NATION

PASSWORD

[Legality Challenge] Repeal DRoSaGM

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 3815
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

[Legality Challenge] Repeal DRoSaGM

Postby Lord Dominator » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:29 am

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Proposal to be repealed by such: Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities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


Counter-Argument (that it does not violate such): From myself;
Lord Dominator wrote: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.
Osiris Vizier of WA AffairsDee Vytherov-SkollvaldrGameplay Ambassador of ForestLieutenant in The Black HawksRecruitment and Outreach Director of Lazarus

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2083
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:44 pm

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.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

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

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:04 pm

Bananaistan wrote: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.

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

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:13 pm

Bananaistan wrote: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.
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
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2083
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:50 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Bananaistan wrote: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.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

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

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:06 am

Bananaistan wrote: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.
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 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:10 am

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

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
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3100
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:27 pm

Gotten.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Petty Officer, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


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

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:15 pm

Excellent. Do I get an opinion?

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

Postby Lord Dominator » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:18 pm

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) :p

Thanks GenSec peeps for finding flaw in my apparent fearpolyamory-mongering.
Osiris Vizier of WA AffairsDee Vytherov-SkollvaldrGameplay Ambassador of ForestLieutenant in The Black HawksRecruitment and Outreach Director of Lazarus

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

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:23 am

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

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


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leinahtan, Walenstein

Advertisement

Remove ads