They sure won't have any reason to recognize heterosexual marriage if no marriage was previously recognized and only homosexual marriage is recognized now. Thus, inequity."

Ok. If marriage isn't allowed at all, then it's a marriage issue, not just heterosexual marriage. That's for homosexual and heterosexual marriage. It's a different kettle of tea

Understandable, and anyone volunteering to be an éditer? Yeah. Ok. My freind could edit it. Or my regions founder. Both grammar lovers.

Also, people are going to be using that as an excuse to go against it, while not every one, homophobic beings will just use it as an excuse.

We can't edit it if it's passed. It's against the rules and game code.

So the proposals ideals are good, but written badly? Is that really why most people are against it?

Think it like this. Let's say, for example, oh, I don't know, a good healthcare bill was in place (unlike the one trying to be passed in the US but I digress). If it didn't specify anything or was written badly, that'd be a bad law/resolution that would leave open a grey area for misinterpretation.

This is why laws have to be legalistic and specific even though some of us don't like it.

That's Becuase heterosexual marriage is not as big a civil rights issue as homosexual. I can't think of a single nation that has heterosexual marriage banned. Saying that about the proposal is like saying that there shouldn't be equal pay for women if they are doing the same work at the same quality as men as a bill is wrong becuase it doesn't say that for men.

Just because you've never heard of a nation that outlaws heterosexual marriage doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have quite a few nations eccentric enough to do that, even going so far as to outlaw marriage itself and let people reproduce without it.

Your equal pay thing could be phrased as "Everyone, regardless of gender, race, or sexuality, shall be paid on the merits of quality of their work." This leaves no room for interpretation (subject to WA drafting, which the author was inconsiderate enough to do). This proposal at vote is very vague and doesn't cover much of the important things needed for the issue.

Ok. When I said edit I meant this. Person takes current proposal, edits it, puts it back up for vote, then any reasons for grammar melt away and only people against its spirit will being voting against it. Outlawing heterosexual marriage is actually farther and extremes than outlawing marriage. No bill outlawing marriage would specially target heterosexuals. It would target all married couples, regardless.

[Separatist Peoples]

"And because there is no general right to marriage, granting the right only to one group and not another creates an inequitable situation. Really, ambassador, I'm amazed that this particularly irony is lost upon you." Bell rolls his eyes in utter contempt.

"There are plenty of reasons a state wants nothing to do with marriage and to leave it to their religious institutions. Not the least of which is that governments may have no state interest in marriage. They sure won't have any reason to recognize heterosexual marriage if no marriage was previously recognized and only homosexual marriage is recognized now. Thus, inequity."

Ok. If marriage isn't allowed at all, then it's a marriage issue, not just heterosexual marriage. That's for homosexual and heterosexual marriage. It's a different kettle of tea

"Which is a flaw in the resolution. Which necessitates repeal. It's like talking to a sheep in here!"

[Lingang]

“Should the disgraceful and poorly-written proposal ‘Marriage Equality’ come to pass, the Dictatorial Federation will fully support this repeal effort.” - Linganese Ambassador to the World Assembly, Donald Seacrest

[Wallenburg]

Okay, all OOC, since you apparently won't post IC:

1) *grammar's
2) My ambassador criticized the writing style, not the grammar, of this resolution. Style and grammar are two very different things. You can have absolutely perfect grammar, and still have shit writing style.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but my ambassador is personally attacking the British ambassador because he finds it enjoyable to do so. It's all part of the Festering Snakepit's culture. I am not attacking IA. IA doesn't talk like this in normal conversation.

My ambassador called this proposal a waste of paper, not a waste of air.

What does this have to do with anything? I'm not even a Republican...

Nothing. Just a political view of mine. All politics are intertwined. But my writing style? I know it horrible. But can you see the points I'm making?

Insofar as my brain can process the symbols on my screen, yes, I can see your points. They are simply terrible points, given that style is important, and my ambassador was simply teasing another ICly.

[Imperial Siber]

Ok. If marriage isn't allowed at all, then it's a marriage issue, not just heterosexual marriage. That's for homosexual and heterosexual marriage. It's a different kettle of tea

"Which is a flaw in the resolution. Which necessitates repeal. It's like talking to a sheep in here!"

The flaw is that it makes it so heterosexual marriage could be banned? That's not even an NS option.(Is it mods?) Banned marriage is different from this proposal, as it affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It's not about whether or not you can marry in a nation as any sexual orientation, but securing rights if people can marry as heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

[This City of Ours]

The flaw is that it makes it so heterosexual marriage could be banned? That's not even an NS option.(Is it mods?)

((OOC: It's roleplay. We don't have to follow NS stats to build our nation))

[Separatist Peoples]

The flaw is that it makes it so heterosexual marriage could be banned? That's not even an NS option.(Is it mods?) Banned marriage is different from this proposal, as it affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It's not about whether or not you can marry in a nation as any sexual orientation, but securing rights if people can marry as heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

OOC: Oh, we're doing this OOCly? Mark your posts OOC or IC to avoid exactly that.

NS issues are wholly irrelevant here, so it helps not to hold them up as a defense when you don't know what you're arguing.

Holding this up like some civil rights victory is utterly idiotic because it treats the right of marriage as fundemental, and then turns around and doesn't extend that right to everybody, merely a small sliver of the population. What is custom in your nation is, frankly irrelevant here.

The real irony, of course, is that this is even self-contradictory about it's failure:

RESOLVED: that no legal difference shall be made between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages.

Claims there are no differences, but utterly fails to extend that right, since a nation with no state recognition of marriage would therefore treat same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage as legally the same without one category even technically existing.

Poorly drafted laws have poorly considered outcomes. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. If you're not capable of understanding why having laws that can be manipulated because of their fundamental flaws is bad, then you're truly irredeemable in the GA. The target proposal? Its a bad proposal. Full fucking stop.

[Wallenburg]

"Which is a flaw in the resolution. Which necessitates repeal. It's like talking to a sheep in here!"

The flaw is that it makes it so heterosexual marriage could be banned? That's not even an NS option.(Is it mods?) Banned marriage is different from this proposal, as it affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It's not about whether or not you can marry in a nation as any sexual orientation, but securing rights if people can marry as heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

OOC: Again, the World Assembly currently offers no mandates that protect the right to marry. For anyone. Anyone at all. There are many member states that, therefore, ban marriage, or otherwise refuse to recognize it in any secular sense. The target resolution would give same-sex partners more rights than anyone else. That's not in keeping with its ostensible purpose of equal marriage rights.

[Scherzinger]

We again refuse and repeal this heinous act. good luck whackjob

“Which one are you talking about? The one at-vote or the repeal? Because this is the repeal.”

the one at vote

[Willania Imperium]

“Which one are you talking about? The one at-vote or the repeal? Because this is the repeal.”

the one at vote

"Ah. Well, then. You've got the wrong room. Head to the one about 4 or 5 rooms up, and you'll find the one about the one at-vote. We're trying to repeal that mess once it is... approved."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "You have the Greater Siriusian Domain's full support. New Gren Artle's proposal would force us to establish marriage as a legally recognized status in general."

[The Atlae Isles]

We can't edit it if it's passed. It's against the rules and game code.

Think it like this. Let's say, for example, oh, I don't know, a good healthcare bill was in place (unlike the one trying to be passed in the US but I digress). If it didn't specify anything or was written badly, that'd be a bad law/resolution that would leave open a grey area for misinterpretation.

This is why laws have to be legalistic and specific even though some of us don't like it.

Just because you've never heard of a nation that outlaws heterosexual marriage doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have quite a few nations eccentric enough to do that, even going so far as to outlaw marriage itself and let people reproduce without it.

Your equal pay thing could be phrased as "Everyone, regardless of gender, race, or sexuality, shall be paid on the merits of quality of their work." This leaves no room for interpretation (subject to WA drafting, which the author was inconsiderate enough to do). This proposal at vote is very vague and doesn't cover much of the important things needed for the issue.

Ok. When I said edit I meant this. Person takes current proposal, edits it, puts it back up for vote, then any reasons for grammar melt away and only people against its spirit will being voting against it. Outlawing heterosexual marriage is actually farther and extremes than outlawing marriage.

Well, that's clearly not going to happen. Editing a proposal at vote is impossible. You'd either have to let it pass and repeal it (but the spelling errors will still remain in the resolution list) or let it fail, re-draft (preferably peer-reviewed), then have delegates re-approve it and re-vote.

Additionally, we have other reasons for voting against it.

What may be extreme for one nation may be Tuesday in another. You may think that outlawing marriage altogether may be extreme, but to the country who has never heard of marriage or isn't interested in it, would it really be extreme? What would be extreme to them would be to suddenly introduce them to the concept and telling them to comply.

Albeit, those aren't my views. It also omits other marriage things, like interracial marriage. By our modern day standards, we consider that 'extreme.' But to the folks back in the olden days, homosexual marriage would be considered more 'extreme' than interracial marriage, thus it's an issue to them. Can you see how the current resolution isn't really comprehensive on the issue? As in too narrow.

I'll take an even closer look at this quote.

No bill outlawing marriage would specially target heterosexuals. It would target all married couples, regardless.

So? It still outlaws marriage for heterosexuals, homosexuals, everybody who wants to get married. It doesn't deprive one group of one thing. It deprives everyone of a specific 'right' that the resolution wishes to uphold.