Auralia wrote:Does anybody intend to make a legality challenge against this draft? I'd prefer to address it before I submit.
OOC: If Bears doesn't, I will, on Honest Mistake, but right now going to crawl to bed.
Advertisement
by Araraukar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:27 pm
Auralia wrote:Does anybody intend to make a legality challenge against this draft? I'd prefer to address it before I submit.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Maowi » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:32 pm
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Operative clauses of GAR #457The World Assembly:
A) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.
B) FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.
Hereby,
REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.
ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.
COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.
REQUIRES all member nations to apply legislation of the same scope and effect for the termination of civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders.
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.
One could read the second section that I've underlined & bolded as referring to the first, meaning that this clause applies only "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions", meaning that the "compelling practical purpose" exemption from GAR #35 would still be applicable here... although then, admittedly, the final part of the last clause might seem to contradict that... H'mm, tricky, I'm going to have to think further about this...
by Hatzisland » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:35 pm
by Bears Armed » Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:32 am
by Bananaistan » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:03 pm
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Operative clauses of GAR #457The World Assembly:
A) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.
B) FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.
Hereby,
REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.
ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.
COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.
REQUIRES all member nations to apply legislation of the same scope and effect for the termination of civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders.
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.
One could read the second section that I've underlined & bolded as referring to the first, meaning that this clause applies only "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions", meaning that the "compelling practical purpose" exemption from GAR #35 would still be applicable here... although then, admittedly, the final part of the last clause might seem to contradict that... H'mm, tricky, I'm going to have to think further about this...
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:27 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Operative clauses of GAR #457The World Assembly:
A) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.
B) FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.
Hereby,
REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.
ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.
COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.
REQUIRES all member nations to apply legislation of the same scope and effect for the termination of civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders.
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.
One could read the second section that I've underlined & bolded as referring to the first, meaning that this clause applies only "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions", meaning that the "compelling practical purpose" exemption from GAR #35 would still be applicable here... although then, admittedly, the final part of the last clause might seem to contradict that... H'mm, tricky, I'm going to have to think further about this...
OOC: I'd be quite satisfied that no part of the repeal text is an honest mistake because of the final part of the last clause. The examples listed hold up IMO. You can't have a men's only toilet and a women's only toilet because they would not have "exactly the same qualifying condition" even if they were otherwise "separate, but equal".
by Araraukar » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:25 pm
Auralia wrote:Emphasizing that GAR #35 already provides protection against discrimination on the basis of gender without the problems resulting from GAR #457,
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Maowi » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:47 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Operative clauses of GAR #457The World Assembly:
A) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.
B) FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.
Hereby,
REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.
ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.
COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.
REQUIRES all member nations to apply legislation of the same scope and effect for the termination of civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders.
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.
One could read the second section that I've underlined & bolded as referring to the first, meaning that this clause applies only "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions", meaning that the "compelling practical purpose" exemption from GAR #35 would still be applicable here... although then, admittedly, the final part of the last clause might seem to contradict that... H'mm, tricky, I'm going to have to think further about this...
OOC: I'd be quite satisfied that no part of the repeal text is an honest mistake because of the final part of the last clause. The examples listed hold up IMO. You can't have a men's only toilet and a women's only toilet because they would not have "exactly the same qualifying condition" even if they were otherwise "separate, but equal".
by Araraukar » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:50 pm
Maowi wrote:Granting the same services doesn't mean each individual facility has to be open to, in this case, both men and women, but that both men and women must be granted the same service i.e. toilet service. They must both be able to use a toilet, as long as one toilet isn't a hole in the ground and the other a luxury bathroom complete with warmed toilet seat. I think that would be supported by the text right?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Battlion » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:55 pm
Araraukar wrote:Maowi wrote:Granting the same services doesn't mean each individual facility has to be open to, in this case, both men and women, but that both men and women must be granted the same service i.e. toilet service. They must both be able to use a toilet, as long as one toilet isn't a hole in the ground and the other a luxury bathroom complete with warmed toilet seat. I think that would be supported by the text right?
OOC: ^This was my understanding as well, but 3/6 GenSec have said otherwise so far.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:03 pm
Maowi wrote:Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: I'd be quite satisfied that no part of the repeal text is an honest mistake because of the final part of the last clause. The examples listed hold up IMO. You can't have a men's only toilet and a women's only toilet because they would not have "exactly the same qualifying condition" even if they were otherwise "separate, but equal".
Granting the same services doesn't mean each individual facility has to be open to, in this case, both men and women, but that both men and women must be granted the same service i.e. toilet service. They must both be able to use a toilet, as long as one toilet isn't a hole in the ground and the other a luxury bathroom complete with warmed toilet seat. I think that would be supported by the text right?
by Maowi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:23 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Since the WA has no Brown v. Board of Education there is no precedent that says "separate but equal" is inherently unequal; but it's also not a stretch to say that it is. While your resolution can clearly be interpreted to require equal facilities, the allegation in the repeal is reasonable enough not to constitute an Honest Mistake. All I'm finding here is that the repeal is legal, not that everyone has to agree with it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: The Galactic Supremacy
Advertisement