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.

Advertisement

Remove ads

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

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:54 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In before people not understanding marginal analysis.

You're too late.

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 » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:00 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:In before people not understanding marginal analysis.

You're too late.


OOC: Every night I pray to heaven to free humanity of economists :P
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
Phydios
Minister
 
Posts: 2155
Founded: Dec 06, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Phydios » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:23 pm

"If the target resolution passes, as expected, Phydios will eagerly support a legal repeal of it."
Last edited by Phydios on Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Romans 1:18-2:29, Ephesians 2:1-10
But God’s angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! | Those people are on a dark spiral downward. But if you think that leaves you on the high ground where you can point your finger at others, think again. Every time you criticize someone, you condemn yourself. | It’s a wonder God didn’t lose His temper and do away with the whole lot of us. Instead, immense in mercy and with an incredible love, He embraced us. He took our sin-dead lives and made us alive in Christ. He did all this on His own, with no help from us!

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

Postby Araraukar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:33 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:"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."

"You have yet to explain, beyond some befuddlement of badly worded wills, what exactly the "total failure of law" would be. The resolution that is about to pass, cannot, due to existing resolutions, mandate one way or another anything to do with internal taxation of member nations. If your nation's tax law is such that you fear it could be abused by polygamous groups, wouldn't they have already taken advantage of it? If they haven't already, they most likely won't going forwards either. And nothing is stopping your nation from changing its tax law to close any such loophole."

"This is not the case in a polygamous marriage, where several people can work together to acquire benefits otherwise unavailable."

"And is divorcing and remarrying a completely foreign concept in your nation right now? Spousal support issues do not only happen in relation to multiple partners, but also serial marriages."

"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."

"Again, simply change your nation's tax laws to prevent that, if it is such a big problem in your nation. Or better yet, abolish any benefit from being or not being married in terms of paying taxes, like Araraukar has, and you won't have any problem. People still get married in Araraukar despite there being no direct financial benefits from it."

"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."

"That, my dear ambassador, is entirely a failing of your own nation's laws, not that of the resolution. If you can determine the next of kin for a non-married individual in a coma, you can determine it for a person with multiple partners as well, and if you cannot, surely your nation is capable of setting a court-mandated guardian of rights for them."

"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."

"Such as?"
"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
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Envoy
 
Posts: 263
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:48 am

Support.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Author of GA #455
My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
Aspiring Issue Author (6-times-failed)

User avatar
Slackertown
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Dec 16, 2018
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Slackertown » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:20 pm

While we're at it, let's ban gay couples, they're too complex on the taxes too...

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 3815
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:15 pm

Slackertown wrote:While we're at it, let's ban gay couples, they're too complex on the taxes too...

False, they fit pretty easily in existing monogamous-designed tax structures if I'm understanding Sep right.
Osiris Vizier of WA AffairsDee Vytherov-SkollvaldrGameplay Ambassador of ForestLieutenant in The Black HawksRecruitment and Outreach Director of Lazarus

User avatar
Aelyria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: Apr 20, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Aelyria » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:34 am

"To those claiming that the law, as stated, allows selective interpretation of the 'or': if this is the case, can we not also selectively interpret, say, the word 'civil' to only mean those marriages recognized by the state after their recognition by a religious authority? Why does this disjunction permit alternate interpretation, but other terms do not?"

"As it stands, the current legislation requires that all member nations which have state-recognized marriage must recognize all 'civic marriages,' after having already defined 'civic marriage' to include any number of partners. This is the plain text of the resolution. There is no room for member nations to recognize only marriages of two persons, but not three or more. Either it must recognize no marriages at all, or it must recognize absolutely all 'civic marriage,' and that term explicitly is for any number greater than one person."

"Aelyria supports the repeal, and immediate replacement with a new bill that explicitly permits member states to define the permissible number of participants in a 'civil marriage.' Then each member state may determine for itself whether the consequences of legal polygamy are an acceptable burden, or not."

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

Postby Battlion » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:40 am

Must say, I’m in agreement with Araraukar that if your own law creates loopholes because of WA resolutions then that sounds like a problem with the law in your own country.
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
Aelyria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: Apr 20, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Aelyria » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:47 am

Battlion wrote:Must say, I’m in agreement with Araraukar that if your own law creates loopholes because of WA resolutions then that sounds like a problem with the law in your own country.

"In what way does the requirement that polygamy be legalized entail flaws in any given member state's laws? All that matters is that they have literally any form of state-recognized marriage, which now induces a requirement to recognize all 'civic marriages,' and thus all marriages of 'two or more' persons."
Last edited by Aelyria on Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Battlion » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:49 am

Aelyria wrote:
Battlion wrote:Must say, I’m in agreement with Araraukar that if your own law creates loopholes because of WA resolutions then that sounds like a problem with the law in your own country.

"In what way does the requirement that polygamy be legalized entail flaws in any given member state's laws? All that matters is that they have literally any form of state-recognized marriage, which now induces a requirement to recognize all 'civic marriages,' and thus all marriages of 'two or more' persons."


I simply reject that it’s even a requirement and the GenSec agree on that in the legality challenge.
Last edited by Battlion on Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
The Marconian State
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Sep 01, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Marconian State » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:25 am

To the Ambassador for the Separatist Peoples to the WA, while it may be fair to consider that the possibility of polygamy alongside all the problems of law, tax, and all such previously mentioned topics raise concern, it might be fair to consider the caliber of many ambassadors and nations joining you in wanting to repeal GAR#457 are not really thinking about those issues. I'm sure you, like many others, saw the level of bigotry raised in the debate against GAR#457, all of which will be allowed to be hidden behind the excuse of tax problems. Bigotry will be allowed to revel as we are found by all those people who say, "Ooh, ooh, I found a loophole, now I don't have to care about this bill I'm voting against!"

I think the better solution here would be to draft a legislation that deals with the problems you seem to have encountered in DRoSaGM, rather than, as they say, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However much ground has been gained for nonbinary peoples will have been lost for a comparatively minor problem. Have you considered working with the Ambassador from the Nation of Maowi to resolve these issues in another bill rather than repealing 457? I, and my President, believe that would be the best solution.

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

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:31 am

The Marconian State wrote:To the Ambassador for the Separatist Peoples to the WA, while it may be fair to consider that the possibility of polygamy alongside all the problems of law, tax, and all such previously mentioned topics raise concern, it might be fair to consider the caliber of many ambassadors and nations joining you in wanting to repeal GAR#457 are not really thinking about those issues. I'm sure you, like many others, saw the level of bigotry raised in the debate against GAR#457, all of which will be allowed to be hidden behind the excuse of tax problems. Bigotry will be allowed to revel as we are found by all those people who say, "Ooh, ooh, I found a loophole, now I don't have to care about this bill I'm voting against!"

I think the better solution here would be to draft a legislation that deals with the problems you seem to have encountered in DRoSaGM, rather than, as they say, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However much ground has been gained for nonbinary peoples will have been lost for a comparatively minor problem. Have you considered working with the Ambassador from the Nation of Maowi to resolve these issues in another bill rather than repealing 457? I, and my President, believe that would be the best solution.

"Until the pending challenge is resolved fully, I will proceed as though the question of polygamy is settled.

"You cannot contradict existing resolutions. This resolution requires member states to recognize polygamous marriage. A new law cannot roll that back without a repeal. What stands to be lost is not minor. What stands to be lost is entire fields of law codifying how societies order themselves. I have absolutely no desire to convolute national laws to accommodate polygamy in later resolutions. Therefore, unless and until the pending challenge officially states that the target resolution does not mandate nations recognize polygamy, nothing short of a repeal will do."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:32 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
Muscao
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Feb 11, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Muscao » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:21 am

I would like to support your appeal to repeal this resolution.

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

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:14 am

Aelyria wrote:"To those claiming that the law, as stated, allows selective interpretation of the 'or': if this is the case, can we not also selectively interpret, say, the word 'civil' to only mean those marriages recognized by the state after their recognition by a religious authority? Why does this disjunction permit alternate interpretation, but other terms do not?"

"As it stands, the current legislation requires that all member nations which have state-recognized marriage must recognize all 'civic marriages,' after having already defined 'civic marriage' to include any number of partners. This is the plain text of the resolution. There is no room for member nations to recognize only marriages of two persons, but not three or more. Either it must recognize no marriages at all, or it must recognize absolutely all 'civic marriage,' and that term explicitly is for any number greater than one person."

"Aelyria supports the repeal, and immediate replacement with a new bill that explicitly permits member states to define the permissible number of participants in a 'civil marriage.' Then each member state may determine for itself whether the consequences of legal polygamy are an acceptable burden, or not."

That would violate "Freedom of Religion" by forcing individuals to adopt the practices of one or another religion in order to exercise a guaranteed right.
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
Elyreia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 130
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Elyreia » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:21 pm

I have a different interpretation of the polygamous claims - rather than forcing all nations to legalize polygamous marriages, it rather states that they must recognize those marriages where they exist. If a polygamous family immigrated to Elyreia, our laws would not be allowed to revoke that marriage, even though their children will be required to be monogamous. (Sidebar: Monogamy is enforced due to keeping track of lineages, inheritance, and estates of the Princely House, the Four Lordly Houses, and all of their cadet and child branches. Much easier to address.)

I could be misinterpreting, however.
Last edited by Elyreia on Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki

World Assembly Ambassador: Āeksio Korus Vaelans (Character Dossier)

User avatar
Gudmund
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Aug 02, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Gudmund » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:02 pm

Overall I disagree with the original resolution entirely, just for a few different reasons. Considering the very first line disregards the physical differences between male and female, I already thought it was pretty stupid. My nation does not have marriage, so #1 (a, b, c, d) of the original resolution does not apply to me. However, I'm more concerned with the original resolution's explanation of #2 and #3:

    2. MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

    3. ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion).

This means services/businesses like Boy or Girl scouts will practically not exist due to the enforcement of these 2 rules. For example, the resolution forces nations to punish such organisations if they don't allow any gender except male from joining the boy scouts. Neither will there be separation between sports, since qualifying conditions '...may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.'

This also prevents businesses from hiring only male or female workers for specific roles. Contracting/building companies usually hire all-male since they're often better suited for heavy lifting and dangerous work. I'm not even going to get into the many issues with healthcare that this brings forth.

How this resolution even managed to pass in the first place honestly astounds me.
Last edited by Gudmund on Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Civilisation:
Tier 8, Level 0, Type 7
A 9 civilization - according to this index
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Nation: Gudmund
Region: The United Federations
Setting: Future Tech (2060+), the ruling nation of a non-human, but humanoid, low population galactic Empire spanning just beyond its solar system. Primarily using advanced, mass-produced droids to fill the ranks of its military alongside living soldiers.

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

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:34 am

Gudmund wrote:Overall I disagree with the original resolution entirely, just for a few different reasons. Considering the very first line disregards the physical differences between male and female, I already thought it was pretty stupid. My nation does not have marriage, so #1 (a, b, c, d) of the original resolution does not apply to me. However, I'm more concerned with the original resolution's explanation of #2 and #3:

    2. MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

    3. ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion).

This means services/businesses like Boy or Girl scouts will practically not exist due to the enforcement of these 2 rules. For example, the resolution forces nations to punish such organisations if they don't allow any gender except male from joining the boy scouts. Neither will there be separation between sports, since qualifying conditions '...may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.'

This also prevents businesses from hiring only male or female workers for specific roles. Contracting/building companies usually hire all-male since they're often better suited for heavy lifting and dangerous work. I'm not even going to get into the many issues with healthcare that this brings forth.

How this resolution even managed to pass in the first place honestly astounds me.

(OOC: That is true. However, luckily, there is a loophole. Although it has to be technically illegal under the law, it only has to be punished ‘as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria’. The punishments for those conditions are grouped under CoCR, GA #35, which does have an exception for compelling practical purposes. Therefore, the fines a nation would have to impose on a business could be lessened to token amounts via this loophole, if the member state claimed a compelling practical purpose, although the actions themselves would still have to be illegal.)
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
Gudmund
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Aug 02, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Gudmund » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:00 am

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That is true. However, luckily, there is a loophole. Although it has to be technically illegal under the law, it only has to be punished ‘as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria’. The punishments for those conditions are grouped under CoCR, GA #35, which does have an exception for compelling practical purposes. Therefore, the fines a nation would have to impose on a business could be lessened to token amounts via this loophole, if the member state claimed a compelling practical purpose, although the actions themselves would still have to be illegal.)

Thank you for the explanation, I was only vaguely aware of this beforehand.
Civilisation:
Tier 8, Level 0, Type 7
A 9 civilization - according to this index
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Nation: Gudmund
Region: The United Federations
Setting: Future Tech (2060+), the ruling nation of a non-human, but humanoid, low population galactic Empire spanning just beyond its solar system. Primarily using advanced, mass-produced droids to fill the ranks of its military alongside living soldiers.

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

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:21 am

OOC: Its not a full opinion, but there is a consensus among GenSec that the target does not require polygamy, and that was really my only concern. So, my work here is done, and I can go back to enjoying the social conservative fury.

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

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Marconian State, Tinfect

Advertisement

Remove ads