NATION

PASSWORD

[On Hold] Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Zaklen
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 443
Founded: Jun 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

[On Hold] Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

Postby Zaklen » Wed May 02, 2012 12:37 pm

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent of GAR #15, "Freedom of Marriage Act",

WISHING for the ideas contained within said act to be maintained,

NOTING, however, that the act only prevents discrimination in marriage based on sexuality or gender,

BELIEVING that improvements can be made in this area,

REPEALS GAR #15, "Freedom of Marriage Act".


Note: I only intend to submit this if the proposal I am still in the process of writing, which is blocked by this act, looks like it will pass quickly.
Last edited by Zaklen on Thu May 03, 2012 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Peter Zyvex
Supreme Ruler of Zaklen
______________________________
Religion brings out both the best and the worst in humanity. Obviously, I strive to be an example of it bringing out the best.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9250
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Wed May 02, 2012 1:45 pm

Zaklen wrote:
The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent of GAR #15, "Freedom of Marriage Act",

WISHING for the ideas contained within said act to be maintained,

NOTING, however, that the act only prevents discrimination in marriage based on sexuality or gender,

BELIEVING that improvements can be made in this area,

REPEALS GAR #15, "Freedom of Marriage Act".


Note: I only intend to submit this if the proposal I am still in the process of writing, which is blocked by this act, looks like it will pass quickly.

You could actually include an argument rather than just saying it could be made better.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Wed May 02, 2012 1:57 pm

Nigel slams his head on his desk.

Oh not this again.
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Wed May 02, 2012 3:46 pm

Image

Oh and I can debunk your argument in four letters, CoCR.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
Viens
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 13
Founded: Apr 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Viens » Wed May 02, 2012 3:52 pm

Without elaboration, this proposal is, in a nutshell, pointless.

Sincerely,
Representative Abraham Weiss

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1623
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Goobergunchia » Wed May 02, 2012 5:27 pm

We cannot support a repeal in favor of a replacement that has not even been laid before this body.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

User avatar
Embolalia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1670
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Embolalia » Wed May 02, 2012 5:31 pm

I'm sorry, but did I miss the bit in FoMA where it says we can't ensure marriage equality on other fronts? Could you point that bit out for me? No? That's probably because it isn't there.

-Gwaredd LLwyd
Lieutenant WA Ambassador for Embolalia
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Bible quote? No, that's just common sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia

Gafin Gower, Prime minister
E. Rory Hywel, Ambassador to the World Assembly
Gwaredd LLwyd, Lieutenant Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author: GA#95, GA#107, GA#132, GA#185
Philimbesi wrote:Repeal, resign, or relax.

Embassy Exchange
EBC News
My mostly worthless blog
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
@marcmack wrote:I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water & dirt. Also, not sure where to put it."

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Wed May 02, 2012 5:45 pm

Embolalia wrote:I'm sorry, but did I miss the bit in FoMA where it says we can't ensure marriage equality on other fronts? Could you point that bit out for me? No? That's probably because it isn't there.

-Gwaredd LLwyd
Lieutenant WA Ambassador for Embolalia


"While the Queendom agrees with Your Excellency, this Secretariat ruling should be taken into consideration", Lord Raekevik pointed out.

Flibbleites wrote:Oh and I can debunk your argument in four letters, CoCR.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


"Unfortunately, the Charter of Civil Rights does not mean that polyamorous people have marriage rights in member states", Lord Raekevik asserted. "Although since I have not seen the alleged replacement planned here, I cannot tell whether that is what the author intends to address."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Zaklen
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 443
Founded: Jun 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaklen » Wed May 02, 2012 6:10 pm

The replacement I have planned is rather complicated, and is not ready for the floor yet. I should have it ready in the next couple of hours, so, at latest, it will be proposed tomorrow morning. As for my reason behind repealing this, "Freedom of Marriage Act" mandates non-discrimination of couples based on gender or sexual orientation. While this does not conflict directly with what I am drafting, if #15 were to be repealed, my proposal would have a significant hole in it. In order to avoid something very close to a house of cards violation, I need "Freedom of Marriage Act" repealed, so that I can avoid a duplication violation, and keep my proposal solid.

Like I have stated, I will not get serious about repealing #15 until my proposal has gained at least moderate support, as I wish to avoid a situation in which an important piece of legislation has been repealed, and ambassadors scramble to replace it, resulting in shoddy legislation.
- Peter Zyvex
Supreme Ruler of Zaklen
______________________________
Religion brings out both the best and the worst in humanity. Obviously, I strive to be an example of it bringing out the best.

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

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Wed May 02, 2012 7:52 pm

Over my dead body.

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
Of the Quendi
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14986
Founded: Mar 18, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Of the Quendi » Thu May 03, 2012 7:53 am

"The embassy of Aman is always happy to replace flawed proposals with better ones, but since GAR#15 does not apply to Aman, as the centralized government does not marry people by civil contract, we shall abstain on this issue for the time being." The Lady Malréd responded.
Nation RP name
Arda i Eruhíni (short form)
Alcarinqua ar Meneldëa Arda i Eruhíni i sé Amanaranyë ar Aramanaranyë (long form)

1st runner-up of Best High Fantasy RPer of 2014

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

Postby Quadrimmina » Tue May 08, 2012 10:32 pm

The Republic of Quadrimmina will gladly lend its support to this measure in favor of our own proposed replacement for the Freedom of Marriage Act. While we have reservations about the repeal of FoMA (namely the possibility of more stringent marriage resolutions being passed), we are equally concerned about the international status of interracial, interspecies, polygamous, and other marriages denied by member states due to reductive classifications. Our legal scholars have attempted to apply FoMA and CoCR criteria to this matter, but can only come up with the fact that CoCR, while ensuring that people are not discriminated against based on reductive classifications, does not ensure that two or more individuals cannot be denied the right to wed because of a difference in their traits that are based on reductive classifications, nor can they be denied that right based on number of individuals. It is in this mind that we support this repeal.
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
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Wed May 09, 2012 5:26 am

Alqania wrote:"Unfortunately, the Charter of Civil Rights does not mean that polyamorous people have marriage rights in member states", Lord Raekevik asserted. "Although since I have not seen the alleged replacement planned here, I cannot tell whether that is what the author intends to address."

Quadrimmina wrote:Our legal scholars have attempted to apply FoMA and CoCR criteria to this matter, but can only come up with the fact that CoCR, while ensuring that people are not discriminated against based on reductive classifications, does not ensure that two or more individuals cannot be denied the right to wed because of a difference in their traits that are based on reductive classifications, nor can they be denied that right based on number of individuals. It is in this mind that we support this repeal.

"With the greatest respect, we are unsure of whether such a stance is reasonable? If something is discriminated based on something manifested from a reductive classification, surely it is from that reductive classification that they are discriminated against?" Lord Whittingrey queried. "Furthermore, insofar as we can make out, if 1(c) of The Charter of Civil Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of pretty much anything; we cannot find any reasonable non-prejudicial treatment which could disallow civil unions. Therefore, while we think that CoCR covers all the discrimination that needs to be covered; we are not entirely convinced that a repeal is necessary, although if it is impossible to write a decent proposal without duplication we may be happy to vote in favour of this repeal." He paused.
"Furthermore, again," Lord Whittingrey continued, "we are curious as to why the Republic of Quadrimmina is in support of this repeal for the purpose of supporting a withdrawn illegal proposal? Will Quadrimmina be redrafting their proposal?"
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

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

Postby Quadrimmina » Wed May 09, 2012 7:41 am

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:
Alqania wrote:"Unfortunately, the Charter of Civil Rights does not mean that polyamorous people have marriage rights in member states", Lord Raekevik asserted. "Although since I have not seen the alleged replacement planned here, I cannot tell whether that is what the author intends to address."

Quadrimmina wrote:Our legal scholars have attempted to apply FoMA and CoCR criteria to this matter, but can only come up with the fact that CoCR, while ensuring that people are not discriminated against based on reductive classifications, does not ensure that two or more individuals cannot be denied the right to wed because of a difference in their traits that are based on reductive classifications, nor can they be denied that right based on number of individuals. It is in this mind that we support this repeal.

"With the greatest respect, we are unsure of whether such a stance is reasonable? If something is discriminated based on something manifested from a reductive classification, surely it is from that reductive classification that they are discriminated against?" Lord Whittingrey queried. "Furthermore, insofar as we can make out, if 1(c) of The Charter of Civil Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of pretty much anything; we cannot find any reasonable non-prejudicial treatment which could disallow civil unions. Therefore, while we think that CoCR covers all the discrimination that needs to be covered; we are not entirely convinced that a repeal is necessary, although if it is impossible to write a decent proposal without duplication we may be happy to vote in favour of this repeal." He paused.
"Furthermore, again," Lord Whittingrey continued, "we are curious as to why the Republic of Quadrimmina is in support of this repeal for the purpose of supporting a withdrawn illegal proposal? Will Quadrimmina be redrafting their proposal?"

Our argument is that while CoCR prohibits discrimination of individuals on the basis of certain classifications, the discrimination of two or more individuals on the basis of not sharing the same type of those classifications may still be allowable. For instance, take an interracial couple. Neither one of them can be discriminated against due to race. But, could their marriage still be prohibited? Sure. Interracial marriage can be illegal so long as it is legal for everyone. Also, CoCR makes no guarantees with respect to polygamous marriage, even if our prior assertion is wrong.

And the withdrawn/illegal proposal is only illegal due to FoMA's existence. FoMA's repeal would make our proposal legal.
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: Dirty Americans, May Suotadana, Paxtowns

Advertisement

Remove ads