[DRAFT] Repeal "DtRoSaGM"

[Araraukar]

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.

[Auralia]

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.

What is the alleged honest mistake?

[Maowi]

OOC

Operative clauses of GAR #457

The 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...

I think this is what is being referred to

[Hatzisland]

The nation of Hatzisland is 100% percent behind this plan.

OOC: Wow! This is great! GAR #457's repeal plans, though they had my support, lacked support among the GA. Now this is resolution that can pass!

[Bears Armed]

OOC
I've now asked the rest of GenSec to take a look.

[Bananaistan]

OOC

Operative clauses of GAR #457

The 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".

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC

Operative clauses of GAR #457

The 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".

OOC: Agreed. To escape this you would have to define e.g. restrooms as something other than a "service" - like electrical and HVAC systems in a building aren't provided as "services" to the tenants but necessities for basic functionality, governed by building codes (local/national laws). This might be a tenable interpretation for an office building, but breaks down for e.g. a stadium, movie theater, or other building in which the majority of users spend less than a full workday. And the other possible solution, single-occupancy facilities, doesn't work pragmatically - individual locker rooms and showers at the gym are basically unfeasible.

TL;dr - no honest mistake.

[Araraukar]

Emphasizing that GAR #35 already provides protection against discrimination on the basis of gender without the problems resulting from GAR #457,

OOC: I'm going to remember this, Auralia, the next time you claim that a church can bar women the right to vote for pope or whatever, since there's no way their gender alone is going to be a compelling reason.

[Maowi]

OOC

Operative clauses of GAR #457

The 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".

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?

[Araraukar]

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.

[Battlion]

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.

It’s almost as if when put simply we need to try dig a big complicated explanation

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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?

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.

[Maowi]

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.

Alright then, thanks for clarifying.