[WITHDRAWN/ILLEGAL] International Marriage Accords

[Quadrimmina]

I don't think it's ever made it to vote before.

I'm sure it made it the first time. The 2nd time was removed only because it wasn't going to reach queue anyway.

If my memory serves me correctly, this was the third iteration. The first one failed quorum due to the fact that the vote was split by a rather foolish strategy on our part. The second one failed quorum because it was a test vote and no campaigning occurred. With a mounted campaign, this iteration reached quorum and beyond.

[Christian Democrats]

For the record, I just want to say that I was not the person who challenged this.

[Sanctaria]

For the record, I just want to say that I was not the person who challenged this.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Christian Democrats]

For the record, I just want to say that I was not the person who challenged this.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Unless someone comes forward, I know I'll be the most likely suspect.

[Alqania]

"I do not think it matters much who it was that made the legality challenge", Lord Raekevik opined. "The responsibility for a Secretariat ruling lies with the Secretariat, not with the Ambassador who requested it."

[Quadrimmina]

"I do not think it matters much who it was that made the legality challenge", Lord Raekevik opined. "The responsibility for a Secretariat ruling lies with the Secretariat, not with the Ambassador who requested it."

Agreed. The issue at stake is not who challenged the legality of this resolution, but rather objections I have with the ruling as a whole. Hence my delegation's challenge to the ruling. Although, it does lead me to one interesting point. I'd like to thank the delegation from Christian Democrats for making their opposition known. It is important to note that while whomever this is has not made vocal enough their insistence that this resolution is illegal, the delegation from Christian Democrats has been both forthcoming and straightforward for their reasons for objection. In doing so, they (and essentially all delegations involved in this debate) have allowed for an honest discourse on the subject and for all sides to be visible. It is in stark contrast to the bitter political theater that seems to have enveloped many Assembly proposals. I appreciate the civility of everyone involved, and wish that the person who requested the legality challenge had made themselves known, not to be slandered, but to have an open arena within which to discuss their opinion. For instance, if they had earlier, then I would have been able to address it before proposal, campaign, and quorum.

[Sanctaria]

"I do not think it matters much who it was that made the legality challenge", Lord Raekevik opined. "The responsibility for a Secretariat ruling lies with the Secretariat, not with the Ambassador who requested it."

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't care who requested it. I've just been looking for a reason to use that quip for the past few weeks.

[Quadrimmina]

UPDATE: Due to the response of the Secretariat to our appeal of their ruling, and with the support of our national government, our delegation has introduced a pilot program to repeal the "Freedom of Marriage Act" (GAR#15), with the intention of insta-replacing it with this resolution (if that is legal, I'm actually not sure about that). Both resolutions will be proposed in tandem and campaigned for in tandem.

Due to this, I will be changing this debate to be twofold, namely a debate both for the repeal of FoMA and for the passage of IMA. Since the repeal of FoMA would have consequences for the language that IMA uses, (as noted by the delegation from Christian Democrats), we will be opening debate as to the language used by IMA with regard to civil unions vs. marriage. We look forward to spirited debate on these resolutions.

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

APPLAUDING the progress represented in marriage rights guaranteed by GAR#15 ("Freedom of Marriage Act").

PLEASED that in this World Assembly, marriage rights have been granted such that same-sex couples have the same marriage rights as opposite-sex couples.

HOWEVER, BELIEVING that this affordance of freedom does not go far enough in ensuring the rights of other prospective families.

NOTING that member nations can still refuse marriage to individuals on the basis of race and species, amongst other unnecessarily reductive classifications.

LAMENTING that the only way to achieve equality for these individuals as well is to reverse the progress we have made thus far.

HOPING that a further resolution on marriage will address the inequities still present in member nations.

HEREBY REPEALS GAR#15 ("Freedom of Marriage Act") and considers its provisions null and void.

We have reservations about repealing FoMA (namely that a replacement may not go through), but look forward to spirited debate on this topic.

[Mousebumples]

Due to this, I will be changing this debate to be twofold, namely a debate both for the repeal of FoMA and for the passage of IMA. Since the repeal of FoMA would have consequences for the language that IMA uses, (as noted by the delegation from Christian Democrats), we will be opening debate as to the language used by IMA with regard to civil unions vs. marriage. We look forward to spirited debate on these resolutions.

For clarity (and for those that don't wish to go through all of the previous 23 pages of this debate), might I suggest starting two NEW threads for your upcoming endeavor? i.e. One for the repeal and One for the replacement (which will likely borrow heavily from this proposal's text). I would think that the mods would be willing to (temporarily) lock this thread and perhaps merge the replacement with this thread, should the replacement make it to a vote.

[Quadrimmina]

Due to this, I will be changing this debate to be twofold, namely a debate both for the repeal of FoMA and for the passage of IMA. Since the repeal of FoMA would have consequences for the language that IMA uses, (as noted by the delegation from Christian Democrats), we will be opening debate as to the language used by IMA with regard to civil unions vs. marriage. We look forward to spirited debate on these resolutions.

For clarity (and for those that don't wish to go through all of the previous 23 pages of this debate), might I suggest starting two NEW threads for your upcoming endeavor? i.e. One for the repeal and One for the replacement (which will likely borrow heavily from this proposal's text). I would think that the mods would be willing to (temporarily) lock this thread and perhaps merge the replacement with this thread, should the replacement make it to a vote.

I shall. Thank you for the suggestion.

[Mousebumples]

For clarity (and for those that don't wish to go through all of the previous 23 pages of this debate), might I suggest starting two NEW threads for your upcoming endeavor? i.e. One for the repeal and One for the replacement (which will likely borrow heavily from this proposal's text). I would think that the mods would be willing to (temporarily) lock this thread and perhaps merge the replacement with this thread, should the replacement make it to a vote.

I shall. Thank you for the suggestion.

No worries. If you're starting out with a provisional draft, you may want to insert "editing notes" (or, at least, footnotes) over some particularly contentious pieces to reference any specific arguments, etc., that may have arisen in this thread that some of us (*cough cough* like myself) didn't read since we may have presumed that a FoMA duplication was likely. And, you know, that whole not wanting to get dragged into another culture war. I mean, between baby penises and abortion and prostitution and now capital punishment, a guy can't walk two feet without tripping over some highly contentious topic.

I wish you luck in your endeavors as - honestly - I wouldn't mind seeing FoMA being replaced with a stronger resolution that better asserts the rights and protections of all adults who wish to enter into a consensual marriage. I cannot and will not guarantee my support, however, for either endeavor until the debate process has reached a conclusion and the final products can be judged upon their merits.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Sionis Prioratus]

With all due respect to the very much esteemed ambassador from Quadriminna, we have been, we are and we shall forever be AGAINST any repeal attempt against FOMA, no matter how well-meaning and articulate it might be, if only because Your Excellency has no means of guaranteeing that the following will not happen:

1) Christian fascists and associates help strike down FOMA.
2) Christian fascists and associates help vote down any so-called "perfected FOMA". Gays and lesbians are thrown into the abyss once more.

Mind you, FOMA was passed at far more liberal times, at only 56%.

There is too much at stake. This is a no-go, as far as we are concerned, and we gently and friendly advise that the Quadrimminian delegation would serenely drop the matter altogether.

Yours,

[Quadrimmina]

I shall. Thank you for the suggestion.

No worries. If you're starting out with a provisional draft, you may want to insert "editing notes" (or, at least, footnotes) over some particularly contentious pieces to reference any specific arguments, etc., that may have arisen in this thread that some of us (*cough cough* like myself) didn't read since we may have presumed that a FoMA duplication was likely. And, you know, that whole not wanting to get dragged into another culture war. I mean, between baby penises and abortion and prostitution and now capital punishment, a guy can't walk two feet without tripping over some highly contentious topic.

I wish you luck in your endeavors as - honestly - I wouldn't mind seeing FoMA being replaced with a stronger resolution that better asserts the rights and protections of all adults who wish to enter into a consensual marriage. I cannot and will not guarantee my support, however, for either endeavor until the debate process has reached a conclusion and the final products can be judged upon their merits.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

Ambassador Eberhart, I thank you for your advice and your assistance. It was invaluable.

[Quadrimmina]

I request that this thread be locked, and that further debate occur on these threads. Thank you very much.

Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
International Marriage Accords