[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Maowi]

OOC:
Good idea, bad execution, what this draft really needs is a ban on Heterosexual marriage.

Erm... I think that might just defeat the point of the idea: equality between people of all sexual orientation...
I've actually been trying out drafting some legislation not only about gay marriage, but gay rights in general, as Kenmoria seems to be suggesting

[Maowi]

I was making reference to the fact that duplication of existing legislation, such as CoCR, is only legal if additional content is provided in the proposal, by ‘zooming in’ on that policy area. Even though there is a loophole in terms of vagueness over the discrimination law, I don’t think it would be allowable to just ban prohibitions on homosexual marriage, you have to do something else as well.

That was just me giving an example of additional legislation you could include to make sure you don’t fall afoul of the duplication rule, in your current proposal. On that topic, I recommend writing one soon, as it is quite hard to debate a proposal that doesn’t yet exist.)

Ok thanks, I somehow managed to not see this earlier

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve out some feedback on this draft in red.”

Protecting the Civil and Political Rights of Homosexual People This is a good first draft. By that I mean there is a clear idea here that is possible and legal, to accomplish, and the foundations to addressing it.

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Significant

HOLDING that the sexual orientation of an individual does not make them inferior or superior to another individual of a differing sexual orientation,

REASONING that homosexual individuals should therefore be granted the same civil and political rights as heterosexual individuals, and

NOTING the lack of General Assembly legislation which specifically clarifies the civil and political rights of homosexual individuals,

The World Assembly There is normally a comma after this.

A) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract without religious ceremony. One thing to look out for here is polygyny or polygamy, the practices of marrying multiple husbands of multiple wives, respectively. Some religions and cultures might consider this fully morally, and be offended by this definition.

B) FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their legally recognised union with another person as partners in a personal relationship. I would clarify that this has to be a civilly married relationship, since a member state might legally recognise other kinds of union aside from marriage.

C) FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a "homosexual individual" as a person who is sexually attracted to a person of the same sex as them, or who is sexually attracted to people of both sexes. The second part of this clause would be included in the first, seeing as you don’t say ‘exclusively’.

Hereby:

1. 1. REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between two people of opposite sex to allow civil marriages between two people of the same sex.
      
   2. COMMANDS all such member nations to allow civil marriage to all same-sex couples, subject to the same conditions under which civil marriage is allowed to all opposite-sex couples. Such conditions may not, of course, include the sexual orientation of the individuals concerned. The bolding of ‘subject to the same conditions’ looks quite garish and doesn’t have any legal effect, so I suggest removing it or limiting it in scope.
      
   3. REQUIRES all member nations which provide civil marriage services for two people of opposite sex to provide civil marriage services for two people of the same sex.
      
   4. COMPELS all member nations to grant to all same-sex spouses every marriage right granted to opposite-sex spouses, and no more marriage rights than those.
      
   5. COMPELS all member nations to implement the same legislation, and no more, regarding the termination of same-sex civil marriages, as the legislation regarding the termination of opposite-sex civil marriages. I think requiring the same scope and effect, rather than the exact same legislation, would work better here. This is because that legislation may be specifically tailored to opposite-sex marriage and make little sense when applied to homosexual marriage.
   
   
2. 1. MANDATES that no homosexual individual in any member nation be denied the right to partake in any political activity in which a heterosexual individual has the right to partake in that member nation, solely or in part on the basis of their sexual orientation. Such political activities may include (but are not limited to):
      
      1. Voting in any sort of election
      2. Taking up any sort of political office
   2. ORDERS that all homosexual individuals must be granted the right stated in 2. a. subject to the same conditions under which the right stated in 2. a. is granted to heterosexual individuals. Such conditions may not, of course, include the individual's sexual orientation.
3. 1. RULES that each member nation must provide all the same government-run services to homosexual individuals as it does to heterosexual individuals, and no more such services than those. Such services may include (but are not limited to): ‘If appropriate’ would be some useful wording here, since government-services could tackle problems found only in men-women relationships.
      
      1. Healthcare services
      2. Social services
   2. COMPELS all member nations to provide such services to all homosexual individuals for the same price, subject to the same conditions and at the same quality as such services are provided to all heterosexual individuals. Such conditions may not, of course, include the individual's sexual orientation.
4. 1. REQUIRES each member nation to provide to homosexual individuals all the same financial services as it provides to heterosexual individuals, and no more such services than those. An example of one such financial service is a financial benefit of any sort.
      
   2. COMPELS all member nations to provide such financial services to all homosexual individuals subject to the same conditions as such financial services are provided to all heterosexual individuals. Such conditions may not, of course, include the individual's sexual orientation.
5. 1. ORDERS all member nations to legally permit all homosexual individuals to act, think, feel and speak as they wish, subject to the same conditions to which the actions, thoughts, feelings and speech of heterosexual individuals are subject. Such conditions may not, of course, include the individual's sexual orientation. This last bit duplicates ‘Protecting Free Expression’ according to a broad interpretation so, considering you weren’t sure about it, I don’t think a lot will be lost if you remove it. However, don’t feel forced to, it is fine to still be here.

[Araraukar]

OOC: If you have a current draft, leave it unspoilered in the first post.

[Maowi]

Kenmoria thank you so much for that advice, it's really helpful as I have never submitted a wa proposal before but I believe in the idea and I think it's an important piece of legislation to have.

[Maowi]

OOC: If you have a current draft, leave it unspoilered in the first post.

Ok sure

[Maowi]

Does anybody else have any opinions/feedback on this? If no-one else comments on the idea I will probably submit it fairly soon.

[Araraukar]

Does anybody else have any opinions/feedback on this? If no-one else comments on the idea I will probably submit it fairly soon.

OOC: You've had it up only for a few days. People have lives, you know, and can't spend a lot of time on NationStates daily.

Have you checked the previous flurry of similar proposals (about voting and marriage rights) that failed, and the reasons why they failed? Being aware of those reasons would help you to refine your draft without outside help, as well as prepare to defend it, when the same issues inevitably are raised again.

[Maowi]

OOC: You've had it up only for a few days. People have lives, you know, and can't spend a lot of time on NationStates daily.

Yes sorry looking back I realise I was being too hasty, I got a bit too swept up in the idea lol
But on the other hand it is true that not many people on this thread have actually given helpful feedback on the idea/draft, I just wanted to see whether the apparent lack of interest was a result of everyone hating the idea so much they couldn't be bothered to waste their time on it or just not having time to look through the whole thing and think about it.

[Falcania]

So to what extent is this not duplication of GAR 35? I'm confused.

[Kenmoria]

“The active clauses in the current draft have a lot of good mandates, and are pretty much immune to loopholing, but are very clunky and somewhat redundant in a new places. For example, a lot of the a subclauses and b subclauses could be combined together to produce one more succinct clause. Also, there is no need to have a clause 5a when there is not a clause 5b.”

[Maowi]

So to what extent is this not duplication of GAR 35? I'm confused.

The CoCR uses terms such as "unreasonable", "unprovoked", etc. (e.g. saying that unreasonable discrimination shall be prohibited) which could be used by the less morally scrupulous nations as loopholes. This proposal seeks to close those loopholes regarding homosexuals by laying out the circumstances in which discrimination is unreasonable and so forcing all member nations to treat homosexuals equally as they treat heterosexuals.

[Maowi]

“The active clauses in the current draft have a lot of good mandates, and are pretty much immune to loopholing, but are very clunky and somewhat redundant in a new places. For example, a lot of the a subclauses and b subclauses could be combined together to produce one more succinct clause. Also, there is no need to have a clause 5a when there is not a clause 5b.”

My priority was to close loopholes, and I agree that the language is clunky and I need to put some thought into making it a bit more concise without leaving space for nations to squirm out of it

[Maowi]

Have you checked the previous flurry of similar proposals (about voting and marriage rights) that failed, and the reasons why they failed? Being aware of those reasons would help you to refine your draft without outside help, as well as prepare to defend it, when the same issues inevitably are raised again.

I have been intending to do that, and I would be grateful if anyone could tell me whether there was a way to find defeated proposals other than trawling through the GA forum to find their threads?
Thanks

[Araraukar]

I would be grateful if anyone could tell me whether there was a way to find defeated proposals other than trawling through the GA forum to find their threads?

OOC: Use the forum search function.

Restrict the search to the GA forum - you need to use the search link (at the top of every forum page, next to logout) that gives you all the options, not the search box that says "search this forum..." - and do several searches with various related words. You can also, like, do a GA search with "gay" and then search those results with "marriage". Then you'll get all the ones that have both "gay" and "marriage" in them, though not necessarily as "gay marriage". If you further restrict the original search to only first posts of topics, you'll get ones with the search word in the proposal.

Also, be aware that the search function is a bit stupid and treats "marriage" and "marriages" as completely unrelated words, so if you search with "marriage", it won't flag posts that only have "marriages" in them.

The good thing is that once you find one of the threads from a while back, you likely won't need to go very far back to find the rest, as they were rather clustered at the time.

[Maowi]

I would be grateful if anyone could tell me whether there was a way to find defeated proposals other than trawling through the GA forum to find their threads?

OOC: Use the forum search function.

Restrict the search to the GA forum - you need to use the search link (at the top of every forum page, next to logout) that gives you all the options, not the search box that says "search this forum..." - and do several searches with various related words. You can also, like, do a GA search with "gay" and then search those results with "marriage". Then you'll get all the ones that have both "gay" and "marriage" in them, though not necessarily as "gay marriage". If you further restrict the original search to only first posts of topics, you'll get ones with the search word in the proposal.

Also, be aware that the search function is a bit stupid and treats "marriage" and "marriages" as completely unrelated words, so if you search with "marriage", it won't flag posts that only have "marriages" in them.

The good thing is that once you find one of the threads from a while back, you likely won't need to go very far back to find the rest, as they were rather clustered at the time.

Thanks, that's helpful

Separately, nations who chose against in the poll, if you don't mind it would be really helpful for me if you just quickly posted to tell me why: is it a problem with the whole concept, or is it the CoCR objection, or is it badly written? Thank you

[Araraukar]

Separately, nations who chose against in the poll, if you don't mind it would be really helpful for me if you just quickly posted to tell me why: is it a problem with the whole concept, or is it the CoCR objection, or is it badly written? Thank you

OOC: I chose "against", because I think CoCR covers this, and also because you're focusing on homosexuals only (rather than anyone who's not heterosexual), but if this actually came up in a vote, I'd likely vote "for" for in-character reasons.

[Maowi]

Separately, nations who chose against in the poll, if you don't mind it would be really helpful for me if you just quickly posted to tell me why: is it a problem with the whole concept, or is it the CoCR objection, or is it badly written? Thank you :)

OOC: I chose "against", because I think CoCR covers this, and also because you're focusing on homosexuals only (rather than anyone who's not heterosexual), but if this actually came up in a vote, I'd likely vote "for" for in-character reasons.

Ok, thanks for sharing :)
I would like to clarify that in the draft, I define ('for the purposes of this resolution') a homosexual person as "a person who is sexually attracted to a person of the same sex as them". This includes bisexuals because it is not a person who is exclusively attracted to a person of the same sex as them. But you're right - I should probably change the wording to include anyone who is not heterosexual. That was the intention, but it was the wrong wording. Thanks for bringing it up.
Also, I know I've said it already, but the CoCR has a lot of loopholes. It is a great proposal in that it enforces at least a basis of civil rights, but just to give one example, nations with a religious majority could say that it would be highly offensive and would cause a lot of anger in their religious population if they allowed gay marriage, and that could be for them a 'compelling practical purpose' for banning gay marriage. With this proposal I want to ensure that anybody of any sexual orientation is not considered inferior to any heterosexual person merely because of their sexuality, and I strongly believe that the CoCR does not prevent nations from circumventing its main purpose.

[Araraukar]

I would like to clarify that in the draft, I define ('for the purposes of this resolution') a homosexual person as "a person who is sexually attracted to a person of the same sex as them". This includes bisexuals because it is not a person who is exclusively attracted to a person of the same sex as them. But you're right - I should probably change the wording to include anyone who is not heterosexual. That was the intention, but it was the wrong wording. Thanks for bringing it up.

OOC: There are more kinds of sexualities beyond straight/gay/bi, so something that in essence says "not heterosexual" would cover all of them.

a religious majority could say that it would be highly offensive and would cause a lot of anger in their religious population if they allowed gay marriage, and that could be for them a 'compelling practical purpose' for banning gay marriage.

You can't make a resolution that will cover all actions that unreasonable nations would take. Or that people's roleplaying realities couldn't dodge around if they so wanted. It's just considered bad form to flaunt that in the General Assembly form.

With this proposal I want to ensure that anybody of any sexual orientation is not considered inferior to any heterosexual person merely because of their sexuality, and I strongly believe that the CoCR does not prevent nations from circumventing its main purpose.

That's your opinion, which you're allowed to have. You just asked for reasons why people chose "against" in the poll, and in my opinion CoCR would cover this. We can disagree with one another and technically still both be right.

[Maowi]

You can't make a resolution that will cover all actions that unreasonable nations would take. Or that people's roleplaying realities couldn't dodge around if they so wanted. It's just considered bad form to flaunt that in the General Assembly form.

OK, but I wasn't trying to say that I wanted to micromanage what a nation does. I know that in terms of people's roleplay and how they shape their nation, this will not of course change anything, but in character (in terms of the WA), this proposal would tighten the laws to make sure that no nation abuses the rights of anyone who isn't straight. I hope that makes sense, Idk if I properly translated what was in my head to the actual words lol

That's your opinion, which you're allowed to have. You just asked for reasons why people chose "against" in the poll, and in my opinion CoCR would cover this. We can disagree with one another and technically still both be right.

Sure, let's agree to disagree. I just wanted to argue my point

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Yes, it's a good idea to include all sexual minorities if you want to go through with this. Keep in mind that "avoiding causing people offense" is not a compelling practical purpose as far as the World Assembly is concerned. My brief analysis of the relationship between LGBTQ++ equality and CoCR can be found here: briefly, most nations are compelled by good faith interpretations of resolutions to permit marriage, adoption, inheritance rights, etc. by sexual minorities, but there are outliers enough that this is not duplicative.

You would do well to try to tighten up the writing - right now Clauses 2-5 constitute a list of things which nations must provide equally to sexual minorities (assuming you do replace "same-sex" and "homosexual" with broader terms). But I believe it would be both more efficient and more popular if you rewrote it to say simply "any right, power, permission, or service to which heterosexuals or the sexual majority are entitled or for which they may qualify, shall be rendered equally and under the same qualifying conditions (excluding any requirement of sexual orientation or a practical equivalent) to sexual minorities."

At the very least, you should amend Definition A to read "with or without religious ceremony," as some churches may perform "civil marriages" as you've defined them here.

[Maowi]

Thanks for all your suggestions. I have made significant changes, taking your suggestion of summarising all my points as rights, powers, permissions and services. For the sake of simplicity, I used the term non-sexually conforming individuals and defined a "non-sexually conforming individual" as a person who is neither male and sexually attracted solely to females, nor female and sexually attracted solely to males - though I accept that in many nations, heterosexuals are not the majority. I wrote it like this to avoid the whole 'opposite sex' vs 'different sex' argument and to accommodate non gender binary individuals. I was also very careful throughout it to promote equality rather than simply promoting the rights of "non-sexually conforming individuals", so that nations which have "non-sexually conforming individuals" as a majority couldn't use it as a loophole to discriminate against heterosexuals.
I am not sure about part 4; I think interactions between state and religion are a different problem requiring a different resolution, so would I be better off adding 'subject to future resolutions' or something along those lines?

[Maowi]

I have made a few changes to my draft, does anyone have any suggestions for part 4, which I wasn't really sure about? Or just any general comments? Thanks

[Araraukar]

OOC: You could shorten many of the clauses a lot. And also your current clauses are meaningless if you allow nations to require opposite genders for a marriage to happen, regardless of sexuality.

Instead of:

REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between heterosexual individuals to allow civil marriages between non-sexually conforming individuals, and vice versa, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexual orientation of the individuals concerned.

I'd probably use:

REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between heterosexual individuals to also allow civil marriages between individuals of any other sexuality or gender, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.

The "previously plassed extant resolutions" is there so people can't claim you're trying to okay child brides or anything silly like that.

And instead of :

REQUIRES all member nations to provide exactly the same civil marriage services for heterosexual individuals as for non-sexually conforming individuals, or none at all for both groups.

You could have:

REQUIRES all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of any sexuality or gender.

Do you see what I mean?

[Maowi]

Got it, thanks those are good points. I'll add them in when I next have time.