[DEFEATED] Convention on Domestic Partnerships

[Auralia]

This proposal is a replacement for Marriage Equality (GAR #410), to be submitted upon its repeal. It is also a complementary proposal to Convention on Families.

Convention on Domestic Partnerships
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

Acknowledging the significance of marriages and similar relationships in numerous member states,

Reaffirming the right to sexual privacy previously guaranteed by this Assembly,

Believing that an individual should generally be free to enter into a domestic partnership with others, to raise the children for whom they are responsible in the context of such a partnership, and to dissolve such a partnership if necessary,

Seeking to protect these rights while respecting the sociocultural and religious differences between member states,

The General Assembly,

1. Requires member states to permit a legally competent individual to:
   
   1. enter into a domestic partnership with other legally competent individuals and thereby share a common domestic life together, with the mutual informed consent of all parties,
   2. provide for, safeguard, and educate the children for whom the individual is legally responsible, in the context of a domestic partnership, and
   3. dissolve a domestic partnership to which the individual is a party, regardless of whether the other parties consent to such dissolution;
2. Directs member states to provide appropriate assistance to individuals in the pursuit of any of the above, with the understanding that member states are free to treat domestic partnerships as a private contractual affair if they so choose;
3. Further requires member states to ensure that, upon the dissolution of a domestic partnership, all parties:
   
   1. shall not be subject to disadvantageous treatment by a member state simply by virtue of seeking the dissolution without the consent of the other parties,
   2. shall not lose legal guardianship of a child simply by virtue of the dissolution, and
   3. shall receive an equitable portion of shared assets in accordance with the terms of the partnership and relevant law;
4. Prohibits member states from engaging in unjust discrimination in the application of the above provisions, including but not limited to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of the race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or legal mutual sexual activity of the parties to the domestic partnership;
5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted so as to prevent a member state from:
   
   1. removing legal guardianship of a child from an individual or enforcing the terms of a child custody agreement when a competent tribunal determines that it would be in the best interests of the child, or
   2. enforcing lawful restrictions on habitation or movement, such as imprisonment;
6. Reserves to member states the right to define, recognize, support, or regulate marriages, domestic partnerships, and similar relationships, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;
7. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution prohibits the World Assembly from:
   
   1. requiring the recognition of foreign marriages, domestic partnerships, and similar relationships that are otherwise valid in a member state's law,
   2. regulating the distribution of assets following the dissolution of a marriage, domestic partnership, or similar relationship with international elements, or
   3. engaging in generally applicable regulation that may affect marriages, domestic partnerships, and similar relationships as a secondary effect, such as regulation on sexual consent, legal guardianship, or contractual agreements or unions in general.

[Gig em Aggies]

Same bill just a different name theirs no way this will get onto the floor for a vote when Marriage equality gets axed.

[Tinhampton]

Same bill just a different name theirs no way this will get onto the floor for a vote when Marriage equality gets axed.

"...[A] position of neutrality on the merits of formal legal recognition of or rights and duties associated with personal unions, including but not limited to marriages" does not equal "all member states are required allow [sic] same-sex couples to apply for and receive state-authorized marriage".

[Araraukar]

OOC: I honestly admit that I came to this thread expecting to see something about leaving the decisions about marriage in the hands of the state religion, or something like that, and just posting a "No." in IC, but unless my first quick reading of it is way off course and I missed something obvious, this goes into the "He almost got it right" folder instead.

Please add "gender" to the list of things you're not allowed to discriminate against people. One of the major flaws I see in the crap that passed is that it completely ignores the fact that sex isn't the same thing as gender (and thus doesn't actually create equal marriages for everyone). I know you have "and other such arbitrary criteria", but it's all too easy to see the ones coming out of the woodworks if this gets to vote who'll say that gender isn't an arbitrary criterion, when it comes to marriage.

OOC: As it now requires nations to create the institution of marriage, under the name of "domestic partnership", and gives nations the freedom to discrminate as they will, opposed.

[Gig em Aggies]

OOC: I honestly admit that I came to this thread expecting to see something about leaving the decisions about marriage in the hands of the state religion, or something like that, and just posting a "No." in IC, but unless my first quick reading of it is way off course and I missed something obvious, this goes into the "He almost got it right" folder instead.

Please add "gender" to the list of things you're not allowed to discriminate against people. One of the major flaws I see in the crap that passed is that it completely ignores the fact that sex isn't the same thing as gender (and thus doesn't actually create equal marriages for everyone). I know you have "and other such arbitrary criteria", but it's all too easy to see the ones coming out of the woodworks if this gets to vote who'll say that gender isn't an arbitrary criterion, when it comes to marriage.

If he feels like adding gender then he'll add it the whole reason is to allow the author to write their own proposal. If your tired about people leaving out gender then write up your own proposal it's that simple.

[Auralia]

Please add "gender" to the list of things you're not allowed to discriminate against people.

((OOC: I have added "gender" to the list of criteria.))

[Auralia]

If he feels like adding gender then he'll add it the whole reason is to allow the author to write their own proposal. If your tired about people leaving out gender then write up your own proposal it's that simple.

((OOC: The whole point of a drafting thread is for people to make constructive suggestions prior to the submission of a proposal. Araraukar's request is legitimate -- even if I decided not to honour it -- and you're out of line.))

[Araraukar]

((OOC: I have added "gender" to the list of criteria.))

OOC: Thank you.

[Gig em Aggies]

If he feels like adding gender then he'll add it the whole reason is to allow the author to write their own proposal. If your tired about people leaving out gender then write up your own proposal it's that simple.

((OOC: The whole point of a drafting thread is for people to make constructive suggestions prior to the submission of a proposal. Araraukar's request is legitimate -- even if I decided not to honour it -- and you're out of line.))

First of the threads in GA don't have ownership like RP so you can say I'm out of line all you want but to be far this is your proposal not his nor the communities the whole point of being a GA or SC author is to have your proposal critiqued by the community not created by it then your proposal goes to vote then if passed goes to the main floor for a full vote. Plus I suggested the other poster to write his own if he felt people kept leaving out gender and frankly I don't follow IRL standards so to me inside of NS sex and gender are the same.

[Deropia]

((OOC: The whole point of a drafting thread is for people to make constructive suggestions prior to the submission of a proposal. Araraukar's request is legitimate -- even if I decided not to honour it -- and you're out of line.))

First of the threads in GA don't have ownership like RP so you can say I'm out of line all you want but to be far this is your proposal not his nor the communities the whole point of being a GA or SC author is to have your proposal critiqued by the community not created by it then your proposal goes to vote then if passed goes to the main floor for a full vote. Plus I suggested the other poster to write his own if he felt people kept leaving out gender and frankly I don't follow IRL standards so to me inside of NS sex and gender are the same.

OOC: When you're writing legislation, it's best to have as little ambiguous wording as possible. Less loopholes that way. Part of successful resolution writing is input from the community. Just because you accept sex and gender to be the same thing doesn't mean that others view it in the same way, so requesting to have it added is a totally valid request, especially on a topic such as this. I don't know why you're so bent out of shape about someone requesting a change to someone elses proposal.

IC: "This is...something we could support, should the chance to vote for it arise."

[Gig em Aggies]

First of the threads in GA don't have ownership like RP so you can say I'm out of line all you want but to be far this is your proposal not his nor the communities the whole point of being a GA or SC author is to have your proposal critiqued by the community not created by it then your proposal goes to vote then if passed goes to the main floor for a full vote. Plus I suggested the other poster to write his own if he felt people kept leaving out gender and frankly I don't follow IRL standards so to me inside of NS sex and gender are the same.

OOC: When you're writing legislation, it's best to have as little ambiguous wording as possible. Less loopholes that way. Part of successful resolution writing is input from the community. Just because you accept sex and gender to be the same thing doesn't mean that others view it in the same way, so requesting to have it added is a totally valid request, especially on a topic such as this. I don't know why you're so bent out of shape about someone requesting a change to someone elses proposal.

IC: "This is...something we could support, should the chance to vote for it arise."

I wasn't bent out of shape as you say about the request I was bent out of shape because the poster said I was out of line even though I was helping out another player.

[Araraukar]

I wasn't bent out of shape as you say about the request I was bent out of shape because the poster said I was out of line even though I was helping out another player.

OOC: You were basically telling me to fuck off with my feedback, on a thread posted for the exact purpose of getting feedback. How is that helping out anyone?

EDIT: "If he feels like adding gender then he'll add it the whole reason is to allow the author to write their own proposal. If your tired about people leaving out gender then write up your own proposal it's that simple." pretty much equals to "Stop whining and don't bother the author."

Moar EDIT: Sorry, Auralia, I swear this is my last reply post to him/her/them, I don't want to derail this thread further.

that's how proposals go if you feel like an author left something you write up a new proposal to make the other one better.

No, you give the author feedback to tell them you feel they left something out, to help the author's proposal to be as good as it can be, so that it doesn't get half a dozen instarepeals. The author can ignore the advice if they feel like it, but posting the thread here means they want feedback.

[Gig em Aggies]

I wasn't bent out of shape as you say about the request I was bent out of shape because the poster said I was out of line even though I was helping out another player.

OOC: You were basically telling me to fuck off with my feedback, on a thread posted for the exact purpose of getting feedback. How is that helping out anyone?

EDIT: Sorry, Auralia, I swear this is my last reply to him/her/them, I don't want to derail this thread further.

Well the moment you both attacked for saying what I said was the moment y'all went off topic

(If he feels like adding gender then he'll add it the whole reason is to allow the author to write their own proposal. If your tired about people leaving out gender then write up your own proposal it's that simple.)
No where did I say in my second post that your input wasn't needed nor required nor did I tell you to F off okay. I said if they want to add it they will then I gave legit advice that's how proposals go if you feel like an author left something you write up a new proposal to make the other one better.

[Fauxia]

“Support probably. It May be possible to convince us otherwise though.”

[Fauxia]

OOC: You were basically telling me to fuck off with my feedback, on a thread posted for the exact purpose of getting feedback. How is that helping out anyone?

EDIT: Sorry, Auralia, I swear this is my last reply to him/her/them, I don't want to derail this thread further.

Well the moment you both attacked for saying what I said was the moment y'all went off topic

(If he feels like adding gender then he'll add it the whole reason is to allow the author to write their own proposal. If your tired about people leaving out gender then write up your own proposal it's that simple.)
No where did I say in my second post that your input wasn't needed nor required nor did I tell you to F off okay. I said if they want to add it they will then I gave legit advice that's how proposals go if you feel like an author left something you write up a new proposal to make the other one better.

Well, yes, it’s not like Ara forced Auralia into adding it! However, when Ara says something, as an experienced GAer, he knows what he’s talking about, so you listen. But if suggestions aren’t allowed, these threads wouldn’t exist

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Where's the preamble?

Neville: We suggest making the following changes, with alternative but synonymous wording if you wish, to Clause Two:

2. Reaffirms the right to sexual privacy previously guaranteed by this Assembly;

We feel that it is important to drive home the point that the WA already guarantees the right to sexual privacy.

Also, support.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Considering our eternal bewilderment and annoyance at the Judeo-Christian obsession with other people's intimate lives, this seems workable to us. It isn't necessarily the solution we would prefer, but if it will get this topic moved back to where it belongs, namely people's bedrooms and homes, and out of this assembly, we'll happily vote for it."

[Auralia]

Fairburn: Where's the preamble?

Neville: We suggest making the following changes, with alternative but synonymous wording if you wish, to Clause Two:

2. Reaffirms the right to sexual privacy previously guaranteed by this Assembly;

We feel that it is important to drive home the point that the WA already guarantees the right to sexual privacy.

We've added a short preamble and made the requested changes.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Where's the preamble?

Neville: We suggest making the following changes, with alternative but synonymous wording if you wish, to Clause Two:

We feel that it is important to drive home the point that the WA already guarantees the right to sexual privacy.

We've added a short preamble and made the requested changes.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Neville: Excellent. In that case, we are pleased to offer our support.

[Auralia]

Any further comments on this draft?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Old Hope]

Acknowledging the social significance of marriage and other kinds of personal unions in countless member states,

Seeking to establish common World Assembly policy on personal unions that protects the rights of all individuals while respecting the cultural and religious heritage of member states,

The General Assembly,

1. Adopts a position of neutrality on the merits of legally recognizing or assigning certain rights and duties to particular kinds of personal unions, including but not limited to marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and sexual or romantic relationships;

Good.

2. Reaffirms the right to sexual privacy previously guaranteed by this Assembly;

IC:OK.
OOC: This could be a violation of the House of Cards or Duplication Secretariat rules.

3. Requires that member states provide appropriate recognition and support to individuals who choose to share a common domestic life to ensure that they are able to do so;

IC: Not ok. There needs to be something that adresses criminals et al. The state sometimes has a valid interest to protect the community by NOT allowing people to share a common domestic life.

4. Further requires that member states provide appropriate recognition and support to parents to ensure that they are able to provide for, safeguard, and educate their children;

IC:And if they are unable to care for their children in any of these matters? Or at all? What if they are considered dangerous to the children?

5. Prohibits member states from engaging in unjust discrimination, including but not limited to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and other such arbitrary criteria, in the application and enforcement of clauses 3 and 4;

OOC:Possibly Dupication/Contradiction(!) of GAR 35.
IC:In regards to clause 4, bad idea. Very bad idea.
Race: Depends on what this "race" is.
Religion: This seems to outlaw religious education of any form, if we are not mistaken.
Ethnicity: Well, it will not be ethnicity itself as reason, so ok.
Sex/Gender: There are differences, you know. Even if it is reasonable to stick to that(no differences in treatment) most of the time, it is not a good idea to always ignore this.
sexual orientation: Well, that covers only the basics, right?(ability to) Hmm yeah ok.

6. Reserves to member states the right to determine, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions, the nature and extent of legal recognition of or assignment of certain rights and duties to particular kinds of personal unions, as described in clause 1.

OOC:Strength: Mild? Not Significant? Are you sure?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This could be a violation of the House of Cards or Duplication Secretariat rules.

OOC: Nope.

OOC:Possibly Dupication/Contradiction(!) of GAR 35.

OOC: Nope.

OOC:Strength: Mild? Not Significant? Are you sure?

OOC: Yup.

I find it hugely amusing that you're unsuccessfully nitpicking an author of 20 GA resolutions with basic legality questions any competent forum regular could answer.

[Excidium Planetis]

Any further comments on this draft?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"Yes, Ambassador." Blackbourne replies. "I wonder if clause 1 is sufficient to block future WA legislation on this topic."

[Auralia]

OOC: This could be a violation of the House of Cards or Duplication Secretariat rules.

((OOC: No, it isn't.

Re: House of Cards, this proposal can continue to affirm a right to sexual privacy even if prior resolutions guaranteeing that right are repealed. In other words, "Reaffirms the right to sexual privacy previously guaranteed by this Assembly" is substantively equivalent to "Affirms a right to sexual privacy". It's mostly a symbolic statement, but it helps to establish the intent of this proposal.

Re: Duplication, partial duplication does not fall afoul of the Duplication rule.))

IC: Not ok. There needs to be something that adresses criminals et al. The state sometimes has a valid interest to protect the community by NOT allowing people to share a common domestic life.

Hence the "appropriate" qualifier. It is not appropriate to grant "recognition and support" to criminals "who choose to share a common domestic life", so that clause does not require member states to do so.

IC:And if they are unable to care for their children in any of these matters? Or at all? What if they are considered dangerous to the children?

Again, the "appropriate" qualifier is key. It is not appropriate to grant "recognition and support" to parents to "provide for, safeguard, and educate their children" if a parent is prohibited by law or court order from doing so, so that clause does not require member states to do so.

OOC:Possibly Dupication/Contradiction(!) of GAR 35.

((OOC: It's not really duplication at all, actually, as there is no "compelling practical purpose" exception. That's the whole point.))

OOC:Strength: Mild? Not Significant? Are you sure?

((OOC: Blockers don't impact resolution strength.))

"Yes, Ambassador." Blackbourne replies. "I wonder if clause 1 is sufficient to block future WA legislation on this topic."

Probably not, but that's what clause 6 is for.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

I have tried to clarify and tighten the language of clause 5 to more clearly highlight and achieve the aims of this proposal. Additional comments would be appreciated.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly