[DRAFT] Right To Marriage (The Provisional State of Nevada)

[Imperium Anglorum]

This proposal is by The Provisional State of Nevada, author of the now-repealed resolution Marriage Equality
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1511990069

Right To Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Provisional State of Nevada

The World Assembly
RECOGNIZING: The Historical and Cultural Significance of Marriage,
RECOGNIZING: that throughout history, marriage, in various forms, has been the cornerstone of civilization,
FURTHER RECOGNIZING: That the lack of a uniform standard of marriage and right to marriage is lamentable,
RESOLVED: any two sentient beings have the right to marry, regardless of gender, gender identity, sex, religion, race, ancestry or ethnicity.
RESOLVED: that all marriages have the right to be free from discrimination in regard to their public or private affection of one another
RESOLVED: That no member of a religious or philosophical organization will be required to officiate over, or required to attend a marriage contrary to their beliefs.
RESOLVED: That member states may continue to have multi-spousal marriages, but they are not mandated to or forbidden by this resolution.
RESOLVED: that no legal difference shall be made between any two marriages.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The following campaign telegram was recieved:

Hi there!
A General Assembly Resolution “Right to marriage” has been introduced as a proposal. This resolution would create a right to marriage for all couples, while simultaneously upholding national sovereignty and the rights of religious members. I urge your support of this legislation. Please approve the proposal here:https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=the_provisional_state_of_nevada_1511990069
Sincerely,
the provisional state of Nevada

Opposed. The provision in the first resolutions clause would create an ability to marry for purposes of dodging immigration or tax law.

[Imperial Polk County]

RESOLVED: any two sentient beings have the right to marry, regardless of gender, gender identity, sex, religion, race, ancestry or ethnicity.

"Unequivocally opposed. Y'all expect me to allow the old man down the road to marry my ankle-biter of a grandkid?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

RESOLVED: any two sentient beings have the right to marry, regardless of gender, gender identity, sex, religion, race, ancestry or ethnicity.

"Unequivocally opposed. Y'all expect me to allow the old man down the road to marry my ankle-biter of a grandkid?"

"We're opposed to this resolution, but please let's have some good arguments against it, huh? Age, nationality, and citizenship do not appear on that little list of regardlesses, so there's no reason to oppose on the grounds stated so far."

"That clause, on the other hand, does in fact mandate that we give the same tax breaks to a guy who decides he wants to formalize his carnal knowledge of his dog, that we give to actual human couples."

"Hells no."

[Principality of the Raix]

The World Assembly
RECOGNIZING: The Historical and Cultural Significance of Marriage,
RECOGNIZING: that throughout history, marriage, in various forms, has been the cornerstone of civilization,
FURTHER RECOGNIZING: That the lack of a uniform standard of marriage and right to marriage is lamentable,
RESOLVED: any two sentient beings have the right to marry, regardless of gender, gender identity, sex, religion, race, ancestry or ethnicity.
RESOLVED: that all marriages have the right to be free from discrimination in regard to their public or private affection of one another
RESOLVED: That no member of a religious or philosophical organization will be required to officiate over, or required to attend a marriage contrary to their beliefs.
RESOLVED: That member states may continue to have multi-spousal marriages, but they are not mandated to or forbidden by this resolution.
RESOLVED: that no legal difference shall be made between any two marriages.

Alright, the first recognize is Ok. The second is decent, while the third can be debated.
The resolve, like the commentator above about the age is un-needed. Due to the fact that, I am sure everyone has an "Age of consent" law. Unless they are doing as the above commentator stated about grand kids and an adult. The second resolve is alright, depending what you mean by discrimination after all some people take good acts as bad acts out of their own judgement. Well if it is contrary to the individuals belief in the last one, they are more likely to look at marriage without a say "Priest" as blasphemy; Which can have dire consequences depending on where one lives. The second to last is alright as it does not over reach WA authority. While the last is fair, to a point. With that, while I will not support this and that is cause it needs a lot of work before it can persuade me to support it.

[Attempted Socialism]

"We will note that the clause resolving that no member of a religious or philosophical organisation will be required to officiate over marriages contrary to their beliefs does not differentiate between whether those members are there in a religious context or not, and does not differentiate between members who hold titles or job positions, and simply paying membership dues. Furthermore, there is not even a requirement for their belief to be true according to the religion or philosophy in question. As such, any member of a religious or philosophical organisation will be able to avoid officiating over marriages for any claim of belief. Since most government officials can officiate marriages in Attempted Socialism, this would require most officials who are members of religious or philosophical organisations to be allowed to discriminate. We can not allow that. We will vote against this if it reaches quorum, and if voted through, we will make sure that all who can officiate over marriages know that being unable to perform ones' legally obligated duties is a firable offense and that would, under this resolution, possibly include being a member of a religious or philosophical organisation."

[Imperial Polk County]

RESOLVED: any two sentient beings have the right to marry, regardless of gender, gender identity, sex, religion, race, ancestry or ethnicity.

"Unequivocally opposed. Y'all expect me to allow the old man down the road to marry my ankle-biter of a grandkid?"

"We're opposed to this resolution, but please let's have some good arguments against it, huh? Age, nationality, and citizenship do not appear on that little list of regardlesses, so there's no reason to oppose on the grounds stated so far."

Drane rereads the clause. "No. It says right there that any two sentient beings have the right to marry. Comma. The comma makes the subsequent clause a non-restrictive clause." Drane pauses and shrugs. "Sorry, ambassador, but thirty years as a high school teacher, sometimes you notice how seemingly picayune punctuation changes things.

"Anyway, for argument's sake I'm willing to pretend that comma isn't there and would concede the point, if that were the only issue. There are other problems with this poorly worded proposal. The second RESOLVED clause makes no practical sense; it's conferring rights on a marriage itself, and not on the participants of said marriage. I mean to say, I have never witnessed a marriage showing affection for another marriage. Publicly or privately. The third RESOLVED clause could be interpreted to allow a county clerk, who happens to be a churchgoer, to refuse to certify a gay marriage. A county to the northeast of us had that problem a year or so ago, and we prefer that if the WA were to legislate on this matter that they should disallow such discrimination. And the fourth RESOLVED clause is incredibly clunky and functionally does nothing. Bottom line, I am not at all opposed to the idea of marriage equality, but the execution here is worse than a hundred-year-old hangman's noose."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Drane rereads the clause. "No. It says right there that any two sentient beings have the right to marry. Comma. The comma makes the subsequent clause a non-restrictive clause."

This.

[Principality of the Raix]

Drane rereads the clause. "No. It says right there that any two sentient beings have the right to marry. Comma. The comma makes the subsequent clause a non-restrictive clause."

This.

That is your focus, you do not realize that most here do not like this proposal due to one thing or another. In truth, I would be looking at everything stated and not just one persons criticism of your grammar. I do not even care about those, though I probably should.

[Imperium Anglorum]

^ To me seems incoherent.

[Principality of the Raix]

^ To me seems incoherent.

Seems to me, this proposal is worse then your marriage equality one.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This isn’t my proposal.

[Serrus]

This guy needs that Michael Jordan
"Stop it.
Get some help"
ad.
Also at least he spelled "Recognizing" correctly.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Oops! When I originally looked at this proposal I somehow missed the point that it said "any two sentient individuals".

I have just gone back to the list of submitted proposals and marked it as illegal for Contradiction of GA Resolution #299, clause 4, which "Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities" and therefore blocks the "any two sentient beings" clause here.

[Bananaistan]

OOC
Oops! When I originally looked at this proposal I somehow missed the point that it said "any two sentient individuals".

I have just gone back to the list of submitted proposals and marked it as illegal for Contradiction of GA Resolution #299, clause 4, which "Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities" and therefore blocks the "any two sentient beings" clause here.

OOC: Good spot. I have also changed to illegal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The proposal disappeared. It was withdrawn three hours ago by the submitter:

3 hours ago: The Provisional State of Nevada withdrew a proposal from the WA General Assembly titled "Right to Marriage".

[Willania Imperium]

The proposal disappeared. It was withdrawn three hours ago by the submitter:

3 hours ago: The Provisional State of Nevada withdrew a proposal from the WA General Assembly titled "Right to Marriage".

“Well, that was quick. Thank God for that.”