[Legality Challenge] Repeal DRoSaGM

[Lord Dominator]

Challenging (since character limit interfered: Repeal: Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

Proposal to be repealed by such: Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

Rule Violated: Honest Mistake

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

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.

Argument (That is is a HM violation): From the author of the proposal at-vote/which would be repealed;

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.

Counter-Argument (that it does not violate such): From myself;

OOC: I totally agree that the reasonable reading it that 'two or more' includes polyamory but doesn't call all of them such. However, it is implicitly recognizing polyamory as a possible state of a legal civil marriage, which is then (civil marriage that is) required by the proposal to be legally recognized as valid in all member nations. In other words, since the definition includes such and is then required, polyamory becomes legally required as a marriage option in member nations.

[Bananaistan]

My 1/6 is that the repeal does not actually claim that the target enforced the legalisation of polygamy. It refers to its permissive approach and how it permits polygamous marriage. In this respect, I don't think the challenge holds water.

[Separatist Peoples]

My 1/6 is that the repeal does not actually claim that the target enforced the legalisation of polygamy. It refers to its permissive approach and how it permits polygamous marriage. In this respect, I don't think the challenge holds water.

I changed it to state that the repeal does enforce polygamy.

[Wallenburg]

My 1/6 is that the repeal does not actually claim that the target enforced the legalisation of polygamy. It refers to its permissive approach and how it permits polygamous marriage. In this respect, I don't think the challenge holds water.

If that were the case, the repeal would be illegal for not addressing the resolution, since it only refers to alleged issues with polygamy in its arguments against the target.

[Bananaistan]

My 1/6 is that the repeal does not actually claim that the target enforced the legalisation of polygamy. It refers to its permissive approach and how it permits polygamous marriage. In this respect, I don't think the challenge holds water.

If that were the case, the repeal would be illegal for not addressing the resolution, since it only refers to alleged issues with polygamy in its arguments against the target.

Well it's moot now anyway but it was on the edge.

Given the change to the proposed repeal, I'd lean illegal now. The repeal claims that the target "mandates nations legalize polygamy". IMO it doesn't, therefore it's an hm.

[Bears Armed]

Given the change to the proposed repeal, I'd lean illegal now. The repeal claims that the target "mandates nations legalize polygamy". IMO it doesn't, therefore it's an hm.

Seconded.
IMO the target's mention of polygamy simply means that if a member nation allows polygamous civil marriages of a heterosexual nature (i.e. one husband with multiple wives, or vice versa) then they must now allow polygamous civil marriages regardless of the participants' genders... but they can still outlaw polygamy as long as they do so for everybody rather than on the basis of participants' genders.

[Separatist Peoples]

You get a third opinion to that effect, guys, and I won't trouble you by submitting it!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Gotten.

[Separatist Peoples]

Excellent. Do I get an opinion?

[Lord Dominator]

1 day, 4 hours, and 58 minutes from challenge submission to majority agreement, that's pretty cool (and before the repeal target even passed to boot)

Thanks GenSec peeps for finding flaw in my apparent fearpolyamory-mongering.

[Imperium Anglorum]

About opinions, do we get opinions for some of the older decisions as well? Because they were never released.