[DRAFT] Marriage Equality Act

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: the WA is not a nation, it's an association of sovereign nations, that's not remotely the same thing .

The World Assembly doesn't in-character conceive of a freedom for nations. It conceives of one for citizens, inhabitants, etc. of member nations.

[Tarsonis]

We're not talking abut outlawing barbaric human sacrifices, ambassador. We're not talking about telling a particular religion they're free to believe something but are unable to carry it out under law. We're talking about forcing a religions to adopt a practice in direct opposition to its teachings. The Church holds that the Sacrament of Marriage is a "life giving union" in which the potentiality for life by sexual relations between the parents with or without mirraculous help, is a foundational necessity. Priests [i]cannot[/] officiate over any marriage that does not meet these qualifications. You're forcing us to adopt a definition of marriage that is not in keeping with our religion. This is tyranny and a violation of GAR 35.

"I think you have the wrong resolution citation, ambassador. #35 protects the rights of individuals to receive public services without being discriminated against. What you're complaining about here is what you see as an infringement against national sovereignty (OOC: the ideological ban rule). Well, there's plenty of nations pissed about things the WA makes them do that are allegedly anathema to their way of life; my own people are not too keen on the current international patent regime, for example. If it's too much for you, nobody's forcing you to stay."

"No, GAR 35. The state is made up of people, in our case those people are Priests. This law would force them to violate their Holy Orders, against their freedom of religion, and right to free practice. This is in turn a violation of GAR 2 because in order to comply the government would be unable to function in accordance with its mandate. As for your example, unless your religion expressely rejects the holding of private and intellectual property as a moral anathema, I highly doubt this would truly be a violation of your rights. And if it is,... you must not be that devout if you'd sacrifice your liberty so cavalierly."

The WA isn't big on freedom really.

OOC: Well, try to remember that the subject of freedom isn't the government, it's the individual. The entire purpose of the World Assembly is to violate national sovereignty (freedom of the OOC player) for the benefit of the people of member nations (the pretend citizens we all care so much about). In this sense, the WA is bigger on freedom than any governmental body that exists in the real world today.

Yes the WA certainly embraces a more progressive (as opposed to libertarian) idea of liberty, than most nations. There's one problem: the WA isn't a, or at least shouldn't be, a governmental body. It's not the galactic senate. It's a voluntary association of sovereign states, commuted to international diplomacy. While the game mechanics are limiting, the WA here would never survive or Be able to get away with what it does in the real world. There's a reason Saudi Arabia is on the UN human rights commission, despite state sponsering human rights violations, and North Korea isn't. If the UN attempted to engage into the moralizing the WA nations would leave in droves.

[Tarsonis]

OOC: the WA is not a nation, it's an association of sovereign nations, that's not remotely the same thing .

The World Assembly doesn't in-character conceive of a freedom for nations. It conceives of one for citizens, inhabitants, etc. of member nations.

OOC: which is bullshit, and why my characters find themselves opposing almost every resolution put out. The GA gives lip service to national sovereignty while curtailing it at every turn.

[Fauxia]

The World Assembly doesn't in-character conceive of a freedom for nations. It conceives of one for citizens, inhabitants, etc. of member nations.

OOC: which is bullshit, and why my characters find themselves opposing almost every resolution put out. The GA gives lip service to national sovereignty while curtailing it at every turn.

OOC: The point of the GA is to make all nations the same, essentially. There isn’t anything you can do to fix that besides vote against. I suggest you stop complaining.

[Tarsonis]

OOC: which is bullshit, and why my characters find themselves opposing almost every resolution put out. The GA gives lip service to national sovereignty while curtailing it at every turn.

OOC: The point of the GA is to make all nations the same, essentially. There isn’t anything you can do to fix that besides vote against. I suggest you stop complaining.

OOC: 1. No it's not, but moralizing busy bodies who are against free thought and national rights have made it that way. It's supposed to be there to simulate international diplomacy through a UN type institution. Some people simply use it for raiding/defending. Others use it for regional management.

2. I'll say whatever the fuck I want. Don't like it? Use your foes list.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: which is bullshit, and why my characters find themselves opposing almost every resolution put out. The GA gives lip service to national sovereignty while curtailing it at every turn.

The GA as an in-character institution does not care about nations because they are not ends in of themselves (if you like deont) nor are they bodies which are subjected to utility (if you like util). The GA as a body of players doesn't care about national sovereignty because there don't exist adequate standards to determine what counts as an international issue. If you don't like the fact that (OOC) the players and (IC) the diplomats don't agree with you, tough.

OOC: There's an interesting argument to be made that the terminal decline of the national sovereigntist movement emerged with the adoption of normative arguments by that movement. I think it's probably good that people started to engage in ethics. Just ethics happens to be universalisable and generally place and time invariant. Whoops.

[Aclion]

OOC: Facinating as all this is could the topic title please be changed to ... something other then submitted?

[Clean Land]

OOC: which is bullshit, and why my characters find themselves opposing almost every resolution put out. The GA gives lip service to national sovereignty while curtailing it at every turn.

The GA as an in-character institution does not care about nations because they are not ends in of themselves (if you like deont) nor are they bodies which are subjected to utility (if you like util). The GA as a body of players doesn't care about national sovereignty because there don't exist adequate standards to determine what counts as an international issue. If you don't like the fact that (OOC) the players and (IC) the diplomats don't agree with you, tough.

OOC: There's an interesting argument to be made that the terminal decline of the national sovereigntist movement emerged with the adoption of normative arguments by that movement. I think it's probably good that people started to engage in ethics. Just ethics happens to be universalisable and generally place and time invariant. Whoops.

OOC: Ethics are not really universaliable. At least not in every single case. What some find ethically mandated others find ethically despisable.

[Sanctaria]

I have made a final draft.

[Araraukar]

I have made a final draft.

OOC: As was pointed out to me with my attempts, including "sexuality" with "sex and gender" would be beneficial rather than detrimental.

[Aclion]

PERMITS member states to regulate all other requirements for, and rights and privileges derived from, marriage in accordance with their own laws and applicable World Assembly resolutions, provided that such remain equal for all individualsregardless of gender or sex.

[Sanctaria]

PERMITS member states to regulate all other requirements for, and rights and privileges derived from, marriage in accordance with their own laws and applicable World Assembly resolutions, provided that such remain equal for all individualsregardless of gender or sex.

No.

I have made a final draft.

OOC: As was pointed out to me with my attempts, including "sexuality" with "sex and gender" would be beneficial rather than detrimental.

OOC: That's a fair point.

[Aclion]

PERMITS member states to regulate all other requirements for, and rights and privileges derived from, marriage in accordance with their own laws and applicable World Assembly resolutions, provided that such remain equal for all individualsregardless of gender or sex.

No.

But then nations are only barred from forbidding marriages and can still discriminate between them in the privileges the marriages confer. :c

[Imperial Polk County]

No.

But then nations are only barred from forbidding marriages and can still discriminate between them in the privileges the marriages confer. :c

"I have a bigger concern with that clause. Wouldn't it permit nations to make laws allowing child brides?"

[Aclion]

But then nations are only barred from forbidding marriages and can still discriminate between them in the privileges the marriages confer. :c

"I have a bigger concern with that clause. Wouldn't it permit nations to make laws allowing child brides?"

No, because that's disallowed by existing legislation. " marriage in accordance with ...applicable World Assembly resolutions,"

[Imperial Polk County]

"I have a bigger concern with that clause. Wouldn't it permit nations to make laws allowing child brides?"

No, because that's disallowed by existing legislation. " marriage in accordance with ...applicable World Assembly resolutions,"

"I thought so too, but I can't find such a rule in any existing legislation. For example, I don't see anything in GA #222, Prevention of Child Abuse, that would specifically prevent it."

[Excidium Planetis]

"I thought so too, but I can't find such a rule in any existing legislation. For example, I don't see anything in GA #222, Prevention of Child Abuse, that would specifically prevent it."

OOC:
GA#355 requires age of consent to be at a minimum the average age of sexual maturity. But not sure if that matters here.

[Imperial Polk County]

"I thought so too, but I can't find such a rule in any existing legislation. For example, I don't see anything in GA #222, Prevention of Child Abuse, that would specifically prevent it."

OOC:
GA#355 requires age of consent to be at a minimum the average age of sexual maturity. But not sure if that matters here.

OOC: Yes but it would still permit nations to allow, say, a thirty-year-old man to marry a twelve-year-old girl. If we're going to legislate on marriage at all, I would think this is the type of loophole that should be closed.

[Clean Land]

I have made a final draft.

OOC: As was pointed out to me with my attempts, including "sexuality" with "sex and gender" would be beneficial rather than detrimental.

OOC: That's a fair point.[/quote]
Just remove that sentence. It is completely justified - in some situations - for a state to give benefits to married people based on their reproductive capacity(and, of course, based on children)

[Deropia]

Just remove that sentence. It is completely justified - in some situations - for a state to give benefits to married people based on their reproductive capacity(and, of course, based on children)

OOC: Number of children, yes. I can't think of any benefit people get for just being able to have children.

[Aclion]

And besides, the fact that a married couple is unable to have children doesn't mean they won't be responsible for any. Adoption is a thing.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:
GA#355 requires age of consent to be at a minimum the average age of sexual maturity. But not sure if that matters here.

OOC: Yes but it would still permit nations to allow, say, a thirty-year-old man to marry a twelve-year-old girl. If we're going to legislate on marriage at all, I would think this is the type of loophole that should be closed.

OOC: I think GAR #160 taken with GAR #299 gets us to a de facto ban on that kind of skeeziness, but I don't see a specific provision banning it as such.

[Tarsonis]

OOC: which is bullshit, and why my characters find themselves opposing almost every resolution put out. The GA gives lip service to national sovereignty while curtailing it at every turn.

The GA as an in-character institution does not care about nations because they are not ends in of themselves (if you like deont) nor are they bodies which are subjected to utility (if you like util). The GA as a body of players doesn't care about national sovereignty because there don't exist adequate standards to determine what counts as an international issue. If you don't like the fact that (OOC) the players and (IC) the diplomats don't agree with you, tough.

OOC: Still doesn't mean I can't ICly argue for a return to confederation at every turn.

Furthermore, that doesn't hold up to be consistently true. In this instance the GA is holding up the rights of the individual. However as we saw the in the Vaccination Resolution, the GA is perfectly willing to curtail the rights of the individual pursuant to the interests of the state. Generally the GA is perfectly willing to hop from one to the other, depending on what they want to accomplish. The GA has more allegiance to certain political ideologies, rather than stringent belief libertarian concepts of freedom.

OOC: There's an interesting argument to be made that the terminal decline of the national sovereigntist movement emerged with the adoption of normative arguments by that movement. I think it's probably good that people started to engage in ethics. Just ethics happens to be universalisable and generally place and time invariant. Whoops.

OOC: Hardly. Without a universal standard for what forms the basis of ethics, ethics will always be variable to collective perception.

[Auralia]

MANDATES that no member state that recognises marriage as a legal institution which confers any responsibilities, benefits, rights, or privileges exclusively to those that enter said institution, may forbid two consenting adults from contracting a marriage, based on their gender or sex, religion or creed, race or nationality, or on their ethnic or social status;

I interpret this to mean that member states are permitted to limit civil marriage to opposite-sex couples so long as an equivalent institution exists for any two people that confers identical "responsibilities, benefits, rights, [and] privileges".

Would the author mind clarifying if this interpretation is correct?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly