NATION

PASSWORD

[SUSPENDED] 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

[SUSPENDED] International Marriage Accords

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:57 pm

Update: This resolution has been deemed illegal per mod ruling. In the case of FoMA repeal or ability to repeal/replace instantaneously, we will propose this language.
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.


Among the topics brought up for discussion that I'd like to bring up for the purpose of debate is whether international law should refer to the civil recognition of marriage as "marriage" or "civil unions". (Note subsection 1(c) already allows nations to denote the two entities defined as whatever they want.) Although, any topic may be discussed in the realm of this proposal. Thank you to all delegations for your patience and I look forward to addressing any questions or concerns you may have.

Further note: This debate should be conducted as FoMA has been repealed. The merits of a FoMA repeal and replace should be discussed in the thread for the repeal of FoMA, available here.
Last edited by Quadrimmina on Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:56 pm, edited 6 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
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8412
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:01 pm

I'm sure you're up against a character count but - keeping in mind that I'm viewing this proposal as if FoMA no longer exists, etc. - would be appropriate to add stipulations with regards to domestic partnership agreements and/or civil unions? Or do you feel that they would fit under your definition of marriage?

I would hate for a nation to be able to subvert the merits of this proposal by not allowing Government-Recognized Marriage but by allowing civil unions and/or partnership agreements ... to anyone, mind you, provided that their partner meets specific criteria.

I may have further comments after greater consideration of this subject.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Anarchy

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:09 pm

Where is the combination of FoMA and CoCR so deficient that this is any way, shape or form needed?

Yours in despair,
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

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

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:13 pm

Mousebumples wrote:I'm sure you're up against a character count but - keeping in mind that I'm viewing this proposal as if FoMA no longer exists, etc. - would be appropriate to add stipulations with regards to domestic partnership agreements and/or civil unions? Or do you feel that they would fit under your definition of marriage?

I would hate for a nation to be able to subvert the merits of this proposal by not allowing Government-Recognized Marriage but by allowing civil unions and/or partnership agreements ... to anyone, mind you, provided that their partner meets specific criteria.

I may have further comments after greater consideration of this subject.

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

We feel as though the definition is appropriate because it refers to "political or cultural equivalents" of marriage. Domestic partnership agreements and civil unions appear to fall under this category. If this language is insufficient to the honored Ambassador, however, would you object to perhaps informing me as to what suitable replacement language you would propose?
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
Quadrimmina
Minister
 
Posts: 2080
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:16 pm

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Where is the combination of FoMA and CoCR so deficient that this is any way, shape or form needed?

Yours in despair,

CoCR is not an end-all. In our interpretation, CoCR prevents discrimination of individuals, but not based on the comparison of two individuals. For instance, you can't let one race marry but not let another. However, you can discriminate who marries who.
Last edited by Quadrimmina on Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:25 pm, edited 2 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
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Anarchy

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:24 pm

Quadrimmina wrote:
Sionis Prioratus wrote:Where is the combination of FoMA and CoCR so deficient that this is any way, shape or form needed?

Yours in despair,

CoCR is not an end-all. In our interpretation, CoCR prevents discrimination of individuals, but not based on the comparison of two individuals. For instance, you can't let one race marry but not let another. However, you can discriminate who marries who.


Not quite the exhaustive list that I expected, which is certainly a letdown.

Which is a relief, since I believe that this issue can be solved over a thorough reading or CoCR:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 35

The Charter of Civil Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Urgench

Description: Hailing the work in furtherance of personal freedom already achieved by the World Assembly and,

Recognising this work as the preeminent task of civilisation and,

Seeking to augment this,

The World Assembly,

Requires W.A. member states to fairly and equally enact and enforce the following articles,

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

d ) Member states are enjoined to counteract ignorance and prejudice, and are urged to create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity.

e ) The application of both emergency legal measures and Martial law during periods of national crisis must also respect the provisions of this resolution.


Article 2.

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

b ) Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states.

c ) Member states shall actively work towards eliminating criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice based on cultural or societal differences.

d ) Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states.

Votes For: 3,076
Votes Against: 1,513

Implemented: Fri Feb 6 2009

Yours,
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

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

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:28 pm

Sionis Prioratus wrote:
Quadrimmina wrote:CoCR is not an end-all. In our interpretation, CoCR prevents discrimination of individuals, but not based on the comparison of two individuals. For instance, you can't let one race marry but not let another. However, you can discriminate who marries who.


Not quite the exhaustive list that I expected, which is certainly a letdown.

Which is a relief, since I believe that this issue can be solved over a thorough reading or CoCR:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 35

The Charter of Civil Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Urgench

Description: Hailing the work in furtherance of personal freedom already achieved by the World Assembly and,

Recognising this work as the preeminent task of civilisation and,

Seeking to augment this,

The World Assembly,

Requires W.A. member states to fairly and equally enact and enforce the following articles,

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

d ) Member states are enjoined to counteract ignorance and prejudice, and are urged to create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity.

e ) The application of both emergency legal measures and Martial law during periods of national crisis must also respect the provisions of this resolution.


Article 2.

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

b ) Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states.

c ) Member states shall actively work towards eliminating criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice based on cultural or societal differences.

d ) Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states.

Votes For: 3,076
Votes Against: 1,513

Implemented: Fri Feb 6 2009

Yours,

I would like to repeat an argument I have made in the thread for my FoMA repeal.
The issue herein is best explained in the following way: CoCR prevents individuals from being discriminated against. However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations. As I said in the debate on IMA very recently, you can't let one race marry and not another, but you can regulate that only certain races marry other certain races. It becomes much more practically necessary when procreation is considered (for instance, that could be considered a compelling practical purpose to deny interspecies marriages). Interracial, interspecies, and interfaith marriages, exogamous and endogamous marriages, so many different kinds of marriages would be legal by this standard that would not necessarily be under FoMA. It also establishes consent standards for marriage and marriage rights portability.

While you are right that individual rights are granted to prevent discrimination, not only does that not apply in the case of the rights to form a covenant with another person (separate but equal, "you can only marry someone of your own race"), but things such as interspecies marriage could be prohibited due to "compelling practical purposes" (i.e. inability to procreate). That's why FoMA was necessary in the first place. CoCR would not have preempted FoMA.
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
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Anarchy

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:36 pm

Quadrimmina wrote:I would like to repeat an argument I have made in the thread for my FoMA repeal.
The issue herein is best explained in the following way: CoCR prevents individuals from being discriminated against. However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations. As I said in the debate on IMA very recently, you can't let one race marry and not another, but you can regulate that only certain races marry other certain races. It becomes much more practically necessary when procreation is considered (for instance, that could be considered a compelling practical purpose to deny interspecies marriages). Interracial, interspecies, and interfaith marriages, exogamous and endogamous marriages, so many different kinds of marriages would be legal by this standard that would not necessarily be under FoMA. It also establishes consent standards for marriage and marriage rights portability.

While you are right that individual rights are granted to prevent discrimination, not only does that not apply in the case of the rights to form a covenant with another person (separate but equal, "you can only marry someone of your own race"), but things such as interspecies marriage could be prohibited due to "compelling practical purposes" (i.e. inability to procreate). That's why FoMA was necessary in the first place. CoCR would not have preempted FoMA.


I shall resign myself to repeat myself:

Sionis Prioratus wrote:
Quadrimmina wrote:However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations.


That argument is illogical, therefore false, and quite frankly beneath Your Excellency's intelligence.

A is a black male.
B is a white female.
A cannot marry B, because A is black and B is white.
However, A could marry B if only B was black.

How in Gods' name is that NOT race discrimination?

Yours not believing,


As for putting interracial, as well as gay and lesbian families in jeopardy just because a man wants to marry a bitch (canine) is beyond appalling, maddening, reprehensible, etc. This is a disgraceful day to this World Assembly.

Yours,
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

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

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:54 pm

I must note that I have heard the concerns of my fellow ambassadors in this matter. While it pains me to say this, it would appear that in the pursuit of protection of the “Freedom of Marriage Act”, my fellow ambassadors have to many degrees lost sight of what makes this Assembly so great. It is our ability to draw consensus that makes this such an august body. Sure, it’s a festering snakepit, sure there’s disagreement and politics, sure there are times when issues come about that really make you want to die. However, when it counts, we have gotten together and affected real change. We have protected the rights of individuals, we have worked for the collective good, and we have tirelessly sought justice for the citizens of all of our nations. Every proposal is a nation’s take on how to do this. Our delegation and our nation saw many inequities in the way that some governments work with respect to marriage. We still see those inequities to this day. However, we share the concerns of many that the “Freedom of Marriage Act” does offer protections to a much-needed group of individuals (even though the argument that a FoMA repeal would prevent such protections goes staunchly against any argument that CoCR provides sufficient protections). I am sorry to have kicked up so much dirt in this Assembly, but know that it was in pursuit of a noble cause. I hope to continue fighting for this cause, and in the event that this is possible we will surely and dogmatically pursue this fight. However, it would appear that now is not the time or the place. If this situation shall ever arise, our delegation stands at the ready to work with those of other nations. However, as it stands, it appears that current law will hold. Our delegation refuses to waste the time of the Assembly further with this matter, and will therefore be withdrawing our resolutions related to marriage from consideration indefinitely. Thank you to all nations, supporters and detractors, for making your positions known. We look forward to working with you further in this Assembly, to make the world a better place to live in and to ensure a more vibrant tomorrow. We will be continuing this fight, one resolution at a time, in accordance with our agenda and national and international law. However, we do note that this is not the avenue with which to go forward, and concede that these resolutions shall be considered withdrawn in favor of pursuing other items on our international agenda. Thank you.
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
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Anarchy

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:57 pm

Quadrimmina wrote:I must note that I have heard the concerns of my fellow ambassadors in this matter. While it pains me to say this, it would appear that in the pursuit of protection of the “Freedom of Marriage Act”, my fellow ambassadors have to many degrees lost sight of what makes this Assembly so great. It is our ability to draw consensus that makes this such an august body. Sure, it’s a festering snakepit, sure there’s disagreement and politics, sure there are times when issues come about that really make you want to die. However, when it counts, we have gotten together and affected real change. We have protected the rights of individuals, we have worked for the collective good, and we have tirelessly sought justice for the citizens of all of our nations. Every proposal is a nation’s take on how to do this. Our delegation and our nation saw many inequities in the way that some governments work with respect to marriage. We still see those inequities to this day. However, we share the concerns of many that the “Freedom of Marriage Act” does offer protections to a much-needed group of individuals (even though the argument that a FoMA repeal would prevent such protections goes staunchly against any argument that CoCR provides sufficient protections). I am sorry to have kicked up so much dirt in this Assembly, but know that it was in pursuit of a noble cause. I hope to continue fighting for this cause, and in the event that this is possible we will surely and dogmatically pursue this fight. However, it would appear that now is not the time or the place. If this situation shall ever arise, our delegation stands at the ready to work with those of other nations. However, as it stands, it appears that current law will hold. Our delegation refuses to waste the time of the Assembly further with this matter, and will therefore be withdrawing our resolutions related to marriage from consideration indefinitely. Thank you to all nations, supporters and detractors, for making your positions known. We look forward to working with you further in this Assembly, to make the world a better place to live in and to ensure a more vibrant tomorrow. We will be continuing this fight, one resolution at a time, in accordance with our agenda and national and international law. However, we do note that this is not the avenue with which to go forward, and concede that these resolutions shall be considered withdrawn in favor of pursuing other items on our international agenda. Thank you.


I thank Your Excellency on this thread as well.

Yours still relieved,
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

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

Postby Quelesh » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:31 am

I am certain that Ambassador Saint-Clair is well-intentioned, but I would encourage my colleague from Quadrimmina to not let Ambassador Saint-Clair's criticisms dissuade her from this project. As disappointed as I am by the recent Secretariat ruling, I think that this is still a worthwhile project.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador
"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 » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:39 am

Quelesh wrote:I am certain that Ambassador Saint-Clair is well-intentioned, but I would encourage my colleague from Quadrimmina to not let Ambassador Saint-Clair's criticisms dissuade her from this project. As disappointed as I am by the recent Secretariat ruling, I think that this is still a worthwhile project.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

I agree, and while suspension is in our mind not the same as withdrawal (I should make that clear in the title), we feel that this isn't the right time to proceed. This proposal will stand at the ready in the event that FoMA is repealed, or in the event that the recent discussion in changing Assembly procedures (R&R) will allow us to propose this resolution without compromising the rights already granted by the Assembly. Thank you for your support, advice, and encouragement throughout this entire project, Ambassador Yadoru. It was invaluable, and has not gone unnoticed.
Last edited by Quadrimmina on Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:40 am, 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)


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads