NationStates

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.

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.

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.

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.

)

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

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: 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?

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."

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?"

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."

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

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

Maowi wrote: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

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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."

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."