NATION

PASSWORD

[Dropped] R Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

[Dropped] R Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:46 pm

Repeal GAR457, 'Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities'


Applauding the clear intent of GAR#457, which is to protect sexual minorities from unfair mistreatment from governments and their people;

Observing that GAR#457 mandates nations legalize polygamy;

Concerned, however, that GAR#457’s permissive approach, to polygamous marriages constitute a serious disruption of tax, intestacy, and medical beneficiary laws without providing a solution;

Troubled that polygamous marriage has serious implications on the underlying policies of intestacy law, which heavily relies on the presumption of paternity between a married couple, which would be distorted in polygamous marriages where one partner dies intestate;

Further troubles that permitting a surviving spousal share of a decedent’s estate in a polygamous marriage can either reduce the share of heirs in favor of multiple spouses or diminish the total estate amount for all parties by unnecessarily diluting the estate between all parties, in both cases failing utterly to benefit the heirs as intestacy policy intends;

Worried that polygamous marriage implicates medical and end of life decisions by splitting the power of durable attorney among multiple, potentially disparate parties;

Appalled that divorce proceedings between part, but not all, parties in a larger polygamous relationship would create spousal support requirements for individuals not necessarily part of the initial marriage through the confusing and complicated network of marriages;

Horrified that polygamous marriage can invoke marital tax benefits that do not produce the underlying societal incentives that those same benefits provide for monogamous marriage;

Shocked that some may even use marital tax benefits as a means of transferring financial assets without incurring transactional taxes, gaining an unfair and potentially competitive advantage over other taxpayers;

Believing that a superior replacement can both protect unjust mistreatment without requiring member states recognize polygamous marriages for practical, compelling purposes;

Hereby repeals GAR#457.


Target resolution

"I have no problem with most of the currently at-vote proposal. But the recognition of polygamous marriage creates systemic problems that nations are mostly inclined to evade by enforcing monogamous marriage."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:20 am, edited 6 times in total.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Falcania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 968
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Anarchy

Postby Falcania » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:23 pm

It may surprise you to understand that the Free Kingdom practices polygamous marriage without any of the catastrophic tax implications that you are terrified by. Your respective worries, appallment, horrors and shocks are noted but completely unnecessary.
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:39 pm

IC: "What are "marital tax benefits"? Or "marital tax" for that matter?"

OOC: And also, wouldn't anyone who has married, divorced and remarried necessarily "create spousal support requirements for individuals not necessarily part of the initial marriage"?
Last edited by Araraukar on Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:43 pm

(OOC: The author appears to interpret the proposal differently, and does not believe polygamy is mandated to be legalised:
Maowi wrote:This proposal would not enforce the legalisation of polygamy. It defines civil marriage as "a legally recognised union between two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony." So if your nation allows civil marriages between, say, one man and one woman, it must allow civil marriages between two people of any gender or sexuality. If it allows civil marriages between e.g. one man and any number of women, it must allow civil marriages between any number of people of amy sexuality or gender. If it is a nation that only allows civil marriages between one man and three women, it must allow civil marriages between four people of any sexuality or gender.

)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:44 pm

Falcania wrote:It may surprise you to understand that the Free Kingdom practices polygamous marriage without any of the catastrophic tax implications that you are terrified by. Your respective worries, appallment, horrors and shocks are noted but completely unnecessary.

"That's all well and good for Falcania, ambassador, but nations with an established set of codes geared towards a monogamous marital arrangement have no such laws, and to develop a novel law that both reflects the current, carefully arranged policies of incentives and presumptions for a radically new form of social organization would ordinarily take years. (OOC: By way of comparison, it takes about a decade for the US to update Model Codes, more to totally overhaul them.) Frankly, there are serious, compelling reasons to permit member states autonomy on the question of polygamous marriage.

"I am genuinely curious how your nation would deal with the power of durable attorney question without creating a de jure heirarchy among spouses."

OOC: I've been touring through the Model Probate Code for the US in preparation for this draft. Its impressive how many subtle policies are implicated by monogamy, and just how much chaos a modern polygamous arrangement would cause absent a will. Hell, even with a will, it would be bad. "To my wife, all my X." Which wife? What kind of extrinsic evidence clarifies that?

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:47 pm

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The author appears to interpret the proposal differently, and does not believe polygamy is mandated to be legalised:
Maowi wrote:This proposal would not enforce the legalisation of polygamy. It defines civil marriage as "a legally recognised union between two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony." So if your nation allows civil marriages between, say, one man and one woman, it must allow civil marriages between two people of any gender or sexuality. If it allows civil marriages between e.g. one man and any number of women, it must allow civil marriages between any number of people of amy sexuality or gender. If it is a nation that only allows civil marriages between one man and three women, it must allow civil marriages between four people of any sexuality or gender.

)


OOC: That would be nice, but I don't see that as a reasonable interpretation. Two or more means at least two, potentially more. I don't see a rational limit that a state can impose there. Of course, if I submit this and the remainder of GenSec agrees that I'm wrong, I'll cheerfully withdraw it, since it resolves my concerns entirely. Seems fair?

Araraukar wrote:"What are "marital tax benefits"?"

"Many nations provide tax benefits to married couples. Often outright tax breaks, but more often exemptions on certain transfers of property that are otherwise taxed, such as land, stocks, cash, accounts, etc."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:55 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: and just how much chaos a modern polygamous arrangement would cause absent a will.

OOC: Such as?

Hell, even with a will, it would be bad. "To my wife, all my X." Which wife? What kind of extrinsic evidence clarifies that?

Presumably someone in a polygamous marriage wouldn't make such a will, just like someone who wasn't married, wouldn't "leave everything to my spouse".

I'm not advocating for poly marriages, I'm just having a hard time seeing how you get from Y to Z with this.

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Araraukar wrote:"What are "marital tax benefits"?"

"Many nations provide tax benefits to married couples. Often outright tax breaks, but more often exemptions on certain transfers of property that are otherwise taxed, such as land, stocks, cash, accounts, etc."

IC: "And that might be a problem, if not for "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions" in clause 1.a. of the target resolution, and the previously passed extant resolution banning the WA from meddling with nations' internal taxation," Johan pointed out. "Unless someone repealed that one when I was on holiday," he then muttered, leafing through a thick notebook.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Attaché
 
Posts: 87
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Marxist Germany » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:41 am

FULL SUPPORT
"Marxist" no longer applies to this country. This country was made back when I was a commie.

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 761
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:21 am

"We have a question for the ambassador of Separatist Peoples.
What in the targeted resolution or other World Assembly resolutions bans the following law:
If a person is civilly married to another person, they may not marry another person until the first marriage is dissolved."

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19496
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:27 am

"We are fully opposed to this bigotry toward polyamorous relationships. We will not vote for such a repeal."
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Battlion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 509
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:49 am

Completely and utterly opposed, I don’t like insta-repeals in most cases but especially not in this one.
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authortarian: -2.21

Senator Euàn Welder - (Former Minister of Commerce & Industry/Deputy Prime Minister/Chief Whip of Democratic Left)
Justice Valeria Eshendert - (Supreme Court Justice)
The Tea Admin (Seriously, I'm an Admin - TG me for anything)

NSGS Democratic Left - The party for Justice, Equality, Liberty, and the People!
"Least worst member of the Progress Coalition" - Belmaria

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17664
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:51 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The author appears to interpret the proposal differently, and does not believe polygamy is mandated to be legalised:
)


OOC: That would be nice, but I don't see that as a reasonable interpretation. Two or more means at least two, potentially more. I don't see a rational limit that a state can impose there. Of course, if I submit this and the remainder of GenSec agrees that I'm wrong, I'll cheerfully withdraw it, since it resolves my concerns entirely. Seems fair?"

It seems a reasonable interpretation, in context, to me. [one-sixth of GenSec]
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Maowi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:58 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I have no problem with most of the currently at-vote proposal. But the recognition of polygamous marriage creates systemic problems that nations are mostly inclined to evade by enforcing monogamous marriage."


OOC: Even if you did take the resolution to mean that polygamous marriage must be permitted, it would surely be wrong to prioritise a reproach towards paperwork over the rights of people to marry as they wish? If you want to repeal this resolution, by all means try, but I don't think the polygamy "problem" should be the cause for that.

I also know you haven't used this as an argument in this proposal, but many people have argued that polygamous marriage is often forced, and allowing it would somehow make it easier for people to force others into marriages. But 'Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities' states that civil marriage must be permitted to anyone (or no-one) subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly Resolutions.
The Forced Marriages Ban Act prohibits forced marriages, and is just as valid for polygamous marriages as for monogamous ones.
Only dead fish go with the flow
(mostly assume OOC unless otherwise stated)

Policies of Maowi
Maowese News
The Monthly Humbug

Sloths (yay!)
Maowi does use NS stats gasp (unless they contradict the factbooks)

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:38 am

Wallenburg wrote:"We are fully opposed to this bigotry toward polyamorous relationships. We will not vote for such a repeal."

"We have no animus against polyamorous relationships, merely a practical desire to regulate polygamous marriage. I think you know me better than to accuse me of bigotry, ambassador."

Battlion wrote:Completely and utterly opposed, I don’t like insta-repeals in most cases but especially not in this one.


"Who on earth said this would be an insta-repeal? I'm opening this to comment for as long as it takes to iron out any problems. You know what they say about assumptions, ambassador."

Maowi wrote:OOC: Even if you did take the resolution to mean that polygamous marriage must be permitted,

OOC: I realize my vote doesn't count, but two GenSec members have provided an interpretation that favors my interpretation. Unless I'm utterly misreading BA's statement. Indeed, I am perfectly willing to be wrong, as, if nations can regulate polygamy, I have no issues with the proposal. I encourage you to Challenge my proposal and resolve the question either way. It really is a win-win for me.

it would surely be wrong to prioritise a reproach towards paperwork over the rights of people to marry as they wish? If you want to repeal this resolution, by all means try, but I don't think the polygamy "problem" should be the cause for that.

OOC: it isn't paperwork, its the fundamental rights and privileges inherent in marriage that rely on the monogamous nature of those unions. We prioratize the needs and wishes of the spouse to make decisions over the life and property of the other spouse when they are incapable of doing so. Splitting those rights and privileges between several either requires we establish a priority system, which is inherently counter to the equal rights guarantee you've established, or force a mediation over issues that would otherwise have never been in question.

Take, for example, the default spousal right to make major medical decisions as next of kin. Person A is in a coma. Person A is married to B and C. B and C cannot agree whether to unplug Person A or not. How do we resolve this? Both B and C can purport to have A's best interests at heart and know A's preference, but unless we require every married couple (or triad, etc) to execute a detailed will, durable power of attorney, insurance addendum, etc. for every single marriage, these issues arise.

Intestacy, family law, and medical law provide defaults for individuals who have not taken the time to plan these inevitability, or who's legal documents did not account for new circumstances. Interjecting recognition of polygamous marriage creates uncertainty in those systems and undermines the underlying policy for those laws. Adapting to them is not just a question of paperwork, its a long, complicated, and multifaceted re-weighing of policy and execution that throws the commonly understood rights of every single person into flux. Member states absolutely should have dominion over those policies.
I also know you haven't used this as an argument in this proposal

OOC: If I have not used it as an argument, then don't bring it up. Its disingenuous, and I'm not about to waste my valuable, limited time addressing it.
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:42 am

Araraukar wrote:Presumably someone in a polygamous marriage wouldn't make such a will, just like someone who wasn't married, wouldn't "leave everything to my spouse".

"You can presume that, but people in monogamous relationships routinely have vague wills."

OOC: In fact, Wills and Estates law is built entirely on those kinds of failed documents. Its literally why intestacy law exists.
I'm not advocating for poly marriages, I'm just having a hard time seeing how you get from Y to Z with this.

"By applying a rigorous understanding of intestacy law."
OOC: I did rather well in Wills, Trusts, and Estates.
IC: "And that might be a problem, if not for "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions" in clause 1.a. of the target resolution, and the previously passed extant resolution banning the WA from meddling with nations' internal taxation," Johan pointed out. "Unless someone repealed that one when I was on holiday," he then muttered, leafing through a thick notebook.


"Extant law prevents the WA from dictating tax law, but does not protect member states from implementing or continuing discriminatory tax law."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17664
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:45 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I realize my vote doesn't count, but two GenSec members have provided an interpretation that favors my interpretation. Unless I'm utterly misreading BA's statement.

You are.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:47 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I realize my vote doesn't count, but two GenSec members have provided an interpretation that favors my interpretation. Unless I'm utterly misreading BA's statement.

You are.

OOC: Oh, good. If you could get two more members of GenSec to say that, I'll drop this.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Kranostav
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:37 am

Wallenburg wrote:"We are fully opposed to this bigotry toward polyamorous relationships. We will not vote for such a repeal."

That's a fairly creative way to miss the entire point of a proposal.
The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs
The Constitutional Monarchy of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:50 am

Kranostav wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"We are fully opposed to this bigotry toward polyamorous relationships. We will not vote for such a repeal."

That's a fairly creative way to miss the entire point of a proposal.

"It is the reason that ambassador Bell wants to repeal it. Has he missed the entire point then too?"
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Trinadaed
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 126
Founded: Oct 26, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trinadaed » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:56 am

While the rights of sexual and gender rights SHOULD be defended, there's no reason to force stuff onto nations.
I just won't have a sig at all.

User avatar
Maowi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:14 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Maowi wrote:I also know you haven't used this as an argument in this proposal

OOC: If I have not used it as an argument, then don't bring it up. Its disingenuous, and I'm not about to waste my valuable, limited time addressing it.

Sorry about that, but it wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to the people who did bring it up, and support this proposal in this way. You are right, though, I probably should have put it on the thread for the actual DRoSaGM.
Only dead fish go with the flow
(mostly assume OOC unless otherwise stated)

Policies of Maowi
Maowese News
The Monthly Humbug

Sloths (yay!)
Maowi does use NS stats gasp (unless they contradict the factbooks)

User avatar
Maowi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:17 pm

Trinadaed wrote:While the rights of sexual and gender rights SHOULD be defended, there's no reason to force stuff onto nations.


At the risk of hypocrisy... :p
Wrong thread, this proposed repeal is about polygamy, not NatSov. If you want me to address that, post in the thread for my proposal.
Only dead fish go with the flow
(mostly assume OOC unless otherwise stated)

Policies of Maowi
Maowese News
The Monthly Humbug

Sloths (yay!)
Maowi does use NS stats gasp (unless they contradict the factbooks)

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19496
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:39 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"We are fully opposed to this bigotry toward polyamorous relationships. We will not vote for such a repeal."

"We have no animus against polyamorous relationships, merely a practical desire to regulate polygamous marriage. I think you know me better than to accuse me of bigotry, ambassador."

"Ambassador, such a response is akin to a homophobe saying 'I have no animus against gay relationships, I merely desire to ban gay people from marrying each other.' This repeal is distasteful, to say the least."
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:51 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"We have no animus against polyamorous relationships, merely a practical desire to regulate polygamous marriage. I think you know me better than to accuse me of bigotry, ambassador."

"Ambassador, such a response is akin to a homophobe saying 'I have no animus against gay relationships, I merely desire to ban gay people from marrying each other.' This repeal is distasteful, to say the least."

"This repeal is rooted in a deep understanding of the underlying structure of intestacy, tax, and to a lesser extent, family law. Specifically, my objections are out of a desire to prevent either a total failure of the law or unfair advantages by certain individuals over the general population.

"People did not engage unfairly in homosexual marriage because it was limiting in a monogamous society. One could derive the benefits to faking a homosexual marriage, but one was limited in what they could do after. This is not the case in a polygamous marriage, where several people can work together to acquire benefits otherwise unavailable. This is most clear in tax law, where one could incorporate additional individuals into a marriage to reduce the overall tax burden of a household.

"Far worse is the risk of the law utterly failing, as I've explained using the next of kin argument for a person in a coma.

"By permitting member states to recognize, or not, polygamous marriage, one permits member states to evade those conundrums without uprooting entire fields of law, which are the basis of rational, effective policy. If Wallenburg wishes to incorporate polygamous marriage into it's laws, it is welcome to do so, but the C.D.S.P. prioritizes heirs over spouses in its intestacy, and has no interest in creating tax loopholes."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8431
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:51 pm

In before people not understanding marginal analysis.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChoenStan, Republicanana, Tinhampton

Advertisement

Remove ads