[DRAFT] Marriage Equality Act

by **Sanctaria** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:40 pm

Marriage Equality Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

The General Assembly,

BELIEVING that this Assembly is a progressive institution,

UNDERSTANDING that due to social or cultural objections, for example religious beliefs, some nations are opposed to marriage equality,

HOWEVER DISREGARDING these objections because equality, equity, and fairness should triumph over individual belief systems,

Hereby

MANDATES that no member state that recognises marriage as a legal institution which confers any responsibilities, benefits, rights, or privileges exclusively to those that enter said institution, may forbid two consenting adults from contracting a marriage, based on their gender or sex, religion or creed, race or nationality, or on their ethnic or social status;

PERMITS member states to regulate all other requirements for, and rights and privileges derived from, marriage in accordance with their own laws and applicable World Assembly resolutions, provided that such remain equal for all individuals regardless of gender or sex.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:41 pm

Support!

Though, I'd like fewer lines. Let's make another UN taxation ban.

by **Aexnidaral** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:45 pm

I wholeheartedly support this.

by **Essu Beti** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:46 pm

Iksana gently thunks his head on the table. "Two people, same or opposite sex. I have a very big question for you: what, exactly, do you propose is the opposite of samar? And just to be contrary, because my nation agrees with the 'two' thing, why not more than two? Why not have polygamy, or polyandry, or poly-whateverelse-y?"

by **Sanctaria** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:59 pm

Essu Beti wrote:Iksana gently thunks his head on the table. "Two people, same or opposite sex. I have a very big question for you: what, exactly, do you propose is the opposite of samar? And just to be contrary, because my nation agrees with the 'two' thing, why not more than two? Why not have polygamy, or polyandry, or poly-whateverelse-y?"

Ambassador, I have no idea what samar is, except perhaps an island on the video game we call Real Life^TM. And the opposite of an island would be ... a mainland, I guess. Or a continent. But I suppose a continent is also an island. I'm not a geologist, sorry.

As for why not extending beyond two people - I would say the vast majority of nations consider marriage as only two people. While the debate can rage over whether those two people should be of the same, or indeed of the opposite, sex, it's still widely accepted that it should be just between two.

However, for those nations that allow poly-, nothing in this resolution prevents bigamy, so they can all marry each other still. However for nations that want to disallow bigamy are still permitted thanks to the second operative clause. It's a nice solution.

by **Dragonslinding WA Mission** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:05 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Marriage Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

The General Assembly,

BELIEVING that we are a progressive Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that nations have religious and cultural objections to marriage equality,

HOWEVER DISREGARDING this reality because equality, equity, and fairness should trump individual belief systems,

Hereby

RESOLVES that marriage may be contracted by two consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex;

PERMITS member states to regulate all other requirements for marriage in accordance with their own laws and extant World Assembly resolutions.

OOC: A few issues, but otherwise I support completely.

Strength: Should be mild as it mostly just says that marriage MAY be contracted by two consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex.

On that issue there is a problem with the language of the resolves clause, namely that there are more species in the WA than humans, and while the majority probably follow the male/female binary there may be some that do not. It isn't inconceivable for a sapient species to exist that actually have more sexes than just male or female. Second I would like to see the issue of polygamous marriage completely shifted over to national legislation because quite frankly it simply isn't an international issue unless non-consenting persons (or persons incapable of consent) are transported across international boundaries to be forced into marriage--and I could be wrong but I think we have a resolution that covers that.

As such I would propose substitution of the Resolves clause with the following language:

RESOLVES that marriage may be contracted by two (or more) consenting adults of any sex;

The word sex may have to be pluralized, or pluralized in parentheses. I'm unsure but I'm sure there is someone better at grammar than I around here--I took my last course on English grammar a decade and a half ago and I probably forgot some arcane rule.

by **Sanctaria** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:18 pm

Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:Strength: Should be mild as it mostly just says that marriage MAY be contracted by two consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex.

"May" just means they can. People are not forced to get married, which I feel "shall" does, but nations have to provide that option for them - otherwise they are unable to get married, and therefore may not contract it. Which would be against this resolution.

Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:On that issue there is a problem with the language of the resolves clause, namely that there are more species in the WA than humans, and while the majority probably follow the male/female binary there may be some that do not. It isn't inconceivable for a sapient species to exist that actually have more sexes than just male or female.

So there are two things here, Ambassador. Firstly, one cannot legislate for every possibility that could occur in the NS Multiverse, that's why we as Ambassadors legislative for the most likely scenario, and the most likely governmental actions. It's basically like RNT. And the most likely scenario is that most nations, the vast majority, are human.

Secondly, this resolution doesn't prevent non-binary individuals, or equivalent, from availing of this. If someone identifies with a sex that is different to the person they wish to marry, that is an opposite sex. I don't mention a specific number of sexes in this resolution.

Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:Second I would like to see the issue of polygamous marriage completely shifted over to national legislation because quite frankly it simply isn't an international issue unless non-consenting persons (or persons incapable of consent) are transported across international boundaries to be forced into marriage--and I could be wrong but I think we have a resolution that covers that.

This resolution does not deal with poly- marriage.

by **Essu Beti** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:10 pm

Sanctaria wrote:Ambassador, I have no idea what samar is, except perhaps an island on the video game we call Real Life^TM. And the opposite of an island would be ... a mainland, I guess. Or a continent. But I suppose a continent is also an island. I'm not a geologist, sorry.

"It's our third gender. Corresponds to intersex," Iksana says.

Secondly, this resolution doesn't prevent non-binary individuals, or equivalent, from availing of this. If someone identifies with a sex that is different to the person they wish to marry, that is an opposite sex. I don't mention a specific number of sexes in this resolution.

OOC: Why not just say "different sex" instead of "opposite sex?"

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:12 pm

Why not we just say that any two consenting adults may be married?

by **Sanctaria** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:16 pm

Essu Beti wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:Ambassador, I have no idea what samar is, except perhaps an island on the video game we call Real Life^TM. And the opposite of an island would be ... a mainland, I guess. Or a continent. But I suppose a continent is also an island. I'm not a geologist, sorry.

"It's our third gender. Corresponds to intersex," Iksana says.

Then, Ambassador, as I have mentioned to our colleagues, that would not be an issue for you, I'm delighted to say. Your semar will either be of the same, of of opposite sex to the other individual in the marriage, and as such this protects their right.

Essu Beti wrote:
Secondly, this resolution doesn't prevent non-binary individuals, or equivalent, from availing of this. If someone identifies with a sex that is different to the person they wish to marry, that is an opposite sex. I don't mention a specific number of sexes in this resolution.

OOC: Why not just say "different sex" instead of "opposite sex?"

OOC: I dislike the way "different sex" sits in the sentence. And when it is a marriage of two individuals, if they are not the same, then they are opposites.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Why not we just say that any two consenting adults may be married?

Ambassador, I want the legislation to be crystal clear as to its purpose, and I would like to emphasise that same-sex marriage will be explicitly permitted. No loopholes or creative compliance.

by **Dragonslinding WA Mission** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:31 pm

I'm posting OOC for the entirety of this post because quite frankly this is more a discussion over the language of the proposal and I simply can't be arsed to try to do that in character. Its late where I am and I'm tired.

Sanctaria wrote:
Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:Strength: Should be mild as it mostly just says that marriage MAY be contracted by two consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex.

"May" just means they can. People are not forced to get married, which I feel "shall" does, but nations have to provide that option for them - otherwise they are unable to get married, and therefore may not contract it. Which would be against this resolution.

That doesn't make the strength significant in my view. The Secretariat could of course rule differently but as I interpret the word may, it means that two consenting adults who desire to get married, can get married, not that they must. Since we are dealing with a resolution that legislates the behavior of individual citizens of member nations rather than what member nations must permit (that is already covered under GAR#35 if GAR#411 is to be believed, and seems to be the consensus of the majority of posters here) then the goal should be to as broad and as vague as possible.

GAR#411

Astonished by the World Assembly's foresight in passing 35 GA 'The Charter of Civil Rights' to 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 account for,

As for states sanctioning marriage not all states do. I've explained in other threads, in IC, why in my nation marriage essentially does not exist as far as the Crown is concerned (it is dealt with by custom really), it is a convenient creative compliance for those member states who do not wish to permit gay marriage for example. If I do it, then I'm sure there are others--perhaps dozens if not hundreds.

Please note that isn't because I oppose gay marriage, I support it so strongly I got gay married.

Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:On that issue there is a problem with the language of the resolves clause, namely that there are more species in the WA than humans, and while the majority probably follow the male/female binary there may be some that do not. It isn't inconceivable for a sapient species to exist that actually have more sexes than just male or female.

So there are two things here, Ambassador. Firstly, one cannot legislate for every possibility that could occur in the NS Multiverse,

Not an argument. The words "any sex" would apply to most possibilities (like 99.998% of them--there always is that one in a million nation you know) in the NS Multiverse: binary individuals in binary species, non-binary individuals in binary species and species with more than two sexes species. I would imagine that is the broadest possible range of sexes imaginable to anyone whose spent time in the NS Multiverse.

that's why we as Ambassadors legislative for the most likely scenario, and the most likely governmental actions.

Sounds like an argument or the use of the word "any". Let us assume that 90% of member nations are populated by humans. That leaves a 10% that are populated by sapient beings other than humans, and of that fraction I would suppose that only a small percentage of those have species with more than one sex. By covering that small percent as well it leaves little room for a repeal on the grounds of discrimination against species that have more than one sex.

Such a repeal would be a long shot, but I don't underestimate how some nations may want to virtue signal through passing such a repeal.

It's basically like RNT. And the most likely scenario is that most nations, the vast majority, are human.

Agreed. I even will admit that the vast majority of those nations which are not human would on the topic of biological sex follow a binary, but not all of them do so--again all the more reason to use the word any. So, what we have here with the change I suggested we cover more situations, and use much simpler language. I fail to see how the superiority of the change isn't evident.

Secondly, this resolution doesn't prevent non-binary individuals, or equivalent, from availing of this. If someone identifies with a sex that is different to the person they wish to marry, that is an opposite sex. I don't mention a specific number of sexes in this resolution.

I'm not particularly interested in the marriages of individuals who are non-binary, let alone the species that have more than a biological sex binary--my nation is populated by only one sapient species (humans). But I assure you that the language currently used will be used against the proposal in that it will be argued--perhaps stupidly (but there is no shortage of stupid arguments in the WA, I assure you)--that the use of "same or opposite sex" means that the proposal would actually prohibit marriage between individuals who are non-binary, not to mention species that have more than two sexes.

Again a reason to use the word "any".

Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:Second I would like to see the issue of polygamous marriage completely shifted over to national legislation because quite frankly it simply isn't an international issue unless non-consenting persons (or persons incapable of consent) are transported across international boundaries to be forced into marriage--and I could be wrong but I think we have a resolution that covers that.

This resolution does not deal with poly- marriage.

Then, assuming that this proposal passes, there will be future proposals to expressly legalize poly-marriage, of which we can expect at least 10 proposals, 5 of which make it to queue, at least one of which will be passed and then subsequently repealed if not immediately, a short time later.

If the propose is "Can we please End this" then the goal should be to block as large a scope of future legislation proposals as it is legal to do so. And all that can be done with two punctuation marks and two short words. The reason in my proposed language change is in parentheses is to indicate that while a marriage must have at least two persons involved, it can have more than two persons.

by **Dragonslinding WA Mission** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:35 pm

Essu Beti wrote:OOC: Why not just say "different sex" instead of "opposite sex?"

OOC: Essentially why I suggested the phrase "any sex".

by **Kenmoria** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:36 am

Sanctaria wrote:
HOWEVER DISREGARDING this reality because equality, equity, and fairness should trump individual belief systems,

"The word 'trump' shouldn't really belong in a formal proposal, I would suggest using 'have precedence over' instead."

RESOLVES that marriage may be contracted by two consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex;

"I will echo the fact that this appears to completely disregard nation's who's species have more than two genders. The word 'different' instead of 'opposite' would sit much better here."

by **Sanctaria** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:16 am

Ambassadors, I have updated the draft. I hope this allays some concerns.

by **Fauxia** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:24 am

“I am not sure I can support this. I’m sure it will pass, but I’m too NatSov for this probably. I’ll vote for it if it is losing.”

by **Auralia** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:48 am

We oppose this proposal. We maintain that it is possible to guarantee a right for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to enter into a union that is basically equivalent to marriage while respecting the sociocultural and religious concerns of certain member states about using the term "marriage" to describe such unions.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

by **Sanctaria** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:57 am

Fauxia wrote:“I am not sure I can support this. I’m sure it will pass, but I’m too NatSov for this probably. I’ll vote for it if it is losing.”

Auralia wrote:We oppose this proposal. We maintain that it is possible to guarantee a right for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to enter into a union that is basically equivalent to marriage while respecting the sociocultural and religious concerns of certain member states about using the term "marriage" to describe such unions.

The Divine Republic does not respect the arguments put forth, Ambassadors, but we acknowledge your opposition.

by **The Greater Siriusian Domain** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:47 am

Teran Saber: "Supported overall. Just change the text from 'same or opposite sex' to 'regardless of the sex or gender of the two parties'. If you really want to get fancy, you could say 'regardless of the sex, gender or species of the two parties, provided both parties are capable of consent', but I'm not going to push for that since we already have legislation on the rights of sapients."

by **Excidium Planetis** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:18 am

"We applaud the authoring delegation for addressing the concerns brought against the first draft." Blackbourne states. "The only remaining concern is the use of the word 'two' in the first operative clause. I do not believe it is necessary, and express my opinion that the clause should just say 'forbid consenting adults' instead of 'two consenting adults'."

by **Northeast American Federation** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:30 am

Excidium Planetis wrote:"The only remaining concern is the use of the word 'two' in the first operative clause. I do not believe it is necessary, and express my opinion that the clause should just say 'forbid consenting adults' instead of 'two consenting adults'."

"You seem to be advocating that this proposal be amended to open the possibility to polygamy, something I do not believe the author intended to address one way or another. If that is a matter you feel that passionately about, perhaps you ought to make your own proposal."

by **Sanctaria** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:53 am

This is intended to end the discussion on marriage equality. Poly* is a separate issue and the current wording allows for further resolutions on the subject.

by **Dragonslinding WA Mission** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:59 pm

Sanctaria wrote:This is intended to end the discussion on marriage equality. Poly* is a separate issue and the current wording allows for further resolutions on the subject.

"My good sir, that may be the intention, but it seems to us that other nations do not see it that way. We are not necessarily opposed but will be bringing our own proposal shortly," Ser Aegon Snow says.

by **Fauxia** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:28 pm

Not a fan of the “we are a progressive assembly” line. It’s true, but instead of saying that you should say “dedicated to the rights of the individual” or something like that. And for the second, I would add “some” before “nations”

by **Unibot III** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:15 pm

Without defining marriage, you're opening to the obvious loophole of shifting marriage to a 'union' of sorts. Or is that the plan?

Alternatively, member-states might limit the 'rights' of marriages differently based on orientation. For example, permitting same-sex marriage, but disallowing same-sex couples from raising children, living together, holding a joint bank account etc. The state could still make the lives of same-sex couples very, very difficult if it felt it needed to do so.

by **Sanctaria** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:25 pm

Unibot III wrote:Without defining marriage, you're opening to the obvious loophole of shifting marriage to a 'union' of sorts. Or is that the plan?

I don't see the necessity of defining marriage. This proposal states that if you are a nation that recognises marriage, you may not forbid people of the same sex getting married. How that individual nation themselves defines marriage, or does not define marriage, is immaterial - if they change their own definition to try and avoid this resolution, that definition also changes for everyone else in that nation, same-sex or no.

Unibot III wrote:Alternatively, member-states might limit the 'rights' of marriages differently based on orientation. For example, permitting same-sex marriage, but disallowing same-sex couples from raising children, living together, holding a joint bank account etc. The state could still make the lives of same-sex couples very, very difficult if it felt it needed to do so.

Such is a relatively simple fix and will be included in the next draft.

[DRAFT] Marriage Equality Act

[DRAFT] Marriage Equality Act

Who is online