{Draft] The right to equal access to marriage.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Could reference be made in new legislation acknowledging the honest mistakes in both GAR #313 and GAR #411?

OOC: Not in the sense of saying "these repeals were illegal and shouldn't have passed." Such a statement would itself be a Metagaming violation.

For reference, 313 and 411 both claim the resolutions (GAR# 15 and GAR #410, respectively) they repeal are redundant considering the COCR, but the COCR makes no mention of marriage.

Bananaistan alluded to this briefly. I think both sides of the necessity question are true. That is, COCR does protect same-sex marriage in most member states (those repeals did not commit an Honest Mistake); but at the same time the original resolutions were not duplicative or unnecessary.
Imagine a devoutly religious country whose gods forbid non-reproductive sexual contact, that happens to be prone to all sorts of natural disasters, which are attributed to divine wrath. Perhaps their primitive scientists have 'proved' that children of same-sex couples have worse outcomes than those of opposite-sex couples. Such a society finds itself with a "compelling practical purpose" that it can advance by forbidding same-sex marriage. That loophole in CoCR is tough for a modern, honest nation to wriggle through, but it does exist. So while GAR #35 does generally protect it, the protection isn't foolproof and another resolution specifically protecting it wouldn't be duplicative.

[Wallenburg]

What compelling practical purpose exists to ban gay marriage?

[Grenartia]

Could reference be made in new legislation acknowledging the honest mistakes in both GAR #313 and GAR #411?

OOC: Not in the sense of saying "these repeals were illegal and shouldn't have passed." Such a statement would itself be a Metagaming violation.

However, saying something to the effect of "while there are two appeals on the books, they use misguided reasoning, hence the requirement for this legislation" would be kosher?

For reference, 313 and 411 both claim the resolutions (GAR# 15 and GAR #410, respectively) they repeal are redundant considering the COCR, but the COCR makes no mention of marriage.

Bananaistan alluded to this briefly. I think both sides of the necessity question are true. That is, COCR does protect same-sex marriage in most member states (those repeals did not commit an Honest Mistake); but at the same time the original resolutions were not duplicative or unnecessary.
Imagine a devoutly religious country whose gods forbid non-reproductive sexual contact, that happens to be prone to all sorts of natural disasters, which are attributed to divine wrath. Perhaps their primitive scientists have 'proved' that children of same-sex couples have worse outcomes than those of opposite-sex couples. Such a society finds itself with a "compelling practical purpose" that it can advance by forbidding same-sex marriage. That loophole in CoCR is tough for a modern, honest nation to wriggle through, but it does exist. So while GAR #35 does generally protect it, the protection isn't foolproof and another resolution specifically protecting it wouldn't be duplicative.

But COCR does not mention marriage anywhere. I find it hard to believe it isn't a case of Honest Mistake when both repeals said another resolution already protected it, when that resolution doesn't even mention it in the first place.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

However, saying something to the effect of "while there are two appeals on the books, they use misguided reasoning, hence the requirement for this legislation" would be kosher?

As far as I'm concerned, sure.

But COCR does not mention marriage anywhere. I find it hard to believe it isn't a case of Honest Mistake when both repeals said another resolution already protected it, when that resolution doesn't even mention it in the first place.

CoCR doesn't mention school attendance either, but as a "service provided to the general public" you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks it doesn't fall under the same discrimination protections.

[Christian Democrats]

1. All member states should legalize equal marriage, with equal rights.

Equal for whom (or what)?

[Quantipapa]

Equal as long as it is one male and one female.

[Separatist Peoples]

Equal as long as it is one male and one female.

Ooc: yeah, that isnt the rule under CoCR.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

IC: Opposed. Our country hates gay marriage. We see gay marriage as a contradiction of our religious values and beliefs. Gay marriage is a sin and does not assist in the procreation of children. It sets a bad example for what our society will believe in.

[Separatist Peoples]

IC: Opposed. Our country hates gay marriage. We see gay marriage as a contradiction of our religious values and beliefs. Gay marriage is a sin and does not assist in the procreation of children. It sets a bad example for what our society will believe in.

"Your religious values are not, and indeed cannot be, law, since doing so would contradict a number of WA resolutions. Sex need not assist in the procreation of children, since children are not the sole goal of sex. Why do your society's beliefs trump the right of persons to be treated as equals?"

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Okay I reverse and legalize gay marriage but equality can conflict with beliefs of

[Quantipapa]

Okay I reverse and legalize gay marriage but equality can conflict with beliefs of

what? WHAT???

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Okay I reverse and legalize gay marriage but equality can conflict with beliefs of

what? WHAT???

I can't non comply or else there's sanctions

[Arasi Luvasa]

what? WHAT???

I can't non comply or else there's sanctions

OOC: please just finish the sentence in the quoted post.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

The Freehold expresses its utter contempt for this proposal and will vote against it, encouraging others to do the same if they are able.

Marriage in the Freehold serves the purpose of childbirth and is a union between citizens.

To allow the free marriage of those with questionable mental stability, who will do nothing to fulfil their natural duties, will ultimately achieve nothing but the undermining of the natural order of the family unit and dissolve the significance of marriage.

So called LGBT persons could be permitted to leave countries where they feel victimised.

However, to legislate against a nation or a group of nations, and forcing them to adopt destructive laws that fly in the face of their moral, religious, cultural, or ancestral values, and against their natural and sovereign right to determine the laws of their land is nothing but authoritarianism of the highest magnitude with the sole intention of imposing a selfish agenda that so-called "progressives" will push to feel good about themselves at the expense of national sovereignty.

If passed, we shall not follow it. We shall aim to repeal it.

[Kenmoria]

If passed, we shall not follow it. We shall aim to repeal it.

(OOC: If this proposal passes it will male no difference on your laws about marriage, seeing as the Charter of Civil Rights, GA 35 exists, which forces marriage equality on nation by way of prohibiting discrimination. If you don’t comply, according to the Administrative Compliance Act, then you shall reiceve fones. Failure to pay will result in sanctions. Also, it is considered by many to be poor form to roleplay noncompliance without giving a good reason or showing signs of strain via sanctions.)