NATION

PASSWORD

[WITHDRAWN/ILLEGAL] International Marriage Accords

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Quadrimmina
Minister
 
Posts: 2080
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

[WITHDRAWN/ILLEGAL] International Marriage Accords

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:30 pm

Update: This resolution is being withdrawn due to legality concerns. Two separate resolutions will be up for vote in its place, please follow the links below to view them.

Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
International Marriage Accords

International Marriage Accords
Human Rights, Strong

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RESOLVING to acknowledge and accept all consenting unions of sapient individuals and grant them the same full immunities and privileges of marriage.

HOPING to ensure that there is a consistent freedom to engage in such a covenant and enjoy the full benefits, rights, and responsibilities of said covenant without discrimination.

HEREBY ENACTS the following provisions as international law:

Section 1: Definitions

a) A "civil marriage" (or "marriage") as defined by international law is the legal, contractual agreement established by law between consenting, sapient individuals to be legally bound as a family unit (or the political or cultural equivalent of such an agreement).
i. "Consent" to marriage must include at least the fully-informed, freely-willed, and clearly-documented consent of the individuals that will be a part of the marriage.

b) A "religious marriage" as defined by international law is a marriage recognized by a religious organization.

c) Member nations may differentiate between the terms in subsections (a) and (b) as they see fit, so long as the legal effect is not changed.

d) If marriage law is handled at the subnational level, then all provisions applicable to “member nations” apply also to the respective subnational entities.

Section 2: Right to Marry

a) Member nations cannot restrict individuals from entering into a nationally-recognized marriage and must provide a process for establishing any such marriages, except for in the case outlined in subsection (b).

b) A member nation may choose to simply not recognize or perform marriage, so long as it does so for all individuals equally.

c) Religious organizations have sole domain over the recognition of marriages as religious marriages.

Section 3: Anti-Discrimination

a) All marriages are to be treated as equal and the same by law, with the same legal rights and privileges granted to each marriage and the individuals within each, and no more legal rights or privileges granted to religious marriages.

b) The process, rules, and guidelines by which a marriage is by law established in a member nation must be the same for each marriage.

c) Those in a marriage are considered, for all legal intents and purposes, "spouses”.

d) Those in any marriage have an equal legal right to procreate or adopt, and all rights, privileges, and responsibilities entailing the procreation or adoption must be equitably applied amongst all marriages, including the right to be considered a “family”.

e) Legal rights may not be denied on the basis of marital status or prior marital status.

Section 4: Recognition

a) All member nations must grant individuals in a marriage established in another nation all rights and privileges granted to those in a marriage in their jurisdiction.
i. National laws regarding sexual practices are not subject to this requirement.

b) The status of being in a marriage legally impossible in a member nation cannot be a basis for discrimination with regards to any other legal status that would otherwise be possible.


International Marriage Accords
Human Rights, Significant

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RESOLVING to acknowledge and accept all consenting unions of sapient individuals and grant them the same full immunities and privileges of marriage.

HOPING to ensure that there is a consistent freedom to engage in such a covenant and enjoy the full benefits, rights, and responsibilities of said covenant without discrimination.

HEREBY ENACTS the following provisions as international law:

Section 1: Definitions

a) A "civil marriage" (or "marriage") as defined by international law is the legal, contractual agreement established by law between consenting, sapient individuals to be legally bound as a family unit (or the political or cultural equivalent of such an agreement).
i. "Consent" to marriage must include at least the fully-informed, freely-willed, and clearly-documented consent of the individuals that will be a part of the marriage.

b) A "religious marriage" as defined by international law is a marriage recognized by a religious organization.

c) Member nations may differentiate between the terms in subsections (a) and (b) as they see fit, so long as the legal effect is not changed.

d) If marriage law is handled at the subnational level, then all provisions applicable to “member nations” apply also to the respective subnational entities.

Section 2: Right to Marry

a) Member nations cannot restrict individuals from entering into a nationally-recognized marriage and must provide a process for establishing such marriages, except for in the cases outlined in subsections (b) and (c).

b) Member nations may disallow the following kinds of marriage, unless this Assembly resolves otherwise:
i. Marriages involving more than two individuals.
ii. Marriages that may reasonably be considered incestuous.

c) A member nation may choose to simply not recognize or perform marriage, so long as it does so for all individuals equally.

d) Religious organizations have sole domain over the recognition of marriages as religious marriages.

Section 3: Anti-Discrimination

a) All marriages are to be treated as equal and the same by law, with the same legal rights and privileges granted to each marriage and the individuals within each, and no more legal rights or privileges granted to religious marriages.

b) The process, rules, and guidelines by which a marriage is by law established in a member nation must be the same for each marriage.

c) Those in a marriage are considered, for all legal intents and purposes, "spouses”.

d) Those in any marriage have an equal legal right to procreate or adopt, and all rights, privileges, and responsibilities entailing the procreation or adoption must be equitably applied amongst all marriages, including the right to be considered a “family”.

e) Legal rights may not be denied on the basis of marital status or prior marital status.

Section 4: Recognition

a) All member nations must grant individuals in a marriage established in another nation all rights and privileges granted to those in a marriage in their jurisdiction (unless the nation invokes subsection 2(c)).
i. National laws regarding sexual practices are not subject to this requirement.

b) The status of being in a marriage legally impossible in a member nation cannot be a basis for discrimination with regards to any other legal status that would otherwise be possible.

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RESOLVING to acknowledge and accept all consenting unions of sapient individuals and grant them the same full immunities and privileges of marriage.

HOPING to ensure that there is a consistent freedom to engage in such a covenant and enjoy the full benefits, rights, and responsibilities of said covenant without discrimination.

HEREBY ENACTS the following provisions as international law:

Section 1: Definitions

a) A "civil marriage" (or "marriage") as defined by international law is the legal, contractual agreement established by law between consenting, sapient individuals to be legally bound as a family unit (or the political or cultural equivalent of such an agreement).
i. “Sapience” shall be defined as having the ability to consent, with the official list of sapient individuals to be determined by the WHA.
ii. "Consent" to marriage must include at least the fully-informed, freely-willed, and clearly-documented consent of the individuals that will be a part of the marriage.

b) A "religious marriage" as defined by international law is a marriage recognized by a religious organization.

c) Nations may differentiate between the terms in subsections (a) and (b) as they see fit, so long as the legal effect is not changed.

Section 2: Right to Marry

a) Member nations cannot restrict individuals from entering into a nationally-recognized marriage and must provide a process for establishing such marriages, except for in the cases outlined in subsections (b) and (c).

b) Member nations may disallow the following kinds of marriage, unless this Assembly resolves otherwise:
i. Marriages involving more than two individuals.
ii. Marriages between individuals who share parents or grandparents.

c) A nation may choose to simply not recognize or perform marriage, so long as it does so for all individuals equally, and so long as all political subdivisions in the nation follow suit.

d) Nothing in this resolution grants a right to a religious marriage to any individual.

Section 3: Anti-Discrimination

a) All marriages are to be treated as equal and the same by law, with the same legal rights and privileges granted to each marriage and the individuals within each.

b) The process, rules, and guidelines by which a marriage is by law established in a member nation must be the same for each marriage.

c) Those in a marriage are considered, for all legal intents and purposes, "spouses”.

d) Those in any marriage have an equal legal right to procreate or adopt, and all rights, privileges, and responsibilities entailing the procreation or adoption must be equitably applied amongst all marriages, including the right to be considered a “family”.

e) Neither marital status nor prior marital status can be a basis for discrimination in any regard, except in the possible cases of providing citizenship or permanent residency.

Section 4: Next of Kin

a) All marriages shall include each individual designating another in the marriage as a “next of kin” for legal purposes.

b) All member nations must grant non-citizens in a marriage with all rights granted to a “next of kin” in their own nations, including but not limited to medical proxy rights, confidentiality rights, power of attorney, property rights, and rights related to spousal death.

c) Member nations are strongly urged to be as liberal as possible in their application of subsection (b), to ensure that any rights needed by a visitor to the nation can be applied to ensure safety, security, and respect.

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RESOLVING to acknowledge and accept all consenting unions of sapient individuals and grant them the same full immunities and privileges of marriage.

HOPING to ensure that there is a consistent freedom to engage in such a covenant and enjoy the full benefits, rights, and responsibilities of said covenant without discrimination.

HEREBY ENACTS the following provisions as international law:

Section 1: Definitions

a) A "civil marriage" (or "marriage") as defined by international law is the legal, contractual agreement established by law between individuals to be legally bound as a family unit.

b) A "religious marriage" as defined by international law is a marriage created for those who wish to have said marriage recognized by their religion.

c) Nations may differentiate between the terms in subsections (a) and (b) as they see fit, so long as the legal effect is not changed.

d) "Consent" to marriage must include at least the fully-informed, freely-willed, and clearly-documented consent of the individuals that will be a part of the marriage.

e) "Recognition" of marriage shall include any political or cultural equivalent of the same.

f) The condition of being “sapient” and “consenting” must be universal for all national laws.

Section 2: Right to Marry

a) Any consenting, sapient individuals must be allowed to enter into a nationally-recognized marriage, so long as marriage is possible in the nation in question, except for the cases outlined in subsection (b).

b) A member state may choose to disallow the following kinds of marriages, unless further action by this body prevents this:
i. Marriages involving more than two individuals.
ii. Marriages that may reasonably be considered incestuous.

c) Nothing in this resolution grants a right to a religious marriage to any individual.

Section 3: Anti-Discrimination

a) All marriages are to be treated as equal and the same, with the same legal rights and privileges granted to each marriage and the individuals within it, and no more legal rights or privileges granted to religious marriages or an individual within those.

b) The process and guidelines by which a marriage is established in a member nation must be the same for each marriage, including the age to consent to marriage.

c) Those in a marriage are considered, for all legal intents and purposes, "spouses”.

d) Those in a marriage must have an equal legal right to procreate or adopt as those in any other marriage in a member state, and all rights, privileges, and responsibilities entailing the procreation or adoption must be equitably applied, including the right to be considered a “family”.

e) Marital status cannot be a basis for discrimination.

Section 4: Recognition

a) All member nations must grant non-citizens in a marriage established in another nation all rights and privileges granted to those in a marriage in their jurisdiction.
i. This recognition requirement can be abridged if it grants individuals rights or privileges contrary to the member nation's age of consent and/or age of majority or if the member nation in question does not recognize marriages, but not if the marriage is otherwise legally impossible in the member nation.

b) The status of being in a marriage legally impossible in a member nation cannot be a basis for discrimination with regard to citizenship or any other legal status that would otherwise be possible.

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RESOLVING to acknowledge and accept all willful unions of sapient individuals and grant them the same full immunities and privileges of marriage.

HOPING to ensure that complete choice and freedom in the formation of these unions is maintained throughout the various member nations.

ACCEPTING, however, that "marriage" can be considered a religious rite with certain restrictions as to who can partake in such a union.

HEREBY ENACTS the following provisions as international law:

Section 1: Definitions
a) A "marriage" as defined by international law is the legal, contractual agreement established by law between consenting sapient individuals to be legally bound as a family unit, with all the rights therein granted.
b) A "religious marriage" as defined by international law is a religious union created for those who wish to have a marriage recognized by their religion.
c) "Consent" as defined solely by this resolution must include the fully-informed, freely-willed, and clearly-documented consent of the individual that will be a part of the civil union, regardless of their legal capacity to consent.
d) Nations may, in their compliance with this resolution, use different wordings to differentiate between the terms in subsections (a) and (b) as they see fit, so long as what the terms refer to is clear.

Section 2: Right to Marry
Any consenting, sapient individuals must be allowed to be in a nationally-recognized marriage.

Section 3: Equality of Marriages
a) All marriages are to be treated as equal and the same, with the same rights and privileges granted to each marriage.
b) The process by which a marriage is established in a member nation must be the same for each marriage, without discrimination.
c) No member nation may provide any rights or privileges to a religious marriage that are not provided to those in a marriage.
d) Those in a marriage are considered, for all intents and purposes, "spouses", with all the rights and responsibilities that stem from that classification.
e) Those in a marriage must have an equal legal right to have children, either through procreation or adoption, as any other marriage, and shall not be refused the right to have legal dependents, including children.
f) Those in a marriage, as well as any legal dependents that they might by law have, are to be considered, for all legal intents and purposes, a "family".

Section 4: Religious Marriages
a) All religious organizations have the ability to refuse the status of religious marriage to any individuals in a marriage.
b) Subsection (a) is only applicable so long as such refusal does not hinder the ability of individuals to obtain a marriage with equal ease or legal status as those who are in religious marriages.

Section 5: Recognition
a) All member nations must recognize the marriages established in other nations as equal to those in their own nation for the time that such persons are guests in the member nation, with all rights and privileges granted as appropriate.
b) The condition of being in a marriage that is not legally possible in a member nation does not abridge the recognition requirement established in subsection (a), unless such recognition imparts rights or privileges contrary to the member nation's age of consent and/or age of majority, in which case such rights or privileges can be reasonably denied.
c) The condition of being in a marriage that is not legally possible in a member nation cannot be a basis for discrimination with regard to citizenship or any other legal status.

Section 6: Exceptions
a) This resolution does not in any way require member nations to recognize marriages or provide marriages, so long as such lack of provision is applied to all persons within the member nation with no cultural or political equivalent, and so long as such lack of provision also ensures that those in a marriage established by another member nation are not discriminated against due to such condition.
b) If a nation chooses not to recognize or provide marriages by subsection (a), then the responsibility of recognition established in Section 5(a) does not apply to the member nation in question.
c) Member states have the right to provide, by law, an exception to Section 2 in the case of marriage that can reasonably be considered incestuous, unless further action by this body contradicts this subsection.
d) This body can, by further action, further regulate marriages that are not covered by this resolution.
THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RESOLVING to acknowledge and accept all willful unions of sapient individuals and grant them the same full immunities and privileges of marriage.

HOPING to ensure that complete choice and freedom in the formation of these unions is maintained throughout the various member nations.

ACCEPTING, however, that "marriage" can be considered a religious rite with certain restrictions as to who can partake in such a union.

HEREBY ENACTS the following provisions as international law:

Section 1: Definitions
a) A "marriage" as defined by international law is the legal, contractual agreement established by law between consenting sapient individuals to be legally bound as a family unit, with all the rights therein granted.
b) A "religious marriage" as defined by international law is a religious union created for those who wish to have a marriage recognized by their religion.
c) "Consent" as defined solely by this resolution must include the fully-informed, freely-willed, and clearly-documented consent of the individual that will be a part of the civil union, regardless of their legal capacity to consent.
d) Nations may, in their compliance with this resolution, use different wordings to differentiate between the terms in subsections (a) and (b) as they see fit, so long as what the terms refer to is clear.

Section 2: Right to Marry
a) Any two consenting, sapient individuals must be allowed to be in a nationally-recognized marriage.
b) All member nations have the ability to, by law, expand subsection (a) to refer to marriages between more than two individuals within their jurisdictions, as does this body by further action.

Section 3: Equality of Marriages
a) All marriages are to be treated as equal and the same, with the same rights and privileges granted to each marriage.
b) The process by which a marriage is established in a member nation must be the same for each marriage, without discrimination.
c) No member nation may provide any rights or privileges to a religious marriage that are not provided to those in a marriage.
d) Those in a marriage are considered, for all intents and purposes, "spouses", with all the rights and responsibilities that stem from that classification.
e) Those in a marriage must have an equal legal right to have children, either through procreation or adoption, as any other marriage, and shall not be refused the right to have legal dependents, including children.
f) Those in a marriage, as well as any legal dependents that they might by law have, are to be considered, for all legal intents and purposes, a "family".

Section 4: Religious Marriages
a) All religious organizations have the ability to refuse the status of religious marriage to any individuals in a marriage.
b) Subsection (a) is only applicable so long as such refusal does not hinder the ability of individuals to obtain a marriage with equal ease or legal status as those who are in religious marriages.

Section 5: Recognition
a) All member nations must recognize the marriages established in other nations as equal to those in their own nation for the time that such persons are guests in the member nation, with all rights and privileges granted as appropriate.
b) The condition of being in a marriage that is not legally possible in a member nation does not abridge the recognition requirement established in subsection (a), unless such recognition imparts rights or privileges contrary to the member nation's age of consent and/or age of majority, in which case such rights or privileges can be reasonably denied.
c) The condition of being in a marriage that is not legally possible in a member nation cannot be a basis for discrimination with regard to citizenship or any other legal status.

Section 6: Exceptions
a) This resolution does not in any way require member nations to recognize marriages or provide marriages, so long as such lack of provision is applied to all persons within the member nation with no cultural or political equivalent, and so long as such lack of provision also ensures that those in a marriage established by another member nation are not discriminated against due to such condition.
b) If a nation chooses not to recognize or provide marriages by subsection (a), then the responsibility of recognition established in Section 5(a) does not apply to the member nation in question.
c) Member states have the right to provide, by law, an exception to Section 2(a) in the case of marriage that can reasonably be considered incestuous, unless further action by this body contradicts this subsection.
d) This body can, by further action, further regulate marriages that are not covered by this resolution.

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RESOLVING to acknowledge and accept all willful unions of sapient individuals and grant them the same full immunities and privileges of marriage.

HOPING to ensure that complete choice and freedom in the formation of these unions is maintained throughout the various member nations.

ACCEPTING, however, that "marriage" can be considered a religious rite with certain restrictions as to who can partake in such a union.

HEREBY DEFINES a "civil union" to be a legal, contractual agreement between consenting sapient individuals to be legally bound as a family unit.

CONSEQUENTLY DEFINES a "marriage" to be a religious union created for those who wish to have a civil union recognized by their religion.

DECLARES that any consenting, sapient individuals must be allowed to be in a nationally-recognized civil union, and that the process by which a member nation will recognize a civil union must be the same for all civil unions, including wait times and paperwork.

PROVIDES an exception for the above clause in the case of nations that do not recognize civil unions or their rough equivalent.

REQUIRES that the civil unions of other nations be accepted for any and all legal purposes by all World Assembly member nations.

MANDATES that all rights and privileges granted to those in the following groups in national or subnational law must be granted equitably to any individuals in a civil union in the member nation:
-Those rights and privileges guaranteed to individuals involved in a marriage.
-Those rights and privileges guaranteed to individuals in the same family.
-Those rights and privileges guaranteed to spouses, including all rights of proxy and visitation.

GUARANTEES that any religious organization has the ability to refuse the status of marriage to any entity, so long as the nation does not use such a refusal as a pretext to deny the right of a civil union.

PROVIDES an exception for the above clauses in the case of nations that do not recognize civil unions or an equivalent status for any persons, and which have no different rights or privileges for those who are in a civil union or an equivalent status.

CLARIFIES that all references to "marriage" in previous resolutions refer also to "civil unions" as defined by this resolution.

FINALLY CLARIFIES that "consent" as used in this resolution must include the fully-informed, freely-willed, and clearly-documented consent of the individual that will be a part of the civil union.


This resolution is kind of what I had in mind regarding a resolution of complete marriage freedom, but more liberal than when I introduced it in the resolution on Interracial marriage. Of course, this is to ensure that the proper debate is maintained, so after this is released, I will take the arguments and objections of all member states into consideration. It is of course, also a rough sketch, and any constructive criticism will be considered for inclusion. Thank you.
Last edited by Quadrimmina on Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:59 pm, edited 94 times in total.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Kerrigan, Ambassador to the World Assembly from the Republic of Quadrimmina.
National Profile | Ambassadorial Profile | Quadrimmina Gazette-Post | Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

Authored:
GA#111 (Medical Research Ethics Act)
SC#28 (Commend Sionis Prioratus)
GA#197 (Banning Extrajudicial Transfer)

Co-authored:
GA#110 (Identity Theft Prevention Act)
GA#171 (Freedom in Medical Research)
GA#196 (Freedom of Information Act)

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:36 pm

Lord Raekevik was thrilled to see that this idea had been drafted.

"As previously stated, the Queendom strongly supports this move. We shall take some time to further familiarise ourselves with the draft now in place and see if there are any details we would like to comment on."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:40 pm

Completely, and wholly in favor of this proposal. I'll give a more in-depth critique when I'm near a computer.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Dizyntk
Minister
 
Posts: 2699
Founded: Aug 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dizyntk » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:43 pm

The Dizyntk Imperium fully supports this legislation as it currently stands. We will look at it more closely and listen to any suggestions from other Delegates.
Last edited by Dizyntk on Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dizyntk WA Ambassador Princess Feyalisa Zerleen Profile
What is a Dizyntk you ask? Dizyntk Info
Cyanka is the Dizyntk year and is equal to 18 earth months. Do your own math.

User avatar
Augustus Este
Diplomat
 
Posts: 848
Founded: Jul 16, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Augustus Este » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:54 pm

While we support the idea that marriage is the union between two consenting adults(Of any race, gender, religion ect.) The difference between a "Marriage"and a "Civil union" may appear to only be the name, we see attempts to make Marriage a purely religious term to be a form of historical revisionism.


The separation of Church and state is key, and giving churches the right to interfere in domestic affairs by issuing legal marriages is disruptive to this separation. Churches(and other religious institutions) hold religious ceremonies, but they are not legally binding, the couple must also fill paperwork out in a local provincial office before legal effects kick in. This would force us to change this system and make it so "Civil Unions" are used by people who can't find a church to marry them, or or not religious.



~Basilo Ferrero, WA Ambassador




( Also cards that say "Your invited to the civil unioning of x and y" or "We're getting civil unioned!" sound silly :p )

User avatar
Quadrimmina
Minister
 
Posts: 2080
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:59 pm

Augustus Este wrote:While we support the idea that marriage is the union between two consenting adults(Of any race, gender, religion ect.) The difference between a "Marriage"and a "Civil union" may appear to only be the name, we see attempts to make Marriage a purely religious term to be a form of historical revisionism.


The separation of Church and state is key, and giving churches the right to interfere in domestic affairs by issuing legal marriages is disruptive to this separation. Churches(and other religious institutions) hold religious ceremonies, but they are not legally binding, the couple must also fill paperwork out in a local provincial office before legal effects kick in. This would force us to change this system and make it so "Civil Unions" are used by people who can't find a church to marry them, or or not religious.

~Basilo Ferrero, WA Ambassador

( Also cards that say "Your invited to the civil unioning of x and y" or "We're getting civil unioned!" sound silly :p )


This resolution envisions that all legal representations of marriage will be considered a "civil union". In other words, even marriages will become grandfathered in as "civil unions". Basically, this resolution says "Religions can have 'marriage', and can do whatever the hell they want in including and excluding people, but nations can't. Everyone, no matter who they are, will have a civil union recognized by the state. States don't recognize marriage, only religions do. The subsequent clauses only ensure that there's no discrimination between those who are in a recognized marriage as well as a civil union and those who are not. Does that make sense? In other words, if X and Y wanna get married under a church (let's say they're a couple who will be approved for marriage by the church in question), that marriage has no bearing on any legality at all. They must get a civil union under the law anyway. States can't issue marriage anymore, under this resolution.

(And we figure that "union" would suffice for the invitations) :P
Last edited by Quadrimmina on Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Kerrigan, Ambassador to the World Assembly from the Republic of Quadrimmina.
National Profile | Ambassadorial Profile | Quadrimmina Gazette-Post | Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

Authored:
GA#111 (Medical Research Ethics Act)
SC#28 (Commend Sionis Prioratus)
GA#197 (Banning Extrajudicial Transfer)

Co-authored:
GA#110 (Identity Theft Prevention Act)
GA#171 (Freedom in Medical Research)
GA#196 (Freedom of Information Act)

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:12 pm

"Has it been checked that this proposal does not contradict or duplicate the Freedom of Marriage Act?

Also, regarding religion. Should the last clause be interpreted as preventing state sanctions against churches who discriminate? In the Queendom, it would not be illegal for any religious organisation to discriminate in such a way, but such discrimination would disqualify the entity from state accreditation as a religious community and accreditation is beneficial to churches. Would a state sanction such as denied or revoked accreditation be prevented by the last clause in this proposal?"
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Quadrimmina
Minister
 
Posts: 2080
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:17 pm

Alqania wrote:"Has it been checked that this proposal does not contradict or duplicate the Freedom of Marriage Act?

Also, regarding religion. Should the last clause be interpreted as preventing state sanctions against churches who discriminate? In the Queendom, it would not be illegal for any religious organisation to discriminate in such a way, but such discrimination would disqualify the entity from state accreditation as a religious community and accreditation is beneficial to churches. Would a state sanction such as denied or revoked accreditation be prevented by the last clause in this proposal?"

Since this proposal does not single out homosexual or heterosexual couples, we believe it is in accordance with FoMA.

Also, such a state sanction would be allowed, in my opinion. While religions can refuse people from being "married" per se, there is nothing forbidding nations from sanctioning that. Of course, I will change the language from "right" to "ability", just to ensure that that is clear.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Kerrigan, Ambassador to the World Assembly from the Republic of Quadrimmina.
National Profile | Ambassadorial Profile | Quadrimmina Gazette-Post | Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

Authored:
GA#111 (Medical Research Ethics Act)
SC#28 (Commend Sionis Prioratus)
GA#197 (Banning Extrajudicial Transfer)

Co-authored:
GA#110 (Identity Theft Prevention Act)
GA#171 (Freedom in Medical Research)
GA#196 (Freedom of Information Act)

User avatar
Southern Patriots
Senator
 
Posts: 4624
Founded: Apr 19, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Southern Patriots » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:20 pm

Perhaps instead of defining marriage as a religious ceremony, you leave that term open to interpretation of each nation, but holding no more legal power or status than internationally recognized civil unions?

Remember Rhodesia.

On Robert Mugabe:
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:He was a former schoolteacher.

I do hope it wasn't in economics.

Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.

Ceannairceach wrote:
Archnar wrote:The Russian Revolution showed a revolution could occure in a quick bloadless and painless process (Nobody was seriously injured or killed).

I doth protest in the name of the Russian Imperial family!
(WIP)

User avatar
Vocatus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 186
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Vocatus » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:20 pm

Complete support.

As we stated before, we simply don't care about the distinction between 'marriage' and 'civil union' but if it helps convince those who do care, then what the heck.

User avatar
Darenjo
Minister
 
Posts: 2178
Founded: Mar 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Darenjo » Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:01 pm

"You know this will come up, so I figured I might as well get it out of the way. One word: polygamy. Darenjo has banned polygamy and bigamy. Other nations, as has been shown in the other marriage debates, haven't. This is going to be a major thorn in your side unless addressed quickly.

"My suggestion: change the clause that actually guarantees freedom of 'civil union' to two people. Then, add a clause like this:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution is to be construed or interpreted as banning or legalizing polygamy or bigamy, or the ability of the WA to legalize polygamy or bigamy at a future time;


"The beauty of this is it doesn't change the status quo on regarding the WA and polygamy, but it prevents the WA from ever banning polygamy. This way, we can't ban polygamy, and we will almost certainly vote down any attempts at blanket legalization, therefore ensuring that there will be no abortion-esque debate on the morals of polygamy, when we have so many other important things to do."

- Dr. Park
Dr. Park Si-Jung, Ambassador to the World Assembly for The People's Democracy of Darenjo

Proud Member of Eastern Islands of Dharma!

User avatar
Tweegee
Envoy
 
Posts: 349
Founded: Feb 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Tweegee » Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:14 pm

HUZZAH! Everybody has the freedom to marry! SUPPORT!!!

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:07 pm

What about non-religious weddings in respect of ceremonies? What about protection from forced marriages? These two things would need to be cleared up before Ms. Harper decides.
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:13 pm

Marriage is not necessarily a religious rite with restrictions as to who may partake in it. How do you think atheists marry? Yes, religion is an important part of marriage, but religion isn't inherent in marriage.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Brodskopolis
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 182
Founded: Apr 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Brodskopolis » Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:45 pm

"erection of these unions?" Might want to change the wording on that, just for the purpose of avoiding crude jokes. Maybe 'creation of these unions?' Furthermore, you should definitely include the fact that marriage can be a secular institution as well, and should allow persons married by justices of the peace or other such persons to be 'spouses' or 'partners,' depending on their own personal preferences. Also, possibly consider explicitly legalizing gay/lesbian marriage and/or civil unions.
Last edited by Brodskopolis on Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I yam what I yam, and I yam someone who loves sweet potatoes.

Rust Belt Liberal, Humanistic Jew, Kvetch

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5615
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:56 pm

How exactly does this differ from Freedom of Marriage Act?

(unless that was repealed while I wasn't paying attention)
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Darenjo
Minister
 
Posts: 2178
Founded: Mar 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Darenjo » Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:57 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:What about non-religious weddings in respect of ceremonies? What about protection from forced marriages? These two things would need to be cleared up before Ms. Harper decides.


Non-religious wedding - ...yeah...we should address this...

Forced marriage - CD's proposal. I'm not sure how it would go, but we'll have to wait until it's passed or dropped before we can think about submitting this.
Dr. Park Si-Jung, Ambassador to the World Assembly for The People's Democracy of Darenjo

Proud Member of Eastern Islands of Dharma!

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:42 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:How exactly does this differ from Freedom of Marriage Act?

(unless that was repealed while I wasn't paying attention)

It wasn't so and i am not aware of an active repeal effort: I am keeping tabs on this area before reaching a conclusion.

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:57 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:How exactly does this differ from Freedom of Marriage Act?

(unless that was repealed while I wasn't paying attention)

It wasn't so and i am not aware of an active repeal effort: I am keeping tabs on this area before reaching a conclusion.


"The intentions differ in that the FoMA targets specifically equality between same- and different-sex marriages, while this has a broader aim at securing the right to interspecies marriages. There are different opinions on whether it should include the right to non-monogamous marriages or not.

That said, I have not checked it for duplication or contradiction against the FoMA. Perhaps such a check would be desirable."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5615
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:31 pm

Alqania wrote:
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:It wasn't so and i am not aware of an active repeal effort: I am keeping tabs on this area before reaching a conclusion.


The intentions differ in that the FoMA targets specifically equality between same- and different-sex marriages, while this has a broader aim at securing the right to interspecies marriages. There are different opinions on whether it should include the right to non-monogamous marriages or not.

Oh, that's right, I forgot: all the old resolutions were written for reasonable nations, and in the current wanking culture of the WA, that just ain't good enough. :roll:
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:45 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Alqania wrote:
The intentions differ in that the FoMA targets specifically equality between same- and different-sex marriages, while this has a broader aim at securing the right to interspecies marriages. There are different opinions on whether it should include the right to non-monogamous marriages or not.

Oh, that's right, I forgot: all the old resolutions were written for reasonable nations, and in the current wanking culture of the WA, that just ain't good enough. :roll:


"The debate started with another draft on interracial marriages, then it moved onwards to interspecies and possibly non-monogamous."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:02 pm

Like many others I support this idea. However, I think it should be possible for member states to not recognize any civil unions at all. Perhaps it would be possible to simply prohibit discrimination on any basis in the recognition of unions, which would allow states to not recognize any unions, but require those that do to recognize any unions without discimination.

Also, I am unhappy with the PROVIDES clause. I oppose allowing discrimination on the basis of familial relationship, and the second part of that clause is rendered unnecessary by the inclusion of the word "consenting" in the HEREBY and DECLARES clauses.

Darenjo wrote:"You know this will come up, so I figured I might as well get it out of the way. One word: polygamy.


One of the good things about this proposal is that it would require member states to legalize polygamy.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Quadrimmina
Minister
 
Posts: 2080
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:33 pm

Southern Patriots wrote:Perhaps instead of defining marriage as a religious ceremony, you leave that term open to interpretation of each nation, but holding no more legal power or status than internationally recognized civil unions?

Maybe, but that leaves the possibility of creating a situation where marriage can be defined as different than a civil union by simply calling it something else. If you define what marriage is, then it plugs the loophole, no? :\

Darenjo wrote:"You know this will come up, so I figured I might as well get it out of the way. One word: polygamy. Darenjo has banned polygamy and bigamy. Other nations, as has been shown in the other marriage debates, haven't. This is going to be a major thorn in your side unless addressed quickly.

"My suggestion: change the clause that actually guarantees freedom of 'civil union' to two people. Then, add a clause like this:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution is to be construed or interpreted as banning or legalizing polygamy or bigamy, or the ability of the WA to legalize polygamy or bigamy at a future time;


"The beauty of this is it doesn't change the status quo on regarding the WA and polygamy, but it prevents the WA from ever banning polygamy. This way, we can't ban polygamy, and we will almost certainly vote down any attempts at blanket legalization, therefore ensuring that there will be no abortion-esque debate on the morals of polygamy, when we have so many other important things to do."

- Dr. Park

Dr. Park, I shall take that into consideration. However, I am afraid to say that even if polygamy was not mandated, there would still be an existent mandate that polygamous relationships in other nations must be recognized in yours, correct?

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:What about non-religious weddings in respect of ceremonies? What about protection from forced marriages? These two things would need to be cleared up before Ms. Harper decides.

Non-religious ceremonies can happen, but they just won't be legally ordained. Would Ms. Harper prefer that it be explicitly mentioned? I mean, the provision guaranteeing the same rights to those in a marriage and a civil union seems to cover it (allowing ceremonies for both).
And as far as forced marriage, we gave CD the opportunity to sign onto this resolution, but we didn't wanna steal their idea. That's CD's resolution.

Geilinor wrote:Marriage is not necessarily a religious rite with restrictions as to who may partake in it. How do you think atheists marry? Yes, religion is an important part of marriage, but religion isn't inherent in marriage.

This is true. But at issue in the whole "gay marriage" issue is assigning the word "marriage" to things not ordained by a religion. So I gave the word "marriage" to religious people and said that all unions are "civil unions". That way, there's full separation of church and state, and there's no "redefinition of marriage" or whatever that argument is...

Brodskopolis wrote:"erection of these unions?" Might want to change the wording on that, just for the purpose of avoiding crude jokes. Maybe 'creation of these unions?' Furthermore, you should definitely include the fact that marriage can be a secular institution as well, and should allow persons married by justices of the peace or other such persons to be 'spouses' or 'partners,' depending on their own personal preferences. Also, possibly consider explicitly legalizing gay/lesbian marriage and/or civil unions.

Can't do that without impeding FoMA. And maybe. I kinda like it better when it's a crude joke. Kinda like a WA easter egg. :D

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:How exactly does this differ from Freedom of Marriage Act?

(unless that was repealed while I wasn't paying attention)

The way I understand FoMA, it only applies to ensuring that homosexual and heterosexual couples are treated equally, and pays no mind to any other kind of equality. That was the issue I took with FoMA.

Quelesh wrote:Like many others I support this idea. However, I think it should be possible for member states to not recognize any civil unions at all. Perhaps it would be possible to simply prohibit discrimination on any basis in the recognition of unions, which would allow states to not recognize any unions, but require those that do to recognize any unions without discimination.

Also, I am unhappy with the PROVIDES clause. I oppose allowing discrimination on the basis of familial relationship, and the second part of that clause is rendered unnecessary by the inclusion of the word "consenting" in the HEREBY and DECLARES clauses.

That was added as part of an earlier debate regarding this resolution. The age thing has been fixed, but the familial relationship thing...ehhh I guess it can be removed for now. Also, how do you mean that nations shouldn't allow ANY civil unions? Like...in the case of nations that don't have civil unions, marriage, or etc.?

Given these suggestions, the resolution has been updated. Any more comments are greatly appreciated.
Last edited by Quadrimmina on Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Kerrigan, Ambassador to the World Assembly from the Republic of Quadrimmina.
National Profile | Ambassadorial Profile | Quadrimmina Gazette-Post | Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

Authored:
GA#111 (Medical Research Ethics Act)
SC#28 (Commend Sionis Prioratus)
GA#197 (Banning Extrajudicial Transfer)

Co-authored:
GA#110 (Identity Theft Prevention Act)
GA#171 (Freedom in Medical Research)
GA#196 (Freedom of Information Act)

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:47 pm

Quadrimmina wrote:That was added as part of an earlier debate regarding this resolution. The age thing has been fixed, but the familial relationship thing...ehhh I guess it can be removed for now. Also, how do you mean that nations shouldn't allow ANY civil unions? Like...in the case of nations that don't have civil unions, marriage, or etc.?


Thanks for removing that clause! And I didn't mean that nations shouldn't allow civil unions. I meant that it should continue to be possible for a nation to have no legal institution of marriage.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Quadrimmina
Minister
 
Posts: 2080
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:50 pm

Quelesh wrote:
Quadrimmina wrote:That was added as part of an earlier debate regarding this resolution. The age thing has been fixed, but the familial relationship thing...ehhh I guess it can be removed for now. Also, how do you mean that nations shouldn't allow ANY civil unions? Like...in the case of nations that don't have civil unions, marriage, or etc.?


Thanks for removing that clause! And I didn't mean that nations shouldn't allow civil unions. I meant that it should continue to be possible for a nation to have no legal institution of marriage.

Since I know how much you loved my PROVIDES clause, does the new PROVIDES clause satisfy what you were mentioning? :P
Sincerely,
Alexandra Kerrigan, Ambassador to the World Assembly from the Republic of Quadrimmina.
National Profile | Ambassadorial Profile | Quadrimmina Gazette-Post | Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

Authored:
GA#111 (Medical Research Ethics Act)
SC#28 (Commend Sionis Prioratus)
GA#197 (Banning Extrajudicial Transfer)

Co-authored:
GA#110 (Identity Theft Prevention Act)
GA#171 (Freedom in Medical Research)
GA#196 (Freedom of Information Act)

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Imperium Anglorum, Marxist Germany, The Angel of Charity, The Knights Apprentice of Sargon Reman

Advertisement

Remove ads