[DEFEATED] Marriage and Custody Act

[Heavens Reach]

On further consideration, opposed to Article 4 and will be voting against it if it remains in the proposal as-is. This should be a simple proposal about custody, not a sweeping charter about the rights of unmarried couples. Consider rewriting Article 3 to something as follows:

Due weight must be provided in a Section 2 procedure to the freely expressed views of the ward in question vis-a-vis that procedure. Further, no person may be discriminated against in any Section 2 procedure based on their holding or lack of any arbitrary, reductive characteristic, due to being unmarried at any point in a Section 2 procedure or having been unmarried when the ward who is subject to a Section 2 procedure was born or conceived.

"As described in the preamble, this is intended to address both discrimination against unmarried couples and children thereof as well as custody rights."

We support the anti-discrimination clause

[Starman of Stardust]

"This was submitted with the non-discrimination section."

[Old Hope]

All member nations must recognise a person's status as having been born to or conceived by unmarried biological parents as an arbitrary, reductive characteristic.

Opposed. This is not an arbitrary characteristic.

[Heavens Reach]

All member nations must recognise a person's status as having been born to or conceived by unmarried biological parents as an arbitrary, reductive characteristic.

Opposed. This is not an arbitrary characteristic.

To punish someone for? It certainly is.

[The Ice States]

All member nations must recognise a person's status as having been born to or conceived by unmarried biological parents as an arbitrary, reductive characteristic.

Opposed. This is not an arbitrary characteristic.

Noted. This is an arbitrary characteristic.

[Starman of Stardust]

Ooc: Sorry for not replying to this earlier, I genuinely did not notice that you had posted >_<

Smith: Just happening not to be married when you have kids should not by itself be grounds for the sweeping protection against discrimination you propose in Article 4, especially when some nations may not have marriage and even those that do are under no obligation to offer that status to those in marriages that experience childbirth. The fact that some people believe that sex before marriage is wrong does not suffice. Some theists believe that eating pork is wrong, but this does not entitle pig farmers to ARC status.
I would like to reiterate my opposition to the Act as written.

"I would agree if discrimination against unmarried parents and children thereof was not relatively common, as I already said to the Obaman ambassador. This body has a duty to address discrimination against often-stigmatised groups such as the children of unmarried parents -- just as it has already addressed discrimination based on, for example, language, economic status, or non-sedentary lifestyle. Further, Section 2 merely applies ARC status to the children of unmarried parents -- not the parents themselves. The only protection it specifically enacts for unmarried parents is preventing member nations from discriminating in the granting or revocation of some parental right or duty based on married or unmarried status. This argument seems to misrepresent the Union mission's proposal. Why should an immutable characteristic that is often discriminated against not be considered an 'arbitrary, reductive charactieristic'?"

[The Pacific Northwest]

People absolutely do discriminate against other people for having a child/being born out of wedlock. Anyone who doesn’t think so probably hasn’t spent enough time around fundamentalist Christians (or any other religion where having children before marriage is frowned upon).

When applied to this site, plenty of people RP theocracies, and adhere to both real and fictional religions. Excluding outright theocracies, religious freedom also exists. So it’s safe to say there are plenty of people willing to discriminate as well as plenty of people in need of protection from that discrimination.

[Tinhampton]

Smith: Speakers of minority languages, the working-class and travellers have all faced severe, long-standing and occasionally systematic discrimination, both as groups or as individuals. The World Assembly is right to give those characteristics ARC status. But, in most member states, those who experience birth out of wedlock do not face such discrimination and I still do not believe that ARC protections are warranted for them as a group.
For the record, I had been working from an old version of this proposal which - I believe - had declared that those who had given birth out of wedlock and their partners, and not the children they gave birth to, received ARC status. The same principle applies to both groups. We have anti-bullying resolutions already, although I hate them with a vengeance.

[Starman of Stardust]

Smith: Speakers of minority languages, the working-class and travellers have all faced severe, long-standing and occasionally systematic discrimination, both as groups or as individuals. The World Assembly is right to give those characteristics ARC status. But, in most member states, those who experience birth out of wedlock do not face such discrimination and I still do not believe that ARC protections are warranted for them as a group.
For the record, I had been working from an old version of this proposal which - I believe - had declared that those who had given birth out of wedlock and their partners, and not the children they gave birth to, received ARC status. The same principle applies to both groups. We have anti-bullying resolutions already, although I hate them with a vengeance.

"No version of this draft applies ARC status to unmarried parents."

"If being often discriminated against in primogeniture, citizenship laws, 'honour killings' (ie hate crime), religious taboo and discrimination, and education (Ooc: see here), while being completely immutable, is not sufficient to grant ARC status, I do not know what is."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"The Ice mission has voted against this proposal, as the mere status of being born to unmarried parents is specifically prohibited by the Holy Book of Klyprer, as is having sex outside of marriage. The former is unfit to be classed as an arbitrary, reductive characteristic."

Ooc: I would like to clarify that my vote against is purely Ic, and I still fully support this proposal as the author Ooc.

Approvals: 75 (Heavens Reach, Eurasia102, East Chimore, Eglos, Greater Lankland, Gideon, Lennonia, Brunis, Indiana do Norte, Mikeswill, Landfield, Koranz, Ugonnadie, Lordmoria, Larego, Empire of the Super Titan Dragon, Free Territorial Soviets, The Ambis, Meercovo, Ionmana, Mechanocracy, New Nationale Einheit, Nothinggg, NinjitsUtopia, Erynia and Draconia, Floweville, Ameareia, StrayaRoos barrier islands, Soviet Yoshilandia, The Salaxalans, Nytocho, Nova Irbelia, Denathor, Roznepal, Scus Dom, Mocha, Josephtan, Markanite, Kolloquia, Treadwellia, Tepertopia, Yedalio, Western Christania, Vipathe, Providence Plantations and Rhode Island, Vost Dotari, San Lumen, Orifna, The Glorious Hypetrain, Western Hia, Sedgistan, Niskeku, Super Pakistan, Sponkland, New Isman, Univesal, Qazlana, The Isles of Bermuda, Max Siotto, Dawsinian, Kingdom of Englands, Ukraine-Russia Respublic, Shanlix, Ruling Now, USA but xemirs is the president, Pogaria, Great Libertona, The Greastest Nation, Vavlar 1, Democratic Republic of San Ma, Zrjsnxu, Lohanduria, Velichaishiy Dagestan, Jabaxus, Salad Catia)

[Regnum Tyrannis]

This vote against "discrimination" only tacitly discriminates against the married, making that prioritization of "one forever" interchangeable with "one whenever". This tries to replace social welfare for the impoverished with nice wording for those who weren't discerning with their mates.

Life is hard. Kind words without firm guidance only makes it harder. The Empire of Regnum Tyrannis votes AGAINST.

[Nerdherdia]

RM Ashley Hyatt, acting as delegate for Nerdherdia: "It is the opinion of the Minister's Chamber that any legislation combating discrimination and injustice is a step in the right direction, however the wording of the resolution has caused hesitation. Further discussions will be held, but as it stands Nerdherdia abstains with a lean towards yes."

Neither LM Konjetti nor HM Renfro have made their personal opinions known, but a meeting of the Ministers is to take place the morning of the 9th to discuss.

[Animeden]

This should be each individual nation's option. If a nation thinks that this is proposal would suit the general public of their nation, they can implement their own law/variant of this law in their own nation. However, those who think that this may negatively affect their citizens should not be obligated to comply with this law.

The Free Land of Animeden votes AGAINST this proposal.

[Yerevan Rus]

Наша нация поддерживает эту идею.

[N27]

N27 Secretary of State for the World Assembly, Jake A. Previous:

"Whilst my country fully supports those parents choosing to have children outside of the bounds of marriage, and as such any children of that union, we do pose several questions. The first of which being why this domestic issue is being handled by an international legislative assembly, and why such a complex issue that must take into account the individual needs of the member states' populations is being encroached upon. Overly-complicating this issue by forcing member-states to be in complete lockstep on this issue would be foolhardy and incompatible with member state's rights to self-government, and as such, it is our belief that state sovereignty should take precedence and have jurisdiction on the issues discussed by this act.

That argument aside, ambassadors, We also wonder why this legislation has not been placed into other relevant proposals, such as a standalone discrimination act. N27's own "Discrimination Act (2018)" is amended as necessary to evolve with our contemporary society's beliefs and needs. By placing protections against discrimination into one specific article of legislation, it allows any who would attempt to find information on such matters to find their objective in an easier way, not to mention allow court cases to proceed somewhat more smoothly and with more haste, than attempting to find every mention of discrimination in the plethora of acts this assembly has passed, not to mention whatever federal laws each member state would have in place.

Obviously N27 has several moral, ethical and legal objections to discrimination to individuals that causes harm, however N27 also understands that nation-states have their own legal systems and legislative agendas to fulfil and it is their right to pursue that in the way they see fit. This is especially true in custody battle cases, where ultimately the safety and wellbeing of the child is the primary priority. To bring marital status into this issue is a non-starter as generally these battles arise from a couple dissolving their marriage. In the slim cases where a couple that was never married enters a custody battle for a child, the court's primary prerogative should always be to ensure the child's safety and as such, determine which parent is more capable of giving a wholesome and healthy lifestyle for the child at hand. To mandate this at such a high level is not only redundant but, as stated previously, unfairly confiscates member states' rights to self-governance and to determine their own laws on their lands.

By all means, pass this resolution for international waters, or in cases where nationality is disputed (i.e. In cases where unmarried citizens from multiple WA member states have offspring and the custody cannot be determined due to conflicting federal laws,) but do not impose international intervention onto individual states and encroach upon their sovereignty unduly.

N27 remains opposed."

[PotatoFarmers]

Наша нация поддерживает эту идею.

Oh kind sir, this is an English-speaking forum, you need to post all your things in English

[El Lazaro]

Are legal punishments for children born out of wedlock commonplace? This bill seems unnecessary if not. Additionally, the custody revocation conditions are self-defeating, as court proceedings could remove custody from unwed parents. If this was removed, however, conservatorship annulments and divorce rulings could be barred. The proposal seems to be making a mess of the law without providing significant utility.

[Minskiev]

Against. "Arbitrary, reductive characteristic" is wholly meaningless if undefined as it is here. Stop pretending like it's something that means anything on its own.

[Elwher]

This proposal, if passed, would wreak havoc with many nations' inheritance laws, allowing no discrimination between children born to a person's spouse and those born outside of wedlock. And, as a double whammy, consider what this will do to those nations with a hereditary monarchy. While Elwher sympathizes with the intent of the proposal, it goes too far when out-of-wedlock children are required to be treated the same as those born to a person's legal spouse.

[Mendevia]

I encourage everyone to please vote against the current proposal in the World Assembly. Especially because of Section 3: "A member nation may only revoke an individual's status as a legal parent, guardian, or custodian of a ward where necessary to

protect that ward's emotional, mental, or physical wellbeing;

enforce a prison sentence, contain someone currently charged with a crime, or otherwise ensure the functioning of court proceedings; or

revoke guardianship or custody over a particular ward whom that individual has freely and in good faith renounced such guardianship or custody over"

Terminating a parent's parental rights might seem like a good thing if that person is a terrible person and does not contribute at all to raising their child, but terminating the parental rights means completing separating that child from their parent forever. And that also includes financially. The court can force a parent who is alienated from their child to pay for support, but only if they are still the parent according to the law. Sentence b: "enforce a prison sentence, contain someone currently charged with a crime, or otherwise ensure the functioning of court proceedings; or" is especially poorly written. What does that even mean? And the last sentence: "revoke guardianship or custody over a particular ward whom that individual has freely and in good faith renounced such guardianship or custody over." This should only be done if the other parent or guardian consents because again child support is terminated. I am fairly confident that overall terminating parental status is far more detrimental to a ward's emotional, mental, or physical wellbeing. If you need to protect the child from a bad parent you can limit or even prevent them from having any sort of custody or visitation while still forcing them to pay for their child. Again you can't do this if the rights are terminated.

[Cat Army]

In the proposal the writer never clearly defines what a "guardian" or an "individual lacking in mental capacity" is. The lack of a definition of what a guardian is quite concerning. Another thing is that they never define what an individual lacking in mental capacity is. They do say children right before this but then never elaborate on the "individual lacking in mental capacity" par.t

[PokemonGirl]

People absolutely do discriminate against other people for having a child/being born out of wedlock. Anyone who doesn’t think so probably hasn’t spent enough time around fundamentalist Christians (or any other religion where having children before marriage is frowned upon).

When applied to this site, plenty of people RP theocracies, and adhere to both real and fictional religions. Excluding outright theocracies, religious freedom also exists. So it’s safe to say there are plenty of people willing to discriminate as well as plenty of people in need of protection from that discrimination.

I guess, but it's so oddly specific why is this something that needs a world assembly bill?

I was under the impression this was about rights of a guardian not to just be abruptly taken. Which I can understand cause I figure whoever wants to claim parenthood can.

[Heavens Reach]

People absolutely do discriminate against other people for having a child/being born out of wedlock. Anyone who doesn’t think so probably hasn’t spent enough time around fundamentalist Christians (or any other religion where having children before marriage is frowned upon).

When applied to this site, plenty of people RP theocracies, and adhere to both real and fictional religions. Excluding outright theocracies, religious freedom also exists. So it’s safe to say there are plenty of people willing to discriminate as well as plenty of people in need of protection from that discrimination.

I guess, but it's so oddly specific why is this something that needs a world assembly bill?

I was under the impression this was about rights of a guardian not to just be abruptly taken. Which I can understand cause I figure whoever wants to claim parenthood can.

OOC: keep in mind that the WA nations reflect all sorts of places and eras in history, and that being born out of wedlock was, depending on the region and era, particularly for those featuring a nobility, a very big deal and source of discrimination.

[Brezzia]

Reading 3c for the first time, it seems to me that it allows a guardian to "freely and in good faith" renounce guardianship or custody over a ward whenever they want. There are real life laws that allow parents to leave children in hospital or caring center, but immediately after birth, not after 5/11/17 years. If they keep the child, they have the duty to care them. This is like a proposal by Hänsel and Gretel's parents.

[Saint Eleanor]

I am Tinhampton.

Although I am opposed to this proposal, I do not believe that somebody with full custody over a child renouncing custody over them would be a bona fide renunciation: it would almost certainly not be in the child's best interests (see Article 4).