[PASSED] Repeal "Marriage Equality"

[The Atlae Isles]

OOC: Things have been repealed for less. Spell check is free. People should use it.

OOC: The spirit and values of marriage equality behind the resolution in question are of more value to me than the need to correct spelling mistakes. So no. I won’t be supporting its repeal. Doing so will only encourgae homophobic reactionary factions in the GA. The “noble” idea of repealing it in the hopes of replacing it with a better-written resolution will be for naught.

Think of the spelling issues as a symptom of a much larger problem.

The spelling mistakes happened due to no drafting process, which is normally necessary because try as you might, it is nearly impossible to make a perfect resolution without peer review, some of the flaws have already been discussed.

[Fauxia]

“Not only do we hate the target probable-resolution, but we agree with almost all of this resolution. For, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for! FOR!

[States of Glory WA Office]

“Not only do we hate the target probable-resolution, but we agree with almost all of this resolution. For, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for! FOR!

Fairburn: Calm down, Ambassador. You're not playing golf.

[Fauxia]

“Not only do we hate the target probable-resolution, but we agree with almost all of this resolution. For, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for! FOR!

Fairburn: Calm down, Ambassador. You're not playing golf.

OoC:

[Bananaistan]

I’m opposed to this but this post is all OOC because teh rules

1) Restatement of the rules of the GA is not necessary in a repeal.

2) COCR does not absolutely protect same sex marriage. This contention in the repeal draft falls within the honest mistake rule IMO.

3) The resolution can be holistically interpreted despite the spelling mistake. I’d be concerned that this is also an honest mistake.

4) The pompous language.

5) The same non-issue with COCR is mentioned twice.

[Willania Imperium]

“This isn’t about your ideology. This is about preventing disastrous legislation from staying in the WA. What do to have against IA!?”

IA, otherwise known as Mrs. Democracy Nature Retard to us, is nothing other than a backwards society trying to impose its views on others

“No. This is about trying to stop the constipated remains of prose from being displayed as Shakespearean writings.”

Repealing for a 3 letter mistake. Get real.

“Ah, look at that. The Keshiland ambassador. Let me guess. You’re going to call us “homophobes” for supporting this repeal?”

OOC: Things have been repealed for less. Spell check is free. People should use it.

OOC: The spirit and values of marriage equality behind the resolution in question are of more value to me than the need to correct spelling mistakes. So no. I won’t be supporting its repeal. Doing so will only encourgae homophobic reactionary factions in the GA. The “noble” idea of repealing it in the hopes of replacing it with a better-written resolution will be for naught.

OOC: Misspelling is just the tip of the iceberg. It has never been peer reviewed by the public and it is already covered by GA 35. It’s not that necessary, and the obvious grammatical errors make it become a liability to the reputation of the WA.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Misspelling is just the tip of the iceberg. It has never been peer reviewed by the public and it is already covered by GA 35. It’s not that necessary, and the obvious grammatical errors make it become a liability to the reputation of the WA.

OOC: It's not the first and won't be the last resolution with a misspelling nor submitted and passed without a GA forum draft.

Also, it's not already covered by COCR.

[Ferret Civilization]

OOC: It's not the first and won't be the last resolution with a misspelling nor submitted and passed without a GA forum draft.

Also, it's not already covered by COCR.

OOC: So when that Charter of Civil Rights says no discrimination for pretty much any reason, member states were still allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples through marriage rights recognized on the national level?

[Willania Imperium]

OOC: Misspelling is just the tip of the iceberg. It has never been peer reviewed by the public and it is already covered by GA 35. It’s not that necessary, and the obvious grammatical errors make it become a liability to the reputation of the WA.

OOC: It's not the first and won't be the last resolution with a misspelling nor submitted and passed without a GA forum draft.

Also, it's not already covered by COCR.

OOC: Still, we can’t allow resolutions like this to become the mainstream example for future proposals. We need to show that resolutions are hard to write and require time to draft, not something that you can scribble into existence.

As for CoCR, it already ensures no discrimination against any demographic of people including gays. This means that any prejudicial treatment against them is banned, including restricting them the right to marry. It’s not needed, as it is already upheld.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: It's not the first and won't be the last resolution with a misspelling nor submitted and passed without a GA forum draft.

Also, it's not already covered by COCR.

OOC: So when that Charter of Civil Rights says no discrimination for pretty much any reason, member states were still allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples through marriage rights recognized on the national level?

OOC: COCR does not say no discrimination for pretty much any reason. There's a huge allowance granted within it to member states under the compelling practical purposes exception. Nobody, except the WA in action through a resolution such as this, can say what is and isn't a compelling practical purpose. By singling out same sex marriage in a stand alone resolution, we would absolutely guarantee that no member state can rely on the compelling practical purposes exception. So no, it was not already covered, or, at least, it was not sufficiently covered.

OOC: Still, we can’t allow resolutions like this to become the mainstream example for future proposals. We need to show that resolutions are hard to write and require time to draft, not something that you can scribble into existence.

OOC: I've only quoted the first part of your post here. I believe that my reply to Ferret Civilisation is a sufficient to reply to the second part of your post: I don't think this has been sufficiently covered.

Why to we need to show this when it is not and has never been the case?

Edit: Just to clarify. I still advise authors to draft here and get feedback. But there have been examples of experienced authors submitting and passing perfectly cromulent resolutions without drafting here, and in some cases, without drafting anywhere.

[Ferret Civilization]

OOC: Well alright, that is good to know. Guess a note to myself is better start coming up with these practical reasons then, still lots of spots to allow discrimination without breaking WA law it seems, heh. Even with this resolution religion seems like a good practical reason still to ignore same-sex marriage rights.

[Scherzinger]

OOC: Well alright, that is good to know. Guess a note to myself is better start coming up with these practical reasons then, still lots of spots to allow discrimination without breaking WA law it seems, heh. Even with this resolution religion seems like a good practical reason still to ignore same-sex marriage rights.

Even if My nations laws prohibit it outright. The Emperor doesn't have religion either. We simply allow them to be married if they do it outside of Scherzinger and they are married already when they cross Scherzingerian boarders

[Imperium Anglorum]

Even if My nations laws prohibit it outright. The Emperor doesn't have religion either. We simply allow them to be married if they do it outside of Scherzinger and they are married already when they cross Scherzingerian boarders

The current resolution at vote would override national laws prohibiting marriage of any sort such to create a state-sponsored conception of marriage which would then be accessible for homosexual couples.

[Willania Imperium]

OOC: So when that Charter of Civil Rights says no discrimination for pretty much any reason, member states were still allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples through marriage rights recognized on the national level?

OOC: COCR does not say any discrimination for pretty much any reason. There's a huge allowance granted within it to member states under the compelling practical purposes exception. Nobody, except the WA in action through a resolution such as this, can say what is and isn't a compelling practical purpose. By singling out same-sex marriage in a stand-alone resolution, we would absolutely guarantee that no member state can rely on the compelling practical purposes exception. So no, it was not already covered, or, at least, it was not sufficiently covered.

OOC: Still, we can’t allow resolutions like this to become the mainstream example for future proposals. We need to show that resolutions are hard to write and require time to draft, not something that you can scribble into existence.

OOC: I've only quoted the first part of your post here. I believe that my reply to Ferret Civilisation is a sufficient to reply to the second part of your post: I don't think this has been sufficiently covered.

Why do we need to show this when it is not and has never been the case?

Edit: Just to clarify. I still advise authors to draft here and get feedback. But there have been examples of experienced authors submitting and passing perfectly cromulent resolutions without drafting here, and in some cases, without drafting anywhere.

OOC: Still, even if we have to get all picky and spell out what's discrimination to the WA (which, to be fair, would actually be needed, considering the lemming ratio), must we have it represented by a crap proposal like this? I mean, God! It had no one to point out the mistakes, no one to help it evolve into a better proposal, and it suffers from that. Instead of looking like something with the intelligence of many WA seniors from being peer-reviewed, it looks like some cheap stupid knockoff scribbled by a toddler to get a medal.

And this author isn't even that experienced! They've only been here for about 20 days! Very little time to be some sort of "experienced author!"

I can understand why some would want to elaborate on it. I can submit to that by itself. But, you must also look at the fact that an ill-experienced nation of 20 days is writing bullcrap without any peer review as a very dim case.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Still, even if we have to get all picky and spell out what's discrimination to the WA (which, to be fair, would actually be needed, considering the lemming ratio), must we have it represented by a crap proposal like this? I mean, God! It had no one to point out the mistakes, no one to help it evolve into a better proposal, and it suffers from that. Instead of looking like something with the intelligence of many WA seniors from being peer-reviewed, it looks like some cheap stupid knockoff scribbled by a toddler to get a medal.

And this author isn't even that experienced! They've only been here for about 20 days! Very little time to be some sort of "experienced author!"

I can understand why some would want to elaborate on it. I can submit to that by itself. But, you must also look at the fact that an ill-experienced nation of 20 days is writing bullcrap without any peer review as a very dim case.

Bar the spelling mistakes in the preamble, it's not that bad a proposal. The operative clauses are just fine.

I didn't say that the author is experienced. My question to you was why do we need to show that resolutions are hard to write and require time to draft when there are rare examples of experienced authors passing resolutions with little or no input from anyone else? If an experienced can hit that target, then there's no good reason to exclude inexperienced authors who might happen onto to a good resolution without input from others.

Effectively what I'm saying is that I disagree with your assertion that, leaving quality aside, the fact that the resolution was submitted without drafting in the forums is a valid reason to repeal it. Specifically, I would view any such argument included in the text of a repeal as illegal under the honest mistake rule as it would not be an argument addressing the resolution, rather it would be addressing the process behind the creation of the resolution.

[Chinese]

The Marriage Equality title itself do not represent its content, in this issue alone, renders the clause problematic. It is an obvious disguise to infringe on nations sovereignty by the cover of marriage rights. Especially, many nations constitution clearly states a marriage as between opposite sexes. As we recognise married couples as a household, an institution defined similarly to any other, there must be a law regulating it by virtue of a nation societal status. Therefore, there is no basis to recognise same sex marriage as a basic right as it alone do not constitute a legal household institution. While they may illegally access any provisions(aid,incentive,relief)established serving married couples, it is also a reason to crackdown on any attempt to acquire a marriage status by same sex couples.

It is also clear nature do not side the rationale and morality of LGBT. Where science is concerned, there are no evidence or research that prove natural inclination towards homosexuality. Even in the case of an unlikely LGBT element by birth, it should be considered a birth defect, associated with other similar brain defects. While it shouldnt render an individual disabled or in special needs, the consequence of it warrants a technical approach to resolve the problem. It should be noted this scenario is most unlikely and impossible putting science into angle. But it should further support the repeal opposing same sex marriage. It is also well known that parents and guardians, also growing environment(schools,media), has a due influence of causing confusions towards children who has no strong awareness of their sexual self. Consequently, it is justified if the government regulates - or a softer approach, gaining cooperation from stakeholders, to reduce immoral elements arising from spreading LGBT values.

Is LGBT a syndrome, or human right? More importantly, we must affirm the limits and boundaries as far reaching as the most excellent world assembly may try. This is to prevent more powerful nations with malicious intention to superimpose values, ideologies, lifestyle to the rest of WA members. My nation chooses to withdraw from the WA so as long as the repeal does not see the light of the day, as may any other nations and regions.

[Prydania]

OOC: The spirit and values of marriage equality behind the resolution in question are of more value to me than the need to correct spelling mistakes. So no. I won’t be supporting its repeal. Doing so will only encourgae homophobic reactionary factions in the GA. The “noble” idea of repealing it in the hopes of replacing it with a better-written resolution will be for naught.

OOC: To hell with the spirit of the law.

OOC: I wouldn’t expect anything less from a law student
And while I respect the position? I can’t help but disagree. Not wholeheartedly, but I’m willing to look at every proposal on a case by case basis.
And in my opinion? “Marriage Equality” promotes something dearly needed. Something not covered by existing GA resolutions.
And the spelling errors simply aren’t enough to warrant a repeal, in my opinion. Rationalise that by claiming I have low standards if you must, but truthfully? I’m looking to get something different out of this game than you are.

I bother with the GA because there are ideas I care deeply about.

OOC: ... Doing so will only encourage homophobic reactionary factions in the GA. The “noble” idea of repealing it in the hopes of replacing it with a better-written resolution will be for naught.

With a player base as large as NationStates has, I am sure there are at least a few homophobes. However, the fact that a proposal with substantial disregard for the inadvertent loopholes in the proposal's wording, in addition to the much mentioned typos is currently winning 7,000 to 5,000 should provide sufficient evidence that as a whole, there are more NationStates players who are in favor of "Marriage Equality" than who are opposed to it. A well drafted actually peer-reviewed resolution would have no issue reaching quorum and being voted into effect. I personally would prefer that a well drafted peer-reviewed piece of legislation about this exact topic would be passed as compared to the present proposal at vote. Repeals followed by replacement happens frequently. And it may not happen next week, or two weeks, or within a month, because of voter fatigue, but I assure you that if "Marriage Equality" is repealed a better proposal will inevitably take its place.

The post above me with such gems as “Is LGBT a syndrome, or human right?” is a perfect OOC example of why jumping to a repeal before the Marriage Equality resolution is even passed is a bad idea.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I wouldn’t expect anything less from a law student
And while I respect the position? I can’t help but disagree. Not wholeheartedly, but I’m willing to look at every proposal on a case by case basis.
And in my opinion? “Marriage Equality” promotes something dearly needed. Something not covered by existing GA resolutions.
And the spelling errors simply aren’t enough to warrant a repeal, in my opinion. Rationalise that by claiming I have low standards if you must, but truthfully? I’m looking to get something different out of this game than you are.

I bother with the GA because there are ideas I care deeply about.

OOC: What is this, attorney-bashing? The intent, or "spirit" of the law absolutely matters in real life. It's the foundation of entire theories of legal interpretation. It specifically doesn't matter in the GA, where the rule has always been, since nations could be founded in Antiquity, that the law does what the law says. Letter of the law is king, with no exceptions. This is because statistical effects and rule questions are based on the text, not the obscure intent of an author. Holding up the spirit of anything in this forum is demonstrably worthless as an argument, at least OOCly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is a legislative assembly, not a polls club. The existence of bad legislation both stops the passage of good legislation and does little in the realm of virtue signalling.

[Prydania]

OOC: I wouldn’t expect anything less from a law student
And while I respect the position? I can’t help but disagree. Not wholeheartedly, but I’m willing to look at every proposal on a case by case basis.
And in my opinion? “Marriage Equality” promotes something dearly needed. Something not covered by existing GA resolutions.
And the spelling errors simply aren’t enough to warrant a repeal, in my opinion. Rationalise that by claiming I have low standards if you must, but truthfully? I’m looking to get something different out of this game than you are.

I bother with the GA because there are ideas I care deeply about.

OOC: What is this, attorney-bashing?

I don't see how you could have taken what I said as "attorney-bashing." It was merely an observation. One I found humorous yeah, but nothing more than that. Rest assured I have nothing against attorneys or students in law school.

The intent, or "spirit" of the law absolutely matters in real life. It's the foundation of entire theories of legal interpretation.

I agree.

It specifically doesn't matter in the GA, where the rule has always been, since nations could be founded in Antiquity, that the law does what the law says. Letter of the law is king, with no exceptions. This is because statistical effects and rule questions are based on the text, not the obscure intent of an author. Holding up the spirit of anything in this forum is demonstrably worthless as an argument, at least OOCly.

As far as OOC stuff goes? I'm here to discuss and debate ideas. Not obsess over the rule of law.
I fully admit this makes me the minority here. I fully admit that it's not what you want out of this game. Both are fine.

I'm just saying, personally, that spelling errors aren't enough to warrant dismantling protections for same-sex spouses within the realm of the game.

This is a legislative assembly, not a polls club.

Well OOC? No, you're entirely wrong about that.

The existence of bad legislation both stops the passage of good legislation and does little in the realm of virtue signalling.

Again OOC...
No. Virtue signalling? No. I care about "Marriage Equality" because I believe in marriage equality, and want to see it protected within the game. I'm not trying to win a progressive merit badge on the internet. It's something I believe in wholeheartedly OOC and will work to promote it within the game/IC should the need arise.

What I'm saying is that jumping to repeal an act intended to protect the rights of same-sex spouses before it even passes does nothing but embolden these sorts.
Do I think you, Imperium Anglorum, are proposing this repeal for homophobic reasons? No, I don't think that. Doesn't stop the unintended consequences of your actions emboldening actual homophobes- and thus homophobic tendencies within the game/IC- though.

OOC: The spirit and values of marriage equality behind the resolution in question are of more value to me than the need to correct spelling mistakes. So no. I won’t be supporting its repeal. Doing so will only encourgae homophobic reactionary factions in the GA. The “noble” idea of repealing it in the hopes of replacing it with a better-written resolution will be for naught.

Think of the spelling issues as a symptom of a much larger problem.

All well and good. Yes, ideally the author would have posted a draft here so it could have been revised before submitting. I'm not denying that.
And in the event that "Marriage Equality" is either defeated or repealed? Perhaps I'll try my hand at a resolution that goes through the channels meant to ensure quality.

My point is that spelling mistakes aren't enough warrant the IC/in game repeal of protections for same-sex couples. Perhaps they are for some. Perhaps they are for most that matter. I'm simply arguing otherwise.

[Separatist Peoples]

All well and good. Yes, ideally the author would have posted a draft here so it could have been revised before submitting. I'm not denying that.
And in the event that "Marriage Equality" is either defeated or repealed? Perhaps I'll try my hand at a resolution that goes through the channels meant to ensure quality.

OOC: That would be welcome. We are broadly in support for the policies proposed, and painful sticklers for procedure here. The GA forum is predominantly socially liberal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Whole thing reformatted. Sep should now be happy. Some clauses added.

[Sanctaria]

The Divine Republic supports this repeal. Fully.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Divine Republic supports this repeal. Fully.

MORTIMER WELLESLEY: We appreciate your support!

[Main]

Whole thing reformatted. Sep should now be happy. Some clauses added.

A much improved draft. It is amazing how much legislation improves when it is submitted for peer review.