[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Kenmoria]

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

(OOC: Option 4 seems problematic for religions without holy texts, and I would also add a requirement for a plurality of the religion’s members actually agree with a homosexual marriage ban.)

[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

(OOC: Option 4 seems problematic for religions without holy texts, and I would also add a requirement for a plurality of the religion’s members actually agree with a homosexual marriage ban.)

Thanks, maybe I should just have a requirement for a majority of the religion's followers believing in the immorality of certain types of relationships

[Maowi]

Ok, so I made another draft trying to make it more concise while still keeping it as un-loophole-able as possible, and when I was putting in the advice from Araraukar it sort of turned into also protecting gender minorities. Please post to tell me if you think that's a good idea, thanks :) because I can still take it out of parts 2 and 3

[Kenmoria]

“I would also add, to clause 4, that the objections of the vast majority of the religious members must actually be grounded in religion, rather than just sociocultural values.”

[Maowi]

“I would also add, to clause 4, that the objections of the vast majority of the religious members must actually be grounded in religion, rather than just sociocultural values.”

Done that now, thanks.
I think unless something major crops up I might think about submitting this fairly soon.

[Tinfect]

Feren, unaccompanied by the rest of the Imperial Delegation, stepped forward.

"Clause four is entirely unacceptable. Religious organizations are not, and cannot, be exempt from the law, especially from legislation that purports to protect civil rights."

[Maowi]

Religious marriage is a service granted by a religion, but under certain denominations of many religions it is deeply immoral to marry homosexual couples. I do not want to force religions to practise something that would cause them to sin, or go against their beliefs. This is why I have put in clause four; and it is also why I have put in 'subject to future WA proposals' - I don't want this to prevent further legislation regarding the obligations of religions from passing, and I think this is a very complex issue which I just can't address in one clause of a proposal on the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities.

[Kenmoria]

Religious marriage is a service granted by a religion, but under certain denominations of many religions it is deeply immoral to marry homosexual couples. I do not want to force religions to practise something that would cause them to sin, or go against their beliefs. This is why I have put in clause four; and it is also why I have put in 'subject to future WA proposals' - I don't want this to prevent further legislation regarding the obligations of religions from passing, and I think this is a very complex issue which I just can't address in one clause of a proposal on the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities.

(OOC: To clarify, does that mean that future legislation could potentially overrule your clause 4? If so, that is a very good idea, and I like the concept of having such an important conflict of rights able to be dealt with more fully by another piece of legislation.)

[Maowi]

(OOC: To clarify, does that mean that future legislation could potentially overrule your clause 4? If so, that is a very good idea, and I like the concept of having such an important conflict of rights able to be dealt with more fully by another piece of legislation.)

The "subject to future World Assembly resolutions" bit at the end is supposed to signify that clause 4 is just a sort of temporary legislation and could be overruled by future, more detailed resolutions on the topic; should I make that clearer?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: To clarify, does that mean that future legislation could potentially overrule your clause 4? If so, that is a very good idea, and I like the concept of having such an important conflict of rights able to be dealt with more fully by another piece of legislation.)

The "subject to future World Assembly resolutions" bit at the end is supposed to signify that clause 4 is just a sort of temporary legislation and could be overruled by future, more detailed resolutions on the topic; should I make that clearer?

(OOC: I don’t think there is a need to do that; it is just that I’ve never seen anything that has done that in past legislation.)

[Araraukar]

The "subject to future World Assembly resolutions" bit at the end is supposed to signify that clause 4 is just a sort of temporary legislation and could be overruled by future, more detailed resolutions on the topic; should I make that clearer?

(OOC: I don’t think there is a need to do that; it is just that I’ve never seen anything that has done that in past legislation.)

OOC: Wouldn't any such resolution necessarily amend this one, thus making them illegal?

[Maowi]

Ok, this is something for me to look at in more detail. I just wanted to have a basic protection in place for religious organisations, before anyone legislates on religion and civil rights in general (not just in terms of sexual and gender minorities). Does anybody know if it would count as an amendment if I state that future resolutions can override it? I'll try and find out...

[Maowi]

So, this sort of thing has been done before:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4524923#p4524923 (On Abortion clause 7)
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=10021368#p10021368 (Freedom to Contract clause 5)
But there it was more sort of 'you can add additional legislation' but that additional legislation wouldn't contradict with the resolution, just add more details.

Then there was this proposal:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=285155&hilit=Bodily+integrity+act (Bodily Integrity Act clause 5)
It makes allowances for future WA proposals to contradict it in specific areas of legislation. At the end of the thread a mod said they had problems with the proposal's legality and they were talking about it contradicting an extant GA resolution but they didn't mention clause 5, so I am assuming that it's legal...

[Kenmoria]

(OOC:

So, this sort of thing has been done before:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4524923#p4524923 (On Abortion clause 7)
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=10021368#p10021368 (Freedom to Contract clause 5)
But there it was more sort of 'you can add additional legislation' but that additional legislation wouldn't contradict with the resolution, just add more details.

That’s perfectly normal, and there is no issue with mentioning possible future legislation being enacted.

Then there was this proposal:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=285155&hilit=Bodily+integrity+act (Bodily Integrity Act clause 5)
It makes allowances for future WA proposals to contradict it in specific areas of legislation. At the end of the thread a mod said they had problems with the proposal's legality and they were talking about it contradicting an extant GA resolution but they didn't mention clause 5, so I am assuming that it's legal...

Although closer, I don’t believe that this quite fits your proposal either. That proposal was still only allowing legislation on topics it had not covered. I think you will just have to wait for some members of Gensec to rule on this.)

[Maowi]

(OOC: Although closer, I don’t believe that this quite fits your proposal either. That proposal was still only allowing legislation on topics it had not covered. I think you will just have to wait for some members of Gensec to rule on this.)

I will put a post on GA Q&A, hopefully I might get some feedback there too

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"arbitrarily assigned human features"

"Ambassador, given GAR #355, I might change this to something like 'arbitrary, reductive criteria' to avoid conflict."


OOC:
There's a way to do your Parts 3-4 exemption that's legal and effective.

I will note as an aside that if you had no exemption for religious groups, this resolution would still fall under the "compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order" exception to GAR #430's guaranteed right not to participate in religious practices.

But since you do want such an exemption in your resolution, the most obviously legal way to do it would be to simply alter Clause 3 to read:

ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all non-religious organisations which deny

That way you're clearly not inviting an amendment to this should it pass.

IMO any future resolution eliminating this exemption should not be couched as such, and would properly fall under Moral Decency, as its primary effect would be restricting the civil rights of religious organizations. With this prospective resolution in place, all WA member states would now be categorically required, irrespective of any previously existing "compelling practical purpose" alleged by priests of angry volcano gods under COCR, to permit sexual minorities to access all services, including at already-existing churches and other religious outfits that welcome them.

[Wrapper]

I will put a post on GA Q&A, hopefully I might get some feedback there too

That’s not really what the Q&A is for. Questions about a specific draft of a specific proposal belong here, in the drafting thread.

[Tinfect]

Religious marriage is a service granted by a religion, but under certain denominations of many religions it is deeply immoral to marry homosexual couples. I do not want to force religions to practise something that would cause them to sin, or go against their beliefs. This is why I have put in clause four; and it is also why I have put in 'subject to future WA proposals' - I don't want this to prevent further legislation regarding the obligations of religions from passing, and I think this is a very complex issue which I just can't address in one clause of a proposal on the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities.

"Irrelevant," said Feren, "The issue is hardly complex at all; either you intend to protect the Civil Rights of these groups, or you allow discriminatory practices. Allow me to reiterate; you are explicitly exempting certain groups from compliance with civil rights legislation. You are placing the right to discriminate, over the rights of the groups you claim to be assisting. Either this legislation protects these groups, or it enables discrimination. You cannot have it both ways."

[Maowi]

"arbitrarily assigned human features"

"Ambassador, given GAR #35, I might change this to something like 'arbitrary, reductive criteria' to avoid conflict."

Thanks, I will put that in.

OOC:
the most obviously legal way to do it would be to simply alter Clause 3 to read:
[box]ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all non-religious organisations which deny

That way you're clearly not inviting an amendment to this should it pass.

IMO any future resolution eliminating this exemption should not be couched as such, and would properly fall under Moral Decency, as its primary effect would be restricting the civil rights of religious organizations. With this prospective resolution in place, all WA member states would now be categorically required, irrespective of any previously existing "compelling practical purpose" alleged by priests of angry volcano gods under COCR, to permit sexual minorities to access all services, including at already-existing churches and other religious outfits that welcome them.

Thank you very much, that is very helpful.

I will put a post on GA Q&A, hopefully I might get some feedback there too

That’s not really what the Q&A is for. Questions about a specific draft of a specific proposal belong here, in the drafting thread.

Noted, sorry about that then.

[Kenmoria]

“I think a bit more clarification may be needed on clause 4 as to whether you are mandating that member nations do not punish religious organisations or whether you merely are not mandating that punishments be imposed. I recommend the former.”

[Araraukar]

“I think a bit more clarification may be needed on clause 4 as to whether you are mandating that member nations do not punish religious organisations or whether you merely are not mandating that punishments be imposed. I recommend the former.”

IC: "Why should religious organizations be excempt? Why not humanitarian ones? Why not political ones? All are set up for a certain ideology, yet you want to let only one of them to go unpunished?"

OOC: I would simply just leave any and all mention (aside from the "whether or not [civil marriage] involves a religious ritual") of anything religious out of the proposal. There's no point to have religious-anything in it when you're legislating on civil marriages. Or you could just state "Religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation."

[Kenmoria]

“I think a bit more clarification may be needed on clause 4 as to whether you are mandating that member nations do not punish religious organisations or whether you merely are not mandating that punishments be imposed. I recommend the former.”

IC: "Why should religious organizations be excempt? Why not humanitarian ones? Why not political ones? All are set up for a certain ideology, yet you want to let only one of them to go unpunished?"

OOC: I would simply just leave any and all mention (aside from the "whether or not [civil marriage] involves a religious ritual") of anything religious out of the proposal. There's no point to have religious-anything in it when you're legislating on civil marriages. Or you could just state "Religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation."

“Oh bother! I meant to say I recommend the latter, not the former, since it’s unjustifiable to mandate that member nations create a special exception for religious organisations when they could have a strong secular policy.”

(OOC: However, your suggestion does make a lot more sense, as this proposal is legislating on civil marriage. I recommend the author to do that.)

[Maowi]

Religious marriage is a service granted by a religion, but under certain denominations of many religions it is deeply immoral to marry homosexual couples. I do not want to force religions to practise something that would cause them to sin, or go against their beliefs. This is why I have put in clause four; and it is also why I have put in 'subject to future WA proposals' - I don't want this to prevent further legislation regarding the obligations of religions from passing, and I think this is a very complex issue which I just can't address in one clause of a proposal on the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities.

"Irrelevant," said Feren, "The issue is hardly complex at all; either you intend to protect the Civil Rights of these groups, or you allow discriminatory practices. Allow me to reiterate; you are explicitly exempting certain groups from compliance with civil rights legislation. You are placing the right to discriminate, over the rights of the groups you claim to be assisting. Either this legislation protects these groups, or it enables discrimination. You cannot have it both ways."

Maybe that's your view of the matter, but forcing religious institutions to carry out a practice that goes against their teachings could set a dangerous precedent for restricting religious freedoms. I might be wrong, but as an example, a homosexual individual would probably not agree with the interpretation of the Bible that says that gay marriage is wrong, and so would more likely be Protestant than Catholic. I know this would be hard for residents of predominantly Catholic countries, but its something I feel I have to do this way because I believe in religious freedom. There are other things which cause disagreements between religious people and atheists, and although I accept this is a step up from most of those matters, I still feel it would be wrong to force e.g. the Catholic church to marry gay couples and allow gay people to become priests, etc. And besides, why would a gay person want to become a Catholic priest and spread the Catholic teachings which discriminate against them? I hope I am not offending anyone who actually is in that position, and please give your opinion x

[Maowi]

IC: "Why should religious organizations be excempt? Why not humanitarian ones? Why not political ones? All are set up for a certain ideology, yet you want to let only one of them to go unpunished?"

OOC: I would simply just leave any and all mention (aside from the "whether or not [civil marriage] involves a religious ritual") of anything religious out of the proposal. There's no point to have religious-anything in it when you're legislating on civil marriages. Or you could just state "Religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation."

“Oh bother! I meant to say I recommend the latter, not the former, since it’s unjustifiable to mandate that member nations create a special exception for religious organisations when they could have a strong secular policy.”

(OOC: However, your suggestion does make a lot more sense, as this proposal is legislating on civil marriage. I recommend the author to do that.)

This is what I was sort of trying to do with what is currently clause 4, but I obviously think that religious institutions which are not religiously against the marriage of sexual minorities should not be allowed to discriminate. But maybe the simplest solution is what you suggest. Thanks for your feedback, and I think that is what I will do.

[Kenmoria]

“On a few minor points, there should be a full stop after definition clause B as there is one in definition A, also I believe it looks more aesthetically pleasing if there is a comma after the ‘Hereby’.”