The Status of Established Religions with GA #15 and #39

[Farsestan]

As a nation with a Zoroastrian established religion, Farsestan would like to ask about the following point:

In GA #15, the Freedom of Marriage Act, it is said that: "No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex." In GA #39, the Right to a Lawful Divorce, it is said that "Divorce... shall henceforth be available to all inhabitants of the World Assembly member states without let or hindrance."

Obviously, this shows that the WA enforces the tenets of same-sex marriage and divorce on-demand. However, it also declares that religious groups shall not be affected by this in their form of marriage. This assumes that the State is not connected in any way to a religious group, whereas Farsestan and many other nations in fact are.

This leaves a grey area that we Established Religion States have to consider: is the State, through its having an established religion, able to decide on its own policy as pertaining to same-sex marriage and divorce? Or is it that the State, through being the State, is obliged to abide by WA rules on these matters, no matter what ties it has to a faith community? Farsestan's Zarathustrotema, the head of the House of Priests and head of the established Zoroastrian religion in Farsestan, has noted that same-sex marriage and divorce are not compatible with Zoroastrian teaching.

We would like an answer to this problem so that we may sort the matter out in Farsestani law. Thank you all in advance.

((OOC: Yes, I know I still have my April Fools' Day Liberal category next to my normal one.))

[Poree]

The fact that a Nation declares an official religion does not change the fact it is a Nation. I would even go so far as to say even a true theocracy where the state is the religion does not change the fact it is a Nation.

By joining the WA a government accepts the obligation to live by the resolutions of the WA. The fact a particular government may not refer to themselves as a nation does not change their obligation as members of the WA to follow the resolutions. It is therefore my opinion that there is no grey area at all, rather it is clear and precise what your obligation is as a member of the WA.

I yield the floor to the next representative.

[Serrland]

Serrland would suggest two marriages: a Civil marriage, the one recognized by the State, and a religious marriage, recognized the the established religion. The first (civil) marriage would be subject to GA #15, the second (religious) marriage would be protected by the resolutions documenting religious freedoms.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The only entities (technically) allowed to join the World Assembly are states. So, if you join the World Assembly, you're joining as a state, not a religious group.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: Partly in line with your question, Brutland and Norden reacted to the passage of this GA Resolution #15 by suspending civil marriage in his country. He claimed that since all marriages were then being carried out by religious groups, he was under no obligation to ensure that the resolution was being enforced. Being simultaneously church and state is bit trickier, and I'm not sure a lot of your colleagues will recognize your claim to be exempt from Resolution #15 because your government is a religious organization. "Privatizing" the institution of marriage to nonprofit churches with no government regulation seems like a safer bet, although B&N's little scheme was not without its critics at the time.

[Sionis Prioratus]

As the author of GA #39, let me point out the last clause of "The Right to a Lawful Divorce":

6) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

Religious freedoms are protected.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

As the author of GA #39, let me point out the last clause of "The Right to a Lawful Divorce":

6) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

Religious freedoms are protected.

Absolutely, but also: Freedom of Expression (#30) and anti-discrimination under the CoCR.

[Ainocra]

in my opinion I would surmise that it works thusly

A religion may have a faith based edict against such unions or aginst the dissolution of said unions. However such may not extend to the realm of national law.

You may frown upon it for reasons of faith, but cannot criminalize it.

This would seem to me to enforce a small amount of seperation between church and state.

[Sky View]

I say repeal them both and try again. or don't try at all.

[Farsestan]

The government of Farsestan has introduced a 'Civil Contract' which may be broken and is open to two people of any gender match. It is to be an automatic part of the Zoroastrian marital institution, but people of other religions will have to seek a CC separately. Hopefully this is satisfactory to the Assembly?

[Manticore Reborn]

I say repeal them both and try again. or don't try at all.

The Representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn wishes to go on the record as supporting the idea that both resolutions should be repealed.

[Urgench]

I say repeal them both and try again. or don't try at all.

The Representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn wishes to go on the record as supporting the idea that both resolutions should be repealed.

Why? Frankly the questions raised by the honoured Ambassador for Farsestan were the result of a poor understanding of both statutes. Calling for their repeal on the basis of such an understanding is absurd.

Yours,