It didn't allow for polygamous gay marriage!
Advertisement
by Southern Patriots » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:49 pm
Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.
by Dizyntk » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:50 pm
by Quadrimmina » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:53 pm
Free Pangea wrote: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.
by Dizyntk » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:53 pm
by Osthia » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:54 pm
by Quadrimmina » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:56 pm
Osthia wrote:The Constitutional Empire of Osthia is in full support of this resolution draft, and we wish it best of luck for the future.
-A statement from Her Excellency, Lady Ruliva Seraphima, Foreign Minister of Osthia and Her Dominions
by Phing Phong » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:58 pm
Quadrimmina wrote:Phing Phong wrote: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.
by Dizyntk » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:59 pm
by Quadrimmina » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:02 pm
Dizyntk wrote:Only that I once again raise an objection to the ENSURES provision suggested by the Pangean Delegate.
by Connopolis » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:02 pm
Phing Phong wrote:Quadrimmina wrote: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.
Yes, and do not feel that there is the need for polygamous unions to be recognised under law. Many citizens of Phing Phong would be unhappy for the WA to foist recognition of interspecies or polygamous marriage upon us.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Quadrimmina » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:03 pm
Phing Phong wrote:Quadrimmina wrote: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.
Yes, and do not feel that there is the need for polygamous unions to be recognised under law. Many citizens of Phing Phong would be unhappy for the WA to foist recognition of interspecies or polygamous marriage upon us.
by Dizyntk » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:05 pm
by Timurid Empire » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:05 pm
by Wiztopia » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:15 pm
Dizyntk wrote:Quadrimmina wrote:To allow annulment? What objection does your delegation have with such wording? Or with the wording that I have incorporated into the current draft?
To allow an anullement of a marriage for ANY reason sets a very bad precedent. A marriage is, among other things, a contractual agreement in many nations. Saying that you may annul said contract for any or even no reason seems to make the entire institution of marriage trite and irrellevant.
by Dizyntk » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:18 pm
Wiztopia wrote:Dizyntk wrote:To allow an anullement of a marriage for ANY reason sets a very bad precedent. A marriage is, among other things, a contractual agreement in many nations. Saying that you may annul said contract for any or even no reason seems to make the entire institution of marriage trite and irrellevant.
I'll take it you're only against annulment because you think marriage is a religious thing.
by Quadrimmina » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:22 pm
Dizyntk wrote:Wiztopia wrote:
I'll take it you're only against annulment because you think marriage is a religious thing.
I am not against anullment per se. I am against allowing for any reason that someone might come up with. That would be like signing a contract and then deciding one day that you didn't want to do what the contract specified just because you didn't feel like it.
by Darenjo » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:23 pm
by Southern Patriots » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:24 pm
Phing Phong wrote:Quadrimmina wrote: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.
Yes, and do not feel that there is the need for polygamous unions to be recognised under law. Many citizens of Phing Phong would be unhappy for the WA to foist recognition of interspecies or polygamous marriage upon us.
Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.
by Dizyntk » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:25 pm
Quadrimmina wrote:Dizyntk wrote:I am not against anullment per se. I am against allowing for any reason that someone might come up with. That would be like signing a contract and then deciding one day that you didn't want to do what the contract specified just because you didn't feel like it.
Well, you may not be against annullment, but some nations actually are. And the right to divorce should be protected in those nations, no? How about if it's for a "compelling, practical reason"? Is that agreeable?
by Quadrimmina » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Darenjo wrote:Quadrimmina wrote:To allow annulment? What objection does your delegation have with such wording? Or with the wording that I have incorporated into the current draft?
Well, seeing as we already had a divorce resolution, and since we deal with nations, not religions, we must concur with Dizyntk.
EDIT: Sorry - we have "Right to a Lawful Divorce". We don't need annulments.
by Alqania » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Darenjo wrote:Quadrimmina wrote:To allow annulment? What objection does your delegation have with such wording? Or with the wording that I have incorporated into the current draft?
Well, seeing as we already had a divorce resolution, and since we deal with nations, not religions, we must concur with Dizyntk.
by Dizyntk » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:30 pm
Alqania wrote:Darenjo wrote:
Well, seeing as we already had a divorce resolution, and since we deal with nations, not religions, we must concur with Dizyntk.
"To clarify, in case any Ambassador is wondering, the divorce resolution is #39 The Right to a Lawful Divorce. The Queendom believes that resolution has sufficient provisions and we are against including an annulment clause in this proposal."
by Quadrimmina » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:31 pm
by Alqania » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:37 pm
Quadrimmina wrote:Based on the introduction of GAR#39 into the mix, the clause regarding annulment will be removed and replaced with the following:
ENSURES that all references to "marriage" in international law until the passage of this resolution refers to "civil unions" as defined in this resolution.
by Quadrimmina » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:42 pm
Alqania wrote:Quadrimmina wrote:Based on the introduction of GAR#39 into the mix, the clause regarding annulment will be removed and replaced with the following:
ENSURES that all references to "marriage" in international law until the passage of this resolution refers to "civil unions" as defined in this resolution.
"If Your Excellency would allow a bit of nit-picking, I suggest:"
CLARIFIES that all references to "marriage" in previously passed resolutions shall apply also to "civil unions" for the purposes of this act
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Namwenia
Advertisement