[Draft] Marriage Equality Act Redux

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: That's all I needed to hear. Opposed.

Humor me ambassador, what is the reason behind your question? How would you like to see polygamy handled?

Fairburn: I have made myself clear enough. Declare that polygamy shall not be considered by the WA henceforth.

[The Sixth District]

Ambassador Karlov looks over his copy of the resolution. "First, the first clause of the preamble refers to the WA despite the fact that the very first line clearly establishes that the World Assembly is the party 'Encouraged by the enormous show of support.' Second, a few of the non-binding clauses contain what is little more than extraneous fluff: there is little point in describing the show of support as enormous, you don't need to reiterate that resolution GA410 is Marriage Equality after you've made it clear the first time, the acutely is unnecessary, etc. Third, 'access to the institution of marriage' is heavily overwritten and in no way a fundamental right. Also, you used the word fundamental twice in as many passages. Fourth, while it is certainly true that governments have an effect on common practices, a government cannot directly 'ban same-sex marriage... as de facto practice.' Fifth, the second binding clause doesn't need the laundry list. Besides, I find it difficult to tell what this clause attempts to accomplish. Oh, and you can't reap a benefit upon someone. Sixth, the third clause doesn't need the 'codified by law' bit. Any nation with laws about marriage will undoubtedly understand the basic concept of marriage. Seventh, the fourth clause is superfluous. That and the WA cannot 'Hereby Whereas' something. By including the first sentence and the 'Hereby' sentence, you make it necessary to make all clauses after them verbs. I'm just going to ignore the fifth clause, because I need my sleep. Eighth, many WA members have non-human populations. There's the car one. And the ferret guy. Oh, and the plants.

But other than that, looks great and seems supportable."

He leaves.

[Fauxia]

“Opposed”

Out of curiosity ambassador are you fundamentally opposed to the goal or is there an issue with the resolution?

“First one, ambassador”

[The Great Boom]

Humor me ambassador, what is the reason behind your question? How would you like to see polygamy handled?

Fairburn: I have made myself clear enough. Declare that polygamy shall not be considered by the WA henceforth.

Well, that's a poison pill that isn't relevant to the resolution and would lose me a hundred votes for every one it earned. I hope you'll reconsider, but banning the WA from handling future issues without a proposal myself would kill the bill and I think you know that.

[The Great Boom]

Ambassador Karlov looks over his copy of the resolution. "First, the first clause of the preamble refers to the WA despite the fact that the very first line clearly establishes that the World Assembly is the party 'Encouraged by the enormous show of support.' Second, a few of the non-binding clauses contain what is little more than extraneous fluff: there is little point in describing the show of support as enormous, you don't need to reiterate that resolution GA410 is Marriage Equality after you've made it clear the first time, the acutely is unnecessary, etc. Third, 'access to the institution of marriage' is heavily overwritten and in no way a fundamental right. Also, you used the word fundamental twice in as many passages. Fourth, while it is certainly true that governments have an effect on common practices, a government cannot directly 'ban same-sex marriage... as de facto practice.' Fifth, the second binding clause doesn't need the laundry list. Besides, I find it difficult to tell what this clause attempts to accomplish. Oh, and you can't reap a benefit upon someone. Sixth, the third clause doesn't need the 'codified by law' bit. Any nation with laws about marriage will undoubtedly understand the basic concept of marriage. Seventh, the fourth clause is superfluous. That and the WA cannot 'Hereby Whereas' something. By including the first sentence and the 'Hereby' sentence, you make it necessary to make all clauses after them verbs. I'm just going to ignore the fifth clause, because I need my sleep. Eighth, many WA members have non-human populations. There's the car one. And the ferret guy. Oh, and the plants.

But other than that, looks great and seems supportable."

He leaves.

I appreciate the review ambassador, many of these changes are coming shortly,

[The Great Boom]

The resolution has been updated to include all of the reviews given in the last week. I intend to submit this the moment Imperium Anglorum's repeal passes. I assume that I cannot submit it before that resolution passes, since it would be illegal to contradict the previous marriage equality resolution until it is repealed. If I'm wrong about this, let me know.

[Auralia]

1) DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation
B: marriage as a joining of a sapient beings of consenting age who have the legal ability to marry each other, the mutual consent of both parties and a marriage contract associated with the law of their nation,

This is a recursive definition -- marriage is defined "...a joining of...beings who have the legal ability to marry each other...and a marriage contract..." -- and is therefore meaningless.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The Great Boom]

1) DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation
B: marriage as a joining of a sapient beings of consenting age who have the legal ability to marry each other, the mutual consent of both parties and a marriage contract associated with the law of their nation,

This is a recursive definition -- marriage is defined "...a joining of...beings who have the legal ability to marry each other...and a marriage contract..." -- and is therefore meaningless.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Good call, I'll take out the word marriage. But otherwise the definition works I think.

[Auralia]

Good call, I'll take out the word marriage. But otherwise the definition works I think.

No, it doesn't. Your definition states that marriage is a contractual "joining" between people who are legally permitted to engage in such a "joining" and who consent to it. But there are many kinds of consensual contractual "joining" between persons. For example, membership in associations, the adoption of children of sufficient age, and employment agreements all would constitute "marriage" under your definition, but I presume that is not your intent.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Bananaistan]

"I really don't see why this all can't be trimmed down substantially. It seems like a great deal of excessive words to just say "if you allow opposite sex couples to marry, you must also allow same sex couples to marry". If you can say something with two words rather than two hundred, please say it with two.

"We all know what the word marriage means, we all know what adults are. These words do not need to be defined.

"This still whole thing looks suspiciously like a mandate for polygamous marriages. All this talk of groups, individuals, adults, yet I see no mention of couples or two individuals.

"Why does clause three act on individuals rather than on the married couple/union/whatever you want to call it?

"Clause four looks like it applies to weddings and everybody is entitled to the same wedding. Why?

"As to clause five & six, all I can say is: What?"

OOC: Seriously, this could do with a lot more polishing. Please don't rush to submission.