[DEFEATED] Convention on Domestic Partnerships

[Fauxia]

This proposal prohibits the World Assembly from: compelling member states to recognize, support or encourage, or assign rights and duties to polygamy as a particular kind of spousal relationship akin to marriage; as well as preventing member states from doing any of the same.

"Why do you dislike polygamy so much as to prevent member states from recognizing, supporting, or encouraging it?" ask Ixhua.

”Ambassador, do you mean regognizing?”

[Naqil]

Ixhua crosses her arms. "I mean what was said, which is "recognizing." If there is an in-joke I am missing, then by all means inform me."

[Fauxia]

Ixhua crosses her arms. "I mean what was said, which is "recognizing." If there is an in-joke I am missing, then by all means inform me."

See Marriage Equality

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

This proposal prohibits the World Assembly from: compelling member states to recognize, support or encourage, or assign rights and duties to polygamy as a particular kind of spousal relationship akin to marriage; as well as preventing member states from doing any of the same.

"Why do you dislike polygamy so much as to prevent member states from recognizing, supporting, or encouraging it?" ask Ixhua.

"We are also interested in that question. We don't read the proposal as prohibiting a State from recognizing polygamy, polyandry, or group marriage within their own discretion. If the honorable Auralia can point out a clause we have missed that does, in fact, do that, we will stand corrected, but also withdraw our support from the draft."

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

OOC:

3. Prohibits member states from engaging in unjust discrimination in the application of clauses 3 and 4, including but not limited to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of the race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, legal mutual sexual activity, or other such arbitrary characteristic of the aforementioned individuals, parents, or legal guardians;

It seems to me that there is a typographical error in clause 3. If I'm reading the draft correctly it should be clauses 2 and 4 covered in clause 3.

IC:

Ser Dawrin Stone rose "In general we Dragonslinding oppose WA involvement in purely domestic matters. Spousal relationships and quasi-spousal relationships in our nation do not even warrant the attention of the Crown let alone that of an international body. That being said, we see little reason to oppose this legislation."

[Imperial Polk County]

This proposal prohibits the World Assembly from: compelling member states to recognize, support or encourage, or assign rights and duties to polygamy as a particular kind of spousal relationship akin to marriage; as well as preventing member states from doing any of the same.

"Is this still the case for the current revision? I don't see anything that would prevent a member nation from recognizing polygamy. Or am I missing something?"

[Auralia]

This proposal prohibits the World Assembly from: compelling member states to recognize, support or encourage, or assign rights and duties to polygamy as a particular kind of spousal relationship akin to marriage; as well as preventing member states from doing any of the same.

"Why do you dislike polygamy so much as to prevent member states from recognizing, supporting, or encouraging it?" ask Ixhua.

The proposal does not do what you claim it does. The clause "as well as preventing member states from doing any of the same" clearly applies to "the World Assembly", not "this proposal". In other words, this proposal prohibits the World Assembly from preventing member states from recognizing, supporting or encouraging, or assigning rights and duties to polygamy as a particular kind of spousal relationship akin to marriage.

It seems to me that there is a typographical error in clause 3. If I'm reading the draft correctly it should be clauses 2 and 4 covered in clause 3.

((OOC: Thanks for catching the error.))

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Kenmoria]

"Strong support, this proposal is infinetly better than the 'marriage equality' trash. However, you continually alternate between using General Assembly and World Assembly. I would recommend sticking to one or the other. Other than that, this proposal looks near perfect."

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

The Bible Baptist Republic is supportive of this proposal

OOC: Don't give it much chance of passing because it will unlikely appeal to the "across the board marriage equality forced down unwilling nations' throats" crowd. Hope I'm wrong though.

Most of the, believe that this is covered by CoCR anyway though

OOC: I hope you are correct and that the NatSov bloc cancels out the hard core SJW bloc. I can see hardcore SJW voting against as it would still allow for a nation to disallow reGOGnition of same-sex unions under the guise of “compelling practical purpose” exemption in GAR 35. I subscribe to the theory that the requirement to reGOGnize same sex unions is implied in the COCR and have RP’d TBBR as a theocracy in transition from a fundamentalist regime to a modern liberal theological regime.

[Auralia]

Most of the, believe that this is covered by CoCR anyway though

OOC: I hope you are correct and that the NatSov bloc cancels out the hard core SJW bloc. I can see hardcore SJW voting against as it would still allow for a nation to disallow reGOGnition of same-sex unions under the guise of “compelling practical purpose” exemption in GAR 35. I subscribe to the theory that the requirement to reGOGnize same sex unions is implied in the COCR and have RP’d TBBR as a theocracy in transition from a fundamentalist regime to a modern liberal theological regime.

((OOC: Note that this proposal requires that nations treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples for the purposes of domestic partnership and child-rearing. In that way it goes further than CoCR.))

[Auralia]

This proposal has been substantially restructured to outline the rights and duties of domestic partnerships in more detail.

I have also performed a more thorough review of existing World Assembly resolutions that touch upon marriage to see how their subject matter would be affected by this proposal:

1. Child Welfare in Adoption: references marital status as a prohibited ground for discrimination; regulation would be considered a secondary effect under clause 7c
2. Rights of Sapient Species: requires that member states define legal age of marriage with reference to individual species; regulation would be considered a secondary effect under clause 7c
3. Foreign Marriage Recognition: requires foreign marriage recognition; permitted explicitly by clause 7a
4. Forced Marriages Ban Act: requires consent for contractual unions; written surprisingly broadly, so regulation would be considered a secondary effect under clause 7c
5. The Right to a Lawful Divorce: requires member states to recognize divorce for marriages; probably illegal under clause 6, but proposal has been rewritten to guarantee right to "divorce" in a domestic partnership context, which is actually broader in scope and should be all that is required; will likely repeal The Right to a Lawful Divorce after this is passed for that reason

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

OOC: I hope you are correct and that the NatSov bloc cancels out the hard core SJW bloc. I can see hardcore SJW voting against as it would still allow for a nation to disallow reGOGnition of same-sex unions under the guise of “compelling practical purpose” exemption in GAR 35. I subscribe to the theory that the requirement to reGOGnize same sex unions is implied in the COCR and have RP’d TBBR as a theocracy in transition from a fundamentalist regime to a modern liberal theological regime.

((OOC: Note that this proposal requires that nations treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples for the purposes of domestic partnership and child-rearing. In that way it goes further than CoCR.))

Which still allows a let's just say, less than enlightened nation, to strip their currently married heterosexual couples of all the rights and privileges the law previously afforded to them and claim they had to repeal all those discriminatory laws because of the WA and The Gays (rather than allow same sex couples the same rights and privileges or just resign from the WA, which last I checked wasn't a roach motel where the nations check in but they can't check out ) and technically be in compliance because everyone is getting the same lousy deal.

[Clean Land]

This proposal seems to duplicate almost the entire World Assembly resolution 39.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

"Or perhaps more realistically, a member state may just decide to not have a state sanctioned institution of marriage. This is the case with Dragonslund, marriage is a completely religious institution, it confers no special rights, or compensations on to those who choose to engage in it. And as for the smallfolk is largely irrelevant anyway since they largely don't hold any property of greater value than their scythe. For the nobility it merely confers the social status of nobility onto the children of a lady provided she is indeed married to a lord."

[Routcher]

I can't wait to vote against this.

[The United Artherian Federation]

"Opposed. We do not condone heathen marriages."

[Naqil]

"Opposed. We do not condone heathen marriages."

Ixhua snorts. "You don't want anyone who isn't in your specific religion to get married? That's- I can't call it the silliest thing I've ever heard here, because this Assembly is ridiculous, but it's pretty high up there."

[The United Artherian Federation]

"Opposed. We do not condone heathen marriages."

Ixhua snorts. "You don't want anyone who isn't in your specific religion to get married? That's- I can't call it the silliest thing I've ever heard here, because this Assembly is ridiculous, but it's pretty high up there."

"Not that kind of Marriage," Welch says.
"I mean homosexual marriages. But, this is kind of stupid because same sex marriages are already covered by the CoCR."

[Naqil]

"Heathen does not mean homosexual. It never has."

[The United Artherian Federation]

"Heathen does not mean homosexual. It never has."

"The context I am using it in is an "pagan" marriage, as the Book of my Lord does not allow these types of marriage."

[Naqil]

"Pagan also doesn't mean homosexual," Ixhua says.

[Fauxia]

"Pagan also doesn't mean homosexual," Ixhua says.

“Nor does homoexual mean pagan.”

[The United Artherian Federation]

"Pagan also doesn't mean homosexual," Ixhua says.

"I'm using pagan as in the sense that it doesn't go with the bible."

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

"I don't know what this 'bible' that you speak of is. However, I would suggest that when the Ambassador uses words he understands what those words mean. I find a dictionary most efficacious in discovering the meanings of words one wishes to use but is unsure of the meaning of." Ser Dawrin Stone commented offhandedly.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Pagan also doesn't mean homosexual," Ixhua says.

"I'm using pagan as in the sense that it doesn't go with the bible."

"Ah, so according to our dictionary, definition 3(a): 'a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim; a heathen' which is marked as being disparaging and offensive. We'll have to remember to offer a proper sacrifice to Lord Hermaphroditus and Lord Cupido to punish you appropriately. "