Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:49 pm
I am fairly sure that was not what the esteemed representative meant. Although I do agree with you.NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[WITHDRAWN/ILLEGAL] International Marriage Accords
Page 3 of 23
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:49 pmPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:50 pmPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:53 pmFree 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.
I will accept the ENSURES clause, but cannot accept the strikeout because consent issues need to be addressed. If someone cannot legally provide consent, then a parent or guardian should be able to provide it for them as ordained in the member nation.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:53 pmAnd on another note, I am opposed to the addition to the act proposed by the Pangean Delegate.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:54 pmThe 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
-A statement from Her Excellency, Lady Ruliva Seraphima, Foreign Minister of Osthia and Her Dominions
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:56 pmOsthia 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
Thank you. Pending mod ruling, I think it's ready for a test vote.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:58 pmQuadrimmina 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.
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.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:59 pmOnly that I once again raise an objection to the ENSURES provision suggested by the Pangean Delegate.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:02 pmDizyntk wrote:Only that I once again raise an objection to the ENSURES provision suggested by the Pangean Delegate.
To allow annulment? What objection does your delegation have with such wording? Or with the wording that I have incorporated into the current draft?
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:02 pmPhing 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.
Do your citizens frequently find disdain in the happiness of others? Honored Ambassador, your citizens should mind their own business; if they don't plan on engaging in interspecial, or polygamous marriage, then it doesn't concern them, now does it?
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:03 pmPhing 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.
So if an interspecies couple arrives in Phing Phong and one of them is hospitalized in the ICU, the other shouldn't have visitation rights as granted to any other spouse?
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:05 pmTo 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.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:05 pmAlthough the Empire does not recognize any religious union, and will only recognize the Government approved Unions of two people. We do however, know that many countries have much different laws, and we will vote FOR this resolution.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:15 pmDizyntk 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.
I'll take it you're only against annulment because you think marriage is a religious thing.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:18 pmWiztopia 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.
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.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:22 pmDizyntk 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.
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?
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:23 pmWell, 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.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:24 pmPhing 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.
And if not polygamous, why homosexual, heterosexual, interracial, or any others, right?
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:25 pmQuadrimmina 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?
That would be much better. We do allow annulment in our nation, but one must prove that one's mate did something wrong or, to use business terms, violated a clause of the contract. So, yes, I think I could agree to that wording.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:27 pmDarenjo 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.
But...but...that's for "marriage". If we don't handle it, then the ensures clause will have to change to the following:
ENSURES that all references to "marriage" in international law until the passage of this resolution refers to "civil union" as defined in this resolution.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:27 pmDarenjo 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.
"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."
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:30 pmAlqania 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."
After scanning over the aformentioned resolution, we support the Alqanian Ambassador's reasoning and ask that the annulment clause be struck.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:31 pmBased 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.
ENSURES that all references to "marriage" in international law until the passage of this resolution refers to "civil unions" as defined in this resolution.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:37 pmQuadrimmina 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
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:42 pmAlqania 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
I love nitpicking, but I must nitpick a bit of my own. How is this?
CLARIFIES that all references to "marriage" in previous resolutions refer to "civil unions" as defined by this resolution.