[WITHDRAWN/ILLEGAL] International Marriage Accords

[Darenjo]

How exactly does this differ from Freedom of Marriage Act?

(unless that was repealed while I wasn't paying attention)

"Well, it finally gets rid of the annoying "Let's ban marriage!" loophole.

"Dr. Kerrigan, I appreciate you taking the time to consider my request. That being said, yes, Darenjo does recognize polygamous marriages that occured in other nations. However, Darenjon policy is:
- No citizen of Darenjo may be married (we don't use the term "civil union", even for legal purposes) to more than one person at once, or be part of a polygamous marriage involving non-Darenjons;

"We intend for it to stay that way - GA resolution or not. We have no problem engaging with nations that allow polygamous marriages, but we would ask the WA to not force polygamy on us."

- Dr. Park

[Quadrimmina]

How exactly does this differ from Freedom of Marriage Act?

(unless that was repealed while I wasn't paying attention)

"Well, it finally gets rid of the annoying "Let's ban marriage!" loophole.

"Dr. Kerrigan, I appreciate you taking the time to consider my request. That being said, yes, Darenjo does recognize polygamous marriages that occured in other nations. However, Darenjon policy is:
- No citizen of Darenjo may be married (we don't use the term "civil union", even for legal purposes) to more than one person at once, or be part of a polygamous marriage involving non-Darenjons;

"We intend for it to stay that way - GA resolution or not. We have no problem engaging with nations that allow polygamous marriages, but we would ask the WA to not force polygamy on us."

- Dr. Park

I understand. Well, let me start by saying that the issue with FoMA is it is overly specific, and thus only refers to ensuring that homosexual and heterosexual couples are equal. In doing so it completely passes over all other forms of inequality that can be imposed in marriage. As far as bigamy and polygamy, Dr. Park, we must note the ease by which a national of your nation can simply go to a different nation to get a polygamous union (let's not say "marriage" anymore ) and then return to Darenjo and have that recognized. And then there's the issues of permanent residents in your great nation. If these issues are addressed, then we think incorporation of your request would be satisfactory to us. The issue of polygamy is something somewhat important to us, but can be overlooked in the pursuit of the broader goal. Would the following language be satisfactory?:

DECLARES that any two 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 exceptions for the above declaration in the case that a member state refuses to execute any civil unions, as well as in the case that a member nation may by law choose to execute a civil union among more than two individuals, or be required to execute such unions by this body.

Allows member states to execute polygamous unions and leaves the door open for further WA resolutions.

[Quadrimmina]

Regarding FoMA, I refer you to the official signing statement, signed by Chancellor Ellen Forge, for our nation's official position.

Republic of Quadrimmina | Bureau of Archives
Office of Legislative Archives


Official Signing Statement
World Assembly Compliance Acknowledgment Act Number Fifteen

Upon review of the resolution at hand and the Article of Compliance presented to the Office of the Executive, I must address a concern with the World Assembly's so-called "Freedom of Marriage Act". All of the operative articles guaranteeing the right to marry are, as is well-known, already provided for in the Quadrimminan Constitution. However, it is very limiting It is a subtle limitation, but the article guaranteeing "non-discrimination" is very limited.

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.

Paragraph (a) is very clear in its rules. Homosexual and heterosexual couples must be treated equally. Paragraph (b) is much more subtle. It states that no state shall establish *different* conditions, etc, to unions of persons of the same or different sex. In other words, its wording, either intentionally or unintentionally, says that only conditions that differ between those of the same and different sex are banned. Paragraph (c) is in the same spirit. In other words, FoMA does a fantastic job in ensuring that homosexual and heterosexual unions are created equally, progress that is applauded by myself and the entirety of the Republic of Quadrimmina. However, it does very little for interracial, interspecies, or other unions that could be discriminated against. Its limited scope is barely worthy of such a lofty title as "Freedom of Marriage". As such, the Republic of Quadrimmina, in its compliance with FoMA, dissents with the resolution, and will take appropriate action in coordination with our office at the World Assembly to ensure passage of a more thorough Act. That being said, we do applaud this very miniscule step in the right direction. It is with this that this Acknowledgment of Compliance with World Assembly General Assembly Resolution #15 is hereby signed into law.

Signed,
Chancellor Ellen J. Forge
21st March 2010.

[Bears Armed]

Allows member states to execute polygamous unions

"Ur'rmm, isn't there rather obviously scope for the nastier governments around to deliberately mis-interpret this phrase?


In any case, Bears Armed will not approve a proposal that would -- as this one, in its current wording does -- require us to recognise as legal any marriages or civil unions between adults and children..."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Casta Nal]

Will vote for but a repeal of the FoMA will be tough one if this requires it.

[Flibbleites]

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.

"The debate started with another draft on interracial marriages, then it moved onwards to interspecies and possibly non-monogamous."

Isn't banning interracial marriages discriminating based on race and therefore illegal under the CoCR?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Anime Daisuki]

Looks like a sly attempt to legalize gay marriage.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Looks like a sly attempt to legalize gay marriage.

Which has always been legal per FOMA?

[Quadrimmina]

Allows member states to execute polygamous unions

"Ur'rmm, isn't there rather obviously scope for the nastier governments around to deliberately mis-interpret this phrase?


In any case, Bears Armed will not approve a proposal that would -- as this one, in its current wording does -- require us to recognise as legal any marriages or civil unions between adults and children..."

In the case that such a union is ordained by the age of majority of a member nation (which is, of course, governed by the Reasonable Nation Theory per mod ruling), and thus the party in the marriage can indeed legally consent to the union. And that's a good point. If the new language is approved, I'll change "execute".

Will vote for but a repeal of the FoMA will be tough one if this requires it.

True. That's an uphill battle I'm going to avoid at all costs. At least until this passes. Then, maybe.

"The debate started with another draft on interracial marriages, then it moved onwards to interspecies and possibly non-monogamous."

Isn't banning interracial marriages discriminating based on race and therefore illegal under the CoCR?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The way we look at it, separate but equal doctrines cover that. So long as racially segregated marriages are required equally among different races, then it's not technically a CoCR violation. This makes it explicit that that will not be tolerated.

Looks like a sly attempt to legalize gay marriage.

See the "Freedom of Marriage Act", which is already WA law.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"The debate started with another draft on interracial marriages, then it moved onwards to interspecies and possibly non-monogamous."

Isn't banning interracial marriages discriminating based on race and therefore illegal under the CoCR?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Yes, but like any good wankers, they inevitably stepped off the plantation into interspecies marriage and polygamy territory. That's apparently the new watchword of the World Assembly: alien rights and Free Warren Jeffs!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

A few problems with this project that will transcend issues with the text itself:

1) Seems sort of odd to have an interspecies marriage accord, without even a resolution in place protecting sapients' rights overall, doesn't it?
2) If voters aren't even willing to enact a sapients' rights act (and it's been tried and failed, multiple times), what makes you think they'll be all on board for interspecies-marriage rights?
3) It is going to be very hard to present this proposal in such a way that it does not seem like an amendment of Freedom of Marriage Act. You might be better off completely repealing and replacing the act. In which case, heh, good luck.
4) POLYGAMY?! Really??

[Southern Patriots]

Is the right to polygamous unions or marriage not yet protected by the WA?

[Darenjo]

Is the right to polygamous unions or marriage not yet protected by the WA?

No. It's not.

And we don't intend it to be.

[Southern Patriots]

Is the right to polygamous unions or marriage not yet protected by the WA?

No. It's not.

And we don't intend it to be.

Why are monogamous relationships entitled more rights and recognition? What is the difference between allowing homosexual civil unions and polygamous civil unions?

[Bears Armed]

2) If voters aren't even willing to enact a sapients' rights act (and it's been tried and failed, multiple times), what makes you think they'll be all on board for interspecies-marriage rights?

OOC: Speaking as somebody who really should get back to work on my own 'sapient rights' proposal and not let myself get side-tracked so much, even my nation wouldn't support interspecies-marriage rights. In fact, the most widespread responses when the news that legalising that was being suggested here reached the Bears' own legislature were "Ick..." and "Chaos!"

[Monikian WA Mission]

"Monkiah opposes, we feel that marriage laws are a national concern."

[Quadrimmina]

"Monkiah opposes, we feel that marriage laws are a national concern."

Ensuring that the rights of all individuals are protected by member nations, including the right to marry, is the concern of every citizen of the world.

[Phing Phong]

Opposed. We see no reason when correct provision already exists in the Freedom of Marriage Act.

[Quadrimmina]

Opposed. We see no reason when correct provision already exists in the Freedom of Marriage Act.

Did you even read that whole monologue about how FoMA only respects ensuring that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are equal? Of course, I have asked the noble moderators to weigh in, and when they do I shall proceed with the fit course of action.

[Wiztopia]

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

"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."

Against.

[Lealoria]

So does this Legalize Gay Marriage?

[Dizyntk]

So does this Legalize Gay Marriage?

Gay marriage was already legalized by FoMA

[Free Pangea]

I fully support this. I also a few small suggestions:

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 (or with the consent of a legal guardian in the case that one party cannot legally provide consent) 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.

ENSURES the right of individuals to get an annulment for any reason.

[Lealoria]

So does this Legalize Gay Marriage?

Gay marriage was already legalized by FoMA

That horrible

[Dizyntk]

Gay marriage was already legalized by FoMA

That horrible

How so?