NationStates

Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild

No consensus exists between the member states on the topic of marriage
Constant debate on this topic is hindering the Assembly to resolve other matters
Nevertheless, personal unions are allowing people to live and act together
Without personal unions emotionally close people are facing unnecessary and possibly harmful restrictions upon living together
Such personal unions are deemed socially important by most communities

Thus, the World Assembly decrees

that member states shall be allowed to legislate on the topics of Marriage, personal unions and Civil Unions freely within the boundaries set by this resolution and earlier resolutions

Additionally, the World Assembly urges member states to officially recognize personal unions and to support the positive effects of these officially recognized personal unions

OOC: This is literally contradictory, and I would think illegal as well

"This proposal is not written in English, I have read the entire draft thrice and still cannot work out what this is. Just stop. This is around Keshiland quality and that is a rank no person wants to achieve."

"I can understand it fine, and English isn't even my first language."

Fauxia wrote:OOC: This is literally contradictory, and I would think illegal as well

OOC:Is it illegal?
IC:Why is this contradictory?

Aclion wrote:"I can understand it fine, and English isn't even my first language."

"That was an exaggeration to show the awful grammar in the proposal, although it has actually been edited since I posted and the original I genuinely couldn't understand despite English being my first language."

Clean Land wrote:Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild

No consent exists between the member states on marriage
Constant debate is hindering the Assembly to resolve other matters

Thus, the World Assembly decrees

that it will not add any subsequent legislation on the topic of marriage and personal unions anymore, except by repealing legislation
that the above decree shall not affect generation of legislation by individual member states

Additionally, the World Assembly urges member states to officially recognize personal unions

I am pretty sure that the WA rules prohibit blockers...and you literally call this a blocker in the title.

OOC: I could be wrong here, I've not dug up every post by every mod or Gensec member ever in the GA. But it would likely be ruled illegal as it is an overt blocker. Typically blockers are written in such a way as to achieve the goal of mandating that member states are required/urged/encouraged to do something and then told that it is up to them how they do the required/urged/encouraged thing.

Does anyone spot any inconsistencies or poor wording? We have rushed this a bit so its first version was not really good.
And can please someone tell me what the legality problem of this proposal is?

Opposed.

Clean Land wrote:Does anyone spot any inconsistencies or poor wording? We have rushed this a bit so its first version was not really good.
And can please someone tell me what the legality problem of this proposal is?

It is the blocker rule, a proposal's purpose cannot be solely to block future legislation on the topic; considering the title literally says blocker it clearly breaks this rule. There are many other problems but this is the one that springs to mind.

Kenmoria wrote:

Clean Land wrote:Does anyone spot any inconsistencies or poor wording? We have rushed this a bit so its first version was not really good.
And can please someone tell me what the legality problem of this proposal is?

It is the blocker rule, a proposal's purpose cannot be solely to block future legislation on the topic; considering the title literally says blocker it clearly breaks this rule. There are many other problems but this is the one that springs to mind.

OOC:We think that the current form does not violate the rule.

Kenmoria wrote:It is the blocker rule, a proposal's purpose cannot be solely to block future legislation on the topic; considering the title literally says blocker it clearly breaks this rule. There are many other problems but this is the one that springs to mind.

It urges something. It does not solely block future legislation.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:It is the blocker rule, a proposal's purpose cannot be solely to block future legislation on the topic; considering the title literally says blocker it clearly breaks this rule. There are many other problems but this is the one that springs to mind.

It urges something. It does not solely block future legislation.

OOC:Would you affirm that the category is correct - or not?

Clean Land wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:It urges something. It does not solely block future legislation.

OOC:Would you affirm that the category is correct - or not?

The current test for category is to ignore implicit actions and only count explicit ones. There is one explicit action, which urges states to recognise personal unions. Some work in the preamble would likely be necessary to justify some selected category or end from urging for those personal unions.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Clean Land wrote:OOC:Would you affirm that the category is correct - or not?

The current test for category is to ignore implicit actions and only count explicit ones. There is one explicit action, which urges states to recognise personal unions. Some work in the preamble would likely be necessary to justify some selected category or end from urging for those personal unions.

OOC:Are these changes probably sufficient?

“Opposed.”

Neville: We're all for blunt titles, but this is ridiculous.

Clean Land wrote:Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild
No consent exists between the member states on marriage

"No consent? Does the author mean 'consensus', perhaps. As for consenting, Dragonslund does not consent that the WA has any business legislating on the matter of marriage at all.

Constant debate is hindering the Assembly to resolve other matters

"Which makes this topic different from every other topic how exactly?

Nevertheless, personal unions are allowing people to live and act together

"Of course, because no one has ever shacked up with their 'baby-mama', ever. Being married has absolutely nothing to do with the living arrangements of the persons married. That married persons often live together is merely coincidental.

Without personal unions emotionally close people are facing unnecessary and possibly harmful restrictions upon living together

"Really? How? Sounds like an issue of rent contracts or home ownership if you ask me. Not that the WA has any business legislating on that either.

Thus, the World Assembly decrees

that member states shall be allowed to legislate

"Yes because we all know that nations require the permission of this body to legislate on this or any other topic.

on the topics of Marriage, personal unions and Civil Unions freely within the boundaries set by this resolution and earlier resolutions

Additionally, the World Assembly urges member states to officially recognize personal unions

"1. We'd argue that the WA doesn't have any business in legislating on the topics of Marriage, personal unions, civil unions, marriage like institutions etc, etc, etc at all as these issues should be left to member nations and their respective citizens.

"2. What the hell is a personal union? Can I have one with my best friend? How about my hunting dog? What does 'personal union' even mean. The vagaries of the language is such as to open it up to any number of possible interpretations including but not limited to spousal relationships.

"The Mission opposes on the grounds that this draft is bad and the author should feel bad for presenting it." Ser Dawrin Stone says. "Now, if you all will excuse me my blood is so up over this 'proposal' I will need to bugger my squire for at least an hour to calm down. Maybe we could call it a 'personal union' instead of the sodomy that it is."

Teran Saber: "Not a fan about being urged to recognize civil unions, but the Greater Siriusian Domain supports this. I suggest you change the 'urges' clause from recognizing civil unions to something preventing discrimination based on sex, gender or sexuality."

"Preposterous. Opposed. This is... I genuinely don't understand why we're dealing with proposals like this in the WA at all."

Clean Land has managed to have an idea that doesn't immediately make us want to engage in defenestration and multiple rounds of decimation amongst the Clean Land populace. Someone put that on a calendar. The result is, unsurprisingly, still not up to scratch. Here are our suggestions:

Recognizing that no consensus exists between Member States of the World Assembly on the matter of marriage;
Concerned that constant debate on this topic is hindering the ability of the World Assembly to adequately address other matters;
Recognizing that personal unions between sapients play an important role in many societies;
Mindful of the World Assembly's prior acts in this area;

The World Assembly hereby:

Declares that Member States may legislate on the topic of personal unions between sapients in accordance with prior World Assembly Resolutions;
Recommends that Member States legally recognize personal unions between sapients;
Urges Member States to provide assistance to promote the social good perpetuated by such personal unions;

That's still fairly rubbish, but it should conform to legislative standards a bit better without actually adding much to what we again express as a surprisingly good idea from Clean Lands (despite the admittedly low bar here).

The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:Teran Saber: "Not a fan about being urged to recognize civil unions, but the Greater Siriusian Domain supports this. I suggest you change the 'urges' clause from recognizing civil unions to something preventing discrimination based on sex, gender or sexuality."

No. There is already legislation on that one:GAR# 35.
We have updated our draft based on suggestions.
We would like to submit this soon. Please make note of any problems you see here and tell us. We might not agree but it is worth a try.

Clean Land wrote:

The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:Teran Saber: "Not a fan about being urged to recognize civil unions, but the Greater Siriusian Domain supports this. I suggest you change the 'urges' clause from recognizing civil unions to something preventing discrimination based on sex, gender or sexuality."

No. There is already legislation on that one:GAR# 35.
We have updated our draft based on suggestions.
We would like to submit this soon. Please make note of any problems you see here and tell us. We might not agree but it is worth a try.

"Please don't submit this. While barely legal, it's better just to let the marriage debate run its course. When Sanctaria's bill asses, it will be over. It's much more efficient just to let it go in its progress."

Cruxa wrote:

Clean Land wrote:No. There is already legislation on that one:GAR# 35.
We have updated our draft based on suggestions.
We would like to submit this soon. Please make note of any problems you see here and tell us. We might not agree but it is worth a try.

"Please don't submit this. While barely legal, it's better just to let the marriage debate run its course. When Sanctaria's bill asses, it will be over. It's much more efficient just to let it go in its progress."

We see 11 supporters. Not promising.