NationStates

Cekoviu wrote:

RESOLVES that marriage may be contracted by two consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex;

"Same or opposite sex" doesn't really apply to intersex people. Maybe just "not discriminating based on sex"?
Honestly, though, can we just be done with the marriage acts now? I'd like to see something else in the WA that actually affects us, since we don't even legally recognize marriage in the first place.

Sounds like the argument that I used for replacing "same or opposite sex" with "any sex". But I don't expect the author to change it since at least a half dozen delegations have already brought up this point. I have a feeling that this draft is going no where, but I have my own on the back burner and so does Wallenberg.

Cekoviu wrote:

RESOLVES that marriage may be contracted by two consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex;

"Same or opposite sex" doesn't really apply to intersex people. Maybe just "not discriminating based on sex"?
Honestly, though, can we just be done with the marriage acts now? I'd like to see something else in the WA that actually affects us, since we don't even legally recognize marriage in the first place.

Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:"Same or opposite sex" doesn't really apply to intersex people. Maybe just "not discriminating based on sex"?
Honestly, though, can we just be done with the marriage acts now? I'd like to see something else in the WA that actually affects us, since we don't even legally recognize marriage in the first place.

Sounds like the argument that I used for replacing "same or opposite sex" with "any sex". But I don't expect the author to change it since at least a half dozen delegations have already brought up this point. I have a feeling that this draft is going no where, but I have my own on the back burner and so does Wallenberg.

OOC: You are both looking at old drafts, spoilered drafts, and complaining I have not listened to delegations' feedback.

The new draft does not say "same or opposite sex". In fact, I think I replaced that in Draft 2. We're now on Draft 3.

If you want to complain about the proposal, you can. But at least refer to the most up-to-date draft of it.

"Full support."

OOC: Please submit and campaign now!

The emperor is holding a bottle of liquor, has large bag under his eyes, and overall looks utterly broken.
"Yes. Please. Full support. End this fucking debate. I haven't slept in WEEKS because of all the noise of the debate."

"Perhaps his Imperial, Imperialness would appriecate me to make him some milk of the poppy. While highly addictive, it has been known to aid sleep." Says Maester Tarquin as he pinches the backside of an ugly and obviously peasant woman wearing a dress that appears to have been constructed from burlap sacks. "Wench fetch my medicines supplies."

Further draft update.

“So the mandate is only for governments now?”

Fauxia wrote:“So the mandate is only for governments now?”

I am having difficultly understand the Ambassador, so I beg his indulgence on this matter while I explain.

I am assuming Your Excellency believes I am now omitting religious or private organisations from this Act, but I'm not sure where the Ambassador is getting that from.

The proposal clearly states that if the state recognises marriage, or even if it allows marriage to occur within the nation, then it is forbidden to deny any marriage to two people based on their gender or sex. It doesn't matter if it is a state recognised marriage, or a religious non-legal marriage, if it is allowed to happen, then discriminatory practices vis a vis gender and sex cannot be permitted.

Fauxia wrote:“So the mandate is only for governments now?”

MANDATES that no member state that recognises or allows marriage to occur as a social, cultural, or legal institution may forbid two consenting adults from contracting a marriage, based solely on their gender or sex;

"Not exactly. The allows portion of the relevant clause means that states wherein marriage is not a legal institution, but is allowed as a cultural or religious institution would not be able to forbid marriages based solely on the gender or sex of those to be married. Of course this begs the question on those states which recognize and allow marriages only as a social/religious institution conferring no legal rights, privileges, or compensations."

Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:Of course this begs the question on those states which recognize and allow marriages only as a social/religious institution conferring no legal rights, privileges, or compensations."

They're still not permitted to discriminate because the proposal says "social, cultural, or legal". It only needs to be one of them to be deemed sufficient enough to be forbidden to discriminate.

Sanctaria wrote:

Dragonslinding WA Mission wrote:Of course this begs the question on those states which recognize and allow marriages only as a social/religious institution conferring no legal rights, privileges, or compensations."

They're still not permitted to discriminate because the proposal says "social, cultural, or legal". It only needs to be one of them to be deemed sufficient enough to be forbidden to discriminate.

"As we suspected. The Mission withdraws its support."

Sanctaria wrote:It doesn't matter if it is a state recognised marriage, or a religious non-legal marriage, if it is allowed to happen, then discriminatory practices vis a vis gender and sex cannot be permitted.

So under this proposal, religious organizations independent of the state are not free to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Member states must compel them to recognize same-sex unions as marriage, in violation of their freedom of religion?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Auralia wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:It doesn't matter if it is a state recognised marriage, or a religious non-legal marriage, if it is allowed to happen, then discriminatory practices vis a vis gender and sex cannot be permitted.

So under this proposal, religious organizations independent of the state are not free to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Member states must compel them to recognize same-sex unions as marriage, in violation of their freedom of religion?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Do you mean are institutions and organisations, religious or not, present in a nation required to obey and not ignore national laws just because they don't like them? Yes, this resolution requires such obedience. It's called rule of law.

Sanctaria wrote:

Auralia wrote:So under this proposal, religious organizations independent of the state are not free to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Member states must compel them to recognize same-sex unions as marriage, in violation of their freedom of religion?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Do you mean are institutions and organisations, religious or not, present in a nation required to obey and not ignore national laws just because they don't like them? Yes, this resolution requires such obedience. It's called rule of law.

Any law that purports to prohibit a private religious institution or organization from recognizing a sacrament called "marriage" unless it is open to same-sex couples is invalid because it is an unjust infringement on freedom of religion. The state has no right to prohibit religious practices when there is no threat to public order, health, safety, or morals.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Auralia wrote:Any law that purports to prohibit a private religious institution or organization from recognizing a sacrament called "marriage" unless it is open to same-sex couples is invalid because it is an unjust infringement on freedom of religion. The state has no right to prohibit religious practices when there is no threat to public order, health, safety, or morals.

Don't worry, Ambassador. If your religious organisation wishes to celebrate marriage, but confine it to just couples of different sex or genders, that's fine! This proposal just regulates marriage - it makes it a protected term, if you will. You're free to do the exact same thing, but just call it something different.

How about domestic union? Or civil partnership? I'm sure you can come up with another term that suits your need. After all, as I'm sure you agree, once it does the same thing, acknowledge a couple's love, what matter is the name?

Right?

Sanctaria wrote:

Fauxia wrote:“So the mandate is only for governments now?”

I am having difficultly understand the Ambassador, so I beg his indulgence on this matter while I explain.

I am assuming Your Excellency believes I am now omitting religious or private organisations from this Act, but I'm not sure where the Ambassador is getting that from.

The proposal clearly states that if the state recognises marriage, or even if it allows marriage to occur within the nation, then it is forbidden to deny any marriage to two people based on their gender or sex. It doesn't matter if it is a state recognised marriage, or a religious non-legal marriage, if it is allowed to happen, then discriminatory practices vis a vis gender and sex cannot be permitted.

“We do not recgonize ‘the state’ and ‘the nation’ to be the same, I believe this is where we do not understand each other. Since you say this, we oppose. Again, their must be an exception for private religious institutions, and in its current state, it forces many nations that do not legislate marriage to legislate marriage. This is much less than a fair compromise. We oppose. Unless, let us rephrase our question- is a private religious institution forced to perform a marriage ceremony against its wishes? Or is it just to recognize them as legally married? It seems like the second to us.”

"Ambassador, that assumes that the purpose of marriage is merely the celebration of love between two (or more) persons. While that may be true for your nation, it often is not true in other nations. Dragonslund may not recognize marriage as a legal institution of any note. However, its social and religious functions are profound. While essentially meaningless for the smallfolk as they have little to inherit and almost no reason to concern themselves with bastardy, the Royal House and Great Houses and Lesser Houses of the nobility are not so, fortunate I suppose.

"In the main the purpose of marriage amongst the noble houses (Royal, Great and Lesser) is to ensure that lands and titles are passed appropriately to indisputable heirs. For example a king may decide to have sex with, and impregnate any whore in Kingslanding--indeed this is not only common but expected. However, those who inherit the throne are the male children of the queen, or if the queen has failed to provide a male heir for the King he may marry again (a royal consort) to provide him a male heir. At no point is any child produced by a woman to which he is not married considered an heir, and should he even recognize such a child as his, that child would be required to take a bastard's name.

"It is similar with the Great and Lesser houses except it is lands and titles that are at stake and female heirs can inherit those, though there is male preference.

"As we can see the term marriage carries with it far greater connotations than merely two (or more) persons are in love, live together and are in an public relationship."

"We offer even fuller support in light of the recent edits."

- Ted

Submitted.

MANDATES that no member state that recognises or allows marriage to occur as a social, cultural, or legal institution may forbid two consenting adults from contracting a marriage, based solely on their gender or sex;

Do not worry ambassadors, this sounds more restrictive than it is. After all, you need just one additional justification.
For example, you could only allow two consenting adults to marry if they are able to procreate together... at least under the restrictions of this resolution.

Sanctaria wrote:Submitted.

OOC: Can you please have the submitted version in the form it was submitted, in the first post? Because I doubt you submitted a version that has underlining in it.

Proudly approved.

Araraukar wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:Submitted.

OOC: Can you please have the submitted version in the form it was submitted, in the first post? Because I doubt you submitted a version that has underlining in it.

OOC: If you can't see past a bit of underlining, I can recommend a good optician. Or therapist for the OCD.

Sanctaria wrote:*snip*

OOC: Just trying to help, no need for snarkiness. People who haven't been here through the drafting process will think those are the bits you want to emphasize. And no, they likely won't get that they're the latest corrections. Haven't you read the at vote threads?

So now you wish to force nations to make marriage a legal institution or ban it outright? While you even fail to prevent discrimination by nations which have marriage, since you allow them to do so long as it isn't solely on the bases of their gender or sex

Opposed: Given the attack ad that you ran against the previous proposals author we hoped you would at least submit a resolution less flawed then #410