[Submitted] Repeal: GA#457 on Sexual And Gender Minorities

[Enjuku]

OOC: couldn't fit the whole resolution title in the subject line lol

IC:

Distinguished Delegates,

Enjuku formally submitted this repeal resolution to the General Assembly on February 20, 2019. The resolution is as follows:

Repeal "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#457

General Assembly Resolution #457 “defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

RECOGNIZING the aim of GA#457: The Rights of Sexual And Gender Minorities to grant equal civil and political rights to all sexualities and genders;

YET ALARMED by the resolution’s many flaws, including that it:

I. FORGETS that this World Assembly is made up of many different species, including ones that do not have concepts of sexuality, ones that do not have any form of sex or gender, and ones that have no use explicitly protecting contractual legal rights dependent on these attributes;

II. ARBITRARILY ORDERS all member nations to grant all privileges derived from civil marriage to all sexualities and genders, without reference to what those privileges even are;

III. CONFUSINGLY COMPELS all member nations provide marriage services, grant marriage rights, and legislate on marriage termination, while exempting marriageless nations from legalizing marriage in the first place;

IV. TRAMPLES over estate and inheritance laws in all member states by requiring all civil marriages have the exact same rights, powers, and permissions as each other, creating jurisdictional madness in how property transfer disputes between different married couples are legally resolved;

V. FURTHER REQUIRES all civil marriages have exactly the same services as each other, when marriage issues are specific to the couples in question and can demand specific services that no other married couple requires;

VI. IGNORES all binding WA precedent already covering marriage equality, including section 1A of GA#35: The Charter of Civil Rights guaranteeing all member state individuals equal legal status, section 1C of GA#35 prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual identity and orientation, GA#91: A Convention on Gender defining and granting legal rights to specific genders, GA#240: Sexual Autonomy Guarantee revoking marriage contracts that violate sexual consent, GA#335: Rights of Sapient Species guaranteeing human rights to all sapient beings, and GA#383: Right to Sexual Privacy protecting consenting individuals engaging in relationships based on sexual activity;

DECLARING that these numerous errors create a spirited but fundamentally flawed, redundant, and regrettably unrealistic resolution;

ACKNOWLEDGING that repealing this resolution will not legalize discrimination against married couples that are not cisgender or heterosexual;

HEREBY REPEALS GA#457: The Rights of Sexual And Gender Minorities.

Our delegation sincerely hopes this body will approve this resolution and bring it to the Assembly floor for a vote.

Respectfully,
- Fran Medellin
Minister for State
Enjukan Ministry of Foreign Affairs

[Kenmoria]

“This is beyond the twentieth time someone has attempted to repeal that piece of legislation. As attempts go, this is by far not the worst. However, it has a some issues, a lot of which could have been sorted by drafting a proposal in these hallowed halls rather than just turning up with this repeal. Based on the fact that I like the target resolution, I oppose this bill.”

[Maowi]

YET ALARMED by the resolution’s many flaws, including that it:

I. FORGETS that this World Assembly is made up of many different species, including ones that do not have concepts of sexuality, ones that do not have any form of sex or gender, and ones that have no use explicitly protecting contractual legal rights dependent on these attributes;

If there's a species which has no concept of gender or sexuality, good for it. GA 457 doesn't affect it. So?

II. ARBITRARILY ORDERS all member nations to grant all privileges derived from civil marriage to all sexualities and genders, without reference to what those privileges even are;

I shouldn't think that's too unclear - namely, things like tax benefits, adoption rights - just anything that married people get that non-married people don't. Which is precisely what the resolution says.

III. CONFUSINGLY COMPELS all member nations provide marriage services, grant marriage rights, and legislate on marriage termination, while exempting marriageless nations from legalizing marriage in the first place;

The point of that resolution is not to make laws on whether all nations should legalise marriage; it's to make sure that people of non-traditional genders and sexualities are treated the same way as those who conform to the status quo.

IV. TRAMPLES over estate and inheritance laws in all member states by requiring all civil marriages have the exact same rights, powers, and permissions as each other, creating jurisdictional madness in how property transfer disputes between different married couples are legally resolved;

Why should the genders of the people involved in a mariage affect property transfer disputes? If you can give a good example we might be able to have a more constructive discussion on the subject.

V. FURTHER REQUIRES all civil marriages have exactly the same services as each other, when marriage issues are specific to the couples in question and can demand specific services that no other married couple requires;

GA 457 doesn't say that member nations must force all civil marriages to have all exactly the same services, just that they should have the option. That doesn't stop people getting services tailored to their needs.

VI. IGNORES all binding WA precedent already covering marriage equality, including section 1A of GA#35: The Charter of Civil Rights guaranteeing all member state individuals equal legal status, section 1C of GA#35 prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual identity and orientation, GA#91: A Convention on Gender defining and granting legal rights to specific genders, GA#240: Sexual Autonomy Guarantee revoking marriage contracts that violate sexual consent, GA#335: Rights of Sapient Species guaranteeing human rights to all sapient beings, and GA#383: Right to Sexual Privacy protecting consenting individuals engaging in relationships based on sexual activity;

GA 240 and GA 383 have absolutely nothing to do with this resolution. GA 457 closes loopholes by removing the compelling practical purpose exception in GA 35 regarding sexuality and gender. It also ensures that people can identify as any gender. Also, I might be wrong on this, but are you not trying to suggest duplication with this clause, which means you think that the target resolution is illegal, which, apart from being incorrect, would make your proposal illegal?

[Falcania]

Well, this is bad.

[Battlion]

Well, this is bad.

[Galway-Dublin]

Well, this is bad.

[Enjuku]

This repeal is perfectly legitimate.

YET ALARMED by the resolution’s many flaws, including that it:

I. FORGETS that this World Assembly is made up of many different species, including ones that do not have concepts of sexuality, ones that do not have any form of sex or gender, and ones that have no use explicitly protecting contractual legal rights dependent on these attributes;

If there's a species which has no concept of gender or sexuality, good for it. GA 457 doesn't affect it. So?

GA#457 defines civil marriage as legally recognized contractual unions. Yet 1A requires all member nations to have allow those marriages for all genders and sexualities. There is no reason to impose sexuality and gender on societies and nations that do no have them. Why should member nations be forced to allow contracts that have never existed for individuals with attributes that never existed and continue to not exist?

II. ARBITRARILY ORDERS all member nations to grant all privileges derived from civil marriage to all sexualities and genders, without reference to what those privileges even are;

I shouldn't think that's too unclear - namely, things like tax benefits, adoption rights - just anything that married people get that non-married people don't. Which is precisely what the resolution says.

Tax benefits and adoption rights are not mentioned at all in GA#457. Adoption is mentioned explicitly in GA precedent concerning children and families, so it should be mentioned in a resolution that supposedly grants something (integral enough for you to find clearly implied) to its implementation.

III. CONFUSINGLY COMPELS all member nations provide marriage services, grant marriage rights, and legislate on marriage termination, while exempting marriageless nations from legalizing marriage in the first place;

The point of that resolution is not to make laws on whether all nations should legalise marriage; it's to make sure that people of non-traditional genders and sexualities are treated the same way as those who conform to the status quo.

GA#457 1B says "ORDERS" all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for all sexualities and genders. 1C "COMPELS" all member nations to grant the same marriage rights. Both clauses force every single member state in the WA to give services and legal protections for an institution (marriage) many member states do not participate in, recognize legally, or provide services for at all.

You might as well require all member nations to provide other specifically-human activities like funerals, academic commencement ceremonies, or proms and dances. The resolution includes all member nations in a tradition that does not exist universally. Perhaps your nation is human and finds this ludicrous. However, we have resolutions protecting species on equal footing with homo sapiens, so GA precedent expands our scope to include the non-human perspective.

IV. TRAMPLES over estate and inheritance laws in all member states by requiring all civil marriages have the exact same rights, powers, and permissions as each other, creating jurisdictional madness in how property transfer disputes between different married couples are legally resolved;

[

Why should the genders of the people involved in a mariage affect property transfer disputes? If you can give a good example we might be able to have a more constructive discussion on the subject.

In some forms of estate law, property transfers when someone dies are directly affected by marital status. In polygamous marriages, individuals can decide to equally inherit property, or, based on wills or trusts, some individuals gain more right to a property than another. In cases of divorce, especially when people pass away during the legal proceedings, some marriages have more right than others to property.

By forcing member states to provide the exact same rights in marriage to all sexualities and genders, it overrules any existing member state law providing more rights to one married couple than another to property inheritance.

V. FURTHER REQUIRES all civil marriages have exactly the same services as each other, when marriage issues are specific to the couples in question and can demand specific services that no other married couple requires;

GA 457 doesn't say that member nations must force all civil marriages to have all exactly the same services, just that they should have the option. That doesn't stop people getting services tailored to their needs.

GA#457 clause 2 "MANDATES" the exact same rights, powers, permissions, and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders. It does not define any rights, powers, permissions, or services in its text except those applying to marriage. Reading the resolution as it is, clause 2 refers to rights, powers, permissions, and services in marriage.

If it defined the terms it is literally MANDATING, a strong phrase, there would not be issues here. But the only terms it defines use the same language as what it uses the WA's vast power and authority to force on member nations.

VI. IGNORES all binding WA precedent already covering marriage equality, including section 1A of GA#35: The Charter of Civil Rights guaranteeing all member state individuals equal legal status, section 1C of GA#35 prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual identity and orientation, GA#91: A Convention on Gender defining and granting legal rights to specific genders, GA#240: Sexual Autonomy Guarantee revoking marriage contracts that violate sexual consent, GA#335: Rights of Sapient Species guaranteeing human rights to all sapient beings, and GA#383: Right to Sexual Privacy protecting consenting individuals engaging in relationships based on sexual activity;

GA 240 and GA 383 have absolutely nothing to do with this resolution. GA 457 closes loopholes by removing the compelling practical purpose exception in GA 35 regarding sexuality and gender. It also ensures that people can identify as any gender. Also, I might be wrong on this, but are you not trying to suggest duplication with this clause, which means you think that the target resolution is illegal, which, apart from being incorrect, would make your proposal illegal?

GA#240 revokes specific marriage contracts, and is the only precedent that mentions marriage. The resolution here uses strong language like COMPELS, REQUIRES, MANDATES, and ORDERS for governments to protect marriage.

GA#383 protects consenting individuals engaging in sexual relationships. It is extremely related to the resolution here, which tries to protect individuals engaging in contractual relationships based on sexual preference.

GA#35 ensures people can identify as any gender, as does GA#91. GA#457 repeats their nuances broadly as part of its application, not in preceding or defining clauses. It is redundant and neither adds nor takes away from what the WA guarantees.

It is not illegal. It is ineffective to mandate what already exists. Prior GAs repeat what has been voted on before with no issue.

---

In short, GA#457 is inefficient. The broad approach of this repeal is that it does not work well because of its inconsistencies, its lack of necessary definitions for what it uses strong authority to demand, and the unfortunate effects of its application. If the Assembly wants to pass a new version of GA#457, it can only do that after a repeal. But keep in mind this repeal is solely a repeal, not a new resolution.

We all agree on its goals, but not the implementation. We do not need resolutions choked with policy errors and gaffes in our highest global institution.

[Falcania]

No, it's still bad. I loathe it when people try to use the "some species might not X" argument when it's used to try and undermine rights for all, and everything else you point to is a feature, not a bug.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC:

This repeal is perfectly legitimate.

If there's a species which has no concept of gender or sexuality, good for it. GA 457 doesn't affect it. So?

GA#457 defines civil marriage as legally recognized contractual unions. Yet 1A requires all member nations to have allow those marriages for all genders and sexualities. There is no reason to impose sexuality and gender on societies and nations that do no have them. Why should member nations be forced to allow contracts that have never existed for individuals with attributes that never existed and continue to not exist?

If you have no gender or sexuality, but civil marriage, this civil marriage is already open for individuals of all (zero) sexualitites and genders. This does not mean you have to introduce the concepts into your species.

I shouldn't think that's too unclear - namely, things like tax benefits, adoption rights - just anything that married people get that non-married people don't. Which is precisely what the resolution says.

Tax benefits and adoption rights are not mentioned at all in GA#457. Adoption is mentioned explicitly in GA precedent concerning children and families, so it should be mentioned in a resolution that supposedly grants something (integral enough for you to find clearly implied) to its implementation.

The kind of benefits are not explicitly stated because what benefits civil marriage may entail is up to national legislation. The resolution just states that these benefits, whatever they might be, should be given to every marriage regardless of gender or sexuality of the individuals.

[

Why should the genders of the people involved in a mariage affect property transfer disputes? If you can give a good example we might be able to have a more constructive discussion on the subject.

In some forms of estate law, property transfers when someone dies are directly affected by marital status. In polygamous marriages, individuals can decide to equally inherit property, or, based on wills or trusts, some individuals gain more right to a property than another. In cases of divorce, especially when people pass away during the legal proceedings, some marriages have more right than others to property.

By forcing member states to provide the exact same rights in marriage to all sexualities and genders, it overrules any existing member state law providing more rights to one married couple than another to property inheritance.

No, it does not. If the national marriage law is 'you have to have a prenupt/will/whatever to decidewhat will happen with your property', that is fine, as long as this provision does not differentiate between sexualities and genders. The same for statuatory inheritance laws, as long as they do not differentiate between sexualitites and genders, they might be what they want.

[Maowi]

-snip-

Thank you

The point of that resolution is not to make laws on whether all nations should legalise marriage; it's to make sure that people of non-traditional genders and sexualities are treated the same way as those who conform to the status quo.

GA#457 1B says "ORDERS" all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for all sexualities and genders. 1C "COMPELS" all member nations to grant the same marriage rights. Both clauses force every single member state in the WA to give services and legal protections for an institution (marriage) many member states do not participate in, recognize legally, or provide services for at all.

You might as well require all member nations to provide other specifically-human activities like funerals, academic commencement ceremonies, or proms and dances. The resolution includes all member nations in a tradition that does not exist universally. Perhaps your nation is human and finds this ludicrous. However, we have resolutions protecting species on equal footing with homo sapiens, so GA precedent expands our scope to include the non-human perspective.

You clearly don't understand the resolution properly. It's not somehow requiring member nations to give marriage services or rights even if they don't have marriage; it's requiring them to give the same marriage services and rights to everyone regardless of their sexuality or gender. This could well be none, as long as no particular gender or sexuality is given any at all.

GA 457 doesn't say that member nations must force all civil marriages to have all exactly the same services, just that they should have the option. That doesn't stop people getting services tailored to their needs.

GA#457 clause 2 "MANDATES" the exact same rights, powers, permissions, and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders. It does not define any rights, powers, permissions, or services in its text except those applying to marriage. Reading the resolution as it is, clause 2 refers to rights, powers, permissions, and services in marriage.

If it defined the terms it is literally MANDATING, a strong phrase, there would not be issues here. But the only terms it defines use the same language as what it uses the WA's vast power and authority to force on member nations.

Rights, powers, permissions and services are all English words, why would they need to be defined? And where in clause 2 does it say that the rights etc. mentioned refer only to civil marriage?! You are the only one who has read it like that, and for a reason.

GA 240 and GA 383 have absolutely nothing to do with this resolution. GA 457 closes loopholes by removing the compelling practical purpose exception in GA 35 regarding sexuality and gender. It also ensures that people can identify as any gender. Also, I might be wrong on this, but are you not trying to suggest duplication with this clause, which means you think that the target resolution is illegal, which, apart from being incorrect, would make your proposal illegal?

GA#240 revokes specific marriage contracts, and is the only precedent that mentions marriage. The resolution here uses strong language like COMPELS, REQUIRES, MANDATES, and ORDERS for governments to protect marriage.

I keep telling you: GA 457 does NOT force nations to legalise marriage!

GA#383 protects consenting individuals engaging in sexual relationships. It is extremely related to the resolution here, which tries to protect individuals engaging in contractual relationships based on sexual preference.

The purposes of GA 383 are distinct from those of GA 457.

GA#35 ensures people can identify as any gender, as does GA#91. GA#457 repeats their nuances broadly as part of its application, not in preceding or defining clauses. It is redundant and neither adds nor takes away from what the WA guarantees.

It is not illegal. It is ineffective to mandate what already exists. Prior GAs repeat what has been voted on before with no issue.

Well, if that is your repeal's only actual argument, then it is illegal.

[Falcania]

Oh, I see you went ahead and submitted this turd of a proposal. Good luck with that!

[Maowi]

Oh, I see you went ahead and submitted this turd of a proposal. Good luck with that!

For the second time no less

[Enjuku]

If you have no gender or sexuality, but civil marriage, this civil marriage is already open for individuals of all (zero) sexualitites and genders. This does not mean you have to introduce the concepts into your species.

GA#457 uses "all member nations". Emphasis on all. It doesn't distinguish between nations with or without marriage. Therefore, all member nations, including those without marriage, are bound under its requirements to introduce civil marriage.

The kind of benefits are not explicitly stated because what benefits civil marriage may entail is up to national legislation. The resolution just states that these benefits, whatever they might be, should be given to every marriage regardless of gender or sexuality of the individuals.

It doesn't discuss legislation except regarding terminating marriage. All other clauses use demanding words like MANDATE, REQUIRE, etc. There is no discretion allocated in those clauses. Therefore, it forces undefined terms on member nations that have no definitions to refer to except on civil marriage.

There are plenty of resolutions that define all terms they use in their mandates to member nations. No excuses here. It's a very powerful resolution that needs terms and fails to do so.

No, it does not. If the national marriage law is 'you have to have a prenupt/will/whatever to decidewhat will happen with your property', that is fine, as long as this provision does not differentiate between sexualities and genders. The same for statuatory inheritance laws, as long as they do not differentiate between sexualitites and genders, they might be what they want.

No, you are reading the resolution wrong. It mandates the same exact rights and services to all sexualities and genders.

It does not mandate equal opportunity to those rights and services.

The former forces the exact same rights and services. The latter (typical of anti-discrimination language) focuses on equal access to those rights and services.

You clearly don't understand the resolution properly. It's not somehow requiring member nations to give marriage services or rights even if they don't have marriage; it's requiring them to give the same marriage services and rights to everyone regardless of their sexuality or gender. This could well be none, as long as no particular gender or sexuality is given any at all

…

Rights, powers, permissions and services are all English words, why would they need to be defined? And where in clause 2 does it say that the rights etc. mentioned refer only to civil marriage?! You are the only one who has read it like that, and for a reason.

GA#457 requires all sexualities and genders have the same exact marriage rights and services. The language directly indicates this. It is not requiring equality of opportunity but instead equality of services. A key difference, and major one.

This could easily be rectified if it were discussing a "right to marry" instead of granting "rights" and "services" that it prefaces with "exactly the same". However, we can't make edits to resolutions, only repeal and replace.

Well, if that is your repeal's only actual argument, then it is illegal.

No. This repeal is about:

1. The resolution forces all nations, with no exceptions, to make legal contracts for entities that don't exist for them (gender and sexuality)

2. grants unspecified broad privileges, of which only those regarding marriage are defined

3. requires all nations, with no exceptions, to perform marriages and divorces

4. forces all nations to make all married couples have the exact same services and rights, conflicting with nuances requiring legal inequality like inheritance

5. forces all nations, with no exceptions, to give all couples the exact same marriage services, which is a ridiculously rigid implementation

6. Doesn't reference any precedent backing itself up, much of which is more specific than it is, and much of which reasonably grants what it wants to grant

GA#457 is textually too broad and authoritative, a mess for nations to put into practice, and will not achieve its goals as a resolution. It invites inefficiency and will only add red tape and confusion rather than deliver real guarantees of equal opportunities for all. We need to repeal it and replace it with something better. LGBTQ people deserve better than this resolution. Repeal it.

Oh, I see you went ahead and submitted this turd of a proposal. Good luck with that!

OOC: If you read OP, you'd know I submitted it before posting here. It's also seperate from all the other far right repeals

[Elyreia]

GA#457 is textually too broad and authoritative, a mess for nations to put into practice, and will not achieve its goals as a resolution. It invites inefficiency and will only add red tape and confusion rather than deliver real guarantees of equal opportunities for all. We need to repeal it and replace it with something better. LGBTQ people deserve better than this resolution.

I can see some thought and weight in some of your arguments.

If you can provide a better alternative to put up to vote, Elyreia will be in favor of repeal-and-replace.

[Araraukar]

No. This repeal is about:

1. The resolution forces all nations, with no exceptions, to make legal contracts for entities that don't exist for them (gender and sexuality)

2. grants unspecified broad privileges, of which only those regarding marriage are defined

3. requires all nations, with no exceptions, to perform marriages and divorces

4. forces all nations to make all married couples have the exact same services and rights, conflicting with nuances requiring legal inequality like inheritance

5. forces all nations, with no exceptions, to give all couples the exact same marriage services, which is a ridiculously rigid implementation

6. Doesn't reference any precedent backing itself up, much of which is more specific than it is, and much of which reasonably grants what it wants to grant

OOC: 1. Not true. 2. Not true (CoCR grants the "broad privileges"). 3. Not true, though I'm fairly sure there is already something on allowing divorce in the resolutions. 4. What the hell does inheritance have anything to do with anything? Even SP couldn't answer this beyond "vague wills exist". Which is not something that the target resolution is even trying to address. 5. Why? CoCR already demands equality, so if you're compliant with that, you wouldn't have a problem with this. 6. You mean references like CoCR and Convention On Gender? And a half dozen other things on equality? You're supposed to already be aware of them, if your nation is compliant.

OOC: If you read OP, you'd know I submitted it before posting here. It's also seperate from all the other far right repeals

So even you admit it's a far right repeal attempt, and submitting before posting is not going to earn you brownie points.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Against, perhaps someone should invite the Grug Tribe ambassador to hurl feces at you too?"

[Enjuku]

OOC: 1. Not true. 2. Not true (CoCR grants the "broad privileges"). 3. Not true, though I'm fairly sure there is already something on allowing divorce in the resolutions. 4. What the hell does inheritance have anything to do with anything? Even SP couldn't answer this beyond "vague wills exist". Which is not something that the target resolution is even trying to address. 5. Why? CoCR already demands equality, so if you're compliant with that, you wouldn't have a problem with this. 6. You mean references like CoCR and Convention On Gender? And a half dozen other things on equality? You're supposed to already be aware of them, if your nation is compliant.

1. “Not true” is not a defense
2. (See 6)
3. Allowing divorces is different from requiring divorces. If you have marriage, divorces should be allowed. If you don’t have marriage, why require divorce?
4. It is the unintended consequence this resolution does not buffer. If you are going to have a resolution with significant powers to force nations to do things, you need to consider unintended consequences and patch them up accordingly.
5. Granting everyone the same services is different from granting access to the same services. Former = Jane and Jenna must have the same marriage ceremonies, same marriage consoling; same marriage services. Latter = they can choose to get those same marriage services if they wish.
6. Why would we have this resolution if CoCR grants broad privileges? One reason: to expand on it. But because GA#457 makes NO references to precedent, we don’t get any context for its services that it fails to define. This makes it too vague, and too weak, while also being a high-power resolution. A recipe for disaster.

So even you admit it's a far right repeal attempt, and submitting before posting is not going to earn you brownie points.

OOC: I didn’t say this is a far right repeal lol. I said the opposite. It’s different from all the other far right appeals. It’s a repeal with LGBTQ people in mind. This is the ONLY repeal that acknowledges repeal doesn’t endorse the problems that GA#457 wants to fix. This is the ONLY repeal with a replacement better for LGBTQ people in mind. It’s a progressive, realistic repeal.

[WA Kitty Kops]

This is the ONLY repeal with a replacement better for LGBTQ people in mind.

OOC: Where? Link to it, please.

[Maowi]

OOC: 1. Not true. 2. Not true (CoCR grants the "broad privileges"). 3. Not true, though I'm fairly sure there is already something on allowing divorce in the resolutions. 4. What the hell does inheritance have anything to do with anything? Even SP couldn't answer this beyond "vague wills exist". Which is not something that the target resolution is even trying to address. 5. Why? CoCR already demands equality, so if you're compliant with that, you wouldn't have a problem with this. 6. You mean references like CoCR and Convention On Gender? And a half dozen other things on equality? You're supposed to already be aware of them, if your nation is compliant.

1. “Not true” is not a defense
2. (See 6)
3. Allowing divorces is different from requiring divorces. If you have marriage, divorces should be allowed. If you don’t have marriage, why require divorce?
4. It is the unintended consequence this resolution does not buffer. If you are going to have a resolution with significant powers to force nations to do things, you need to consider unintended consequences and patch them up accordingly.
5. Granting everyone the same services is different from granting access to the same services. Former = Jane and Jenna must have the same marriage ceremonies, same marriage consoling; same marriage services. Latter = they can choose to get those same marriage services if they wish.
6. Why would we have this resolution if CoCR grants broad privileges? One reason: to expand on it. But because GA#457 makes NO references to precedent, we don’t get any context for its services that it fails to define. This makes it too vague, and too weak, while also being a high-power resolution. A recipe for disaster.

Ok, I'm tired of going round in circles arguing about this. So I'll just make this very clear.

GAR 457 does NOT mandate that divorce must be legal in all member states. It says that in any member state, divorce must either be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone. Divorce must be subject to the same conditions for people of all sexualities and genders. These conditions could be that you have to have proof of an abusive relationship, they could be that you have to have a pet dog, they could simply be that you can't have one under any circumstances, they could be anything as long as they're not that you have to be male to file for a divorce, it has to be a homosexual relationship, etc. This also goes for civil marriage itself, and absolutely any other rights gained as a result of being civilly married.

Neither does GAR 457 mess up inheritance laws: at least, not fair ones. I don't understand how you can seem to imply that anybody should be given priority in inheritance laws simply because of their gender or sexuality, and then claim that this proposal is pro LGBT+ rights.

Thirdly: GAR 457 does NOT force Jane and Jenna to have the same marriage ceremonies. Grant =/= force upon. Grant is an ordinary English word. This is literally copied and pasted from Merriam Webster:
1a : to consent to carry out for a person : allow fulfillment of
b : to permit as a right, privilege, or favor
Permit. Consent. These are not words which mandate. They allow.

I also assume that you know what services are ... which is why I did not feel the need to define them. If member nations must grant all services to people of all sexualities and genders, then they must. There is nothing to clarify there, and referring to passed resolutions would really not do anything constructive.

[Arasi Luvasa]

It’s different from all the other far right appeals.

Right here you say that it is a far right repeal. You say it is different all the other repeals, which are also far right, but far right nonetheless. What you are trying to say is "It's different from all the other repeals, which are far right." Grammar and punctuation are important, make sure you use them appropriately.

IC:

"Ambassador, I see no reason to repeal the resolution in your clauses. Either you misunderstand what it legislates or are wilfully ignorant as you simply desire the resolution gone. If you desire Arasi Luvasa's vote, or mine for that matter, you will need a far better argument than the manure you spread across this document."

[Battlion]

From the amount of repeals this resolution has had attempted, I’m slowly becoming convinced that this isn’t about perceived vagueness anymore despite how many times it’s rebuffed.

[Araraukar]

From the amount of repeals this resolution has had attempted, I’m slowly becoming convinced that this isn’t about perceived vagueness anymore despite how many times it’s rebuffed.

OOC: Yeah, all the repeals are pretty much about people wanting to discriminate against people who are different from them. Regardless of what they actually cite as reasons.

[Battlion]

Am delighted to say that for the second time this repeal attempt has got nowhere near quorum, may I now suggest that you abandon it as clearly it won’t be going anywhere anytime soon?