NationStates

On Plural Unions

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Significant

---

Directive:
"To know that we are not alone."
Contributions of:
Cirixiat, Representative-Major,
Thesaan, Bound of Cyranthes,

---

The World Assembly,

Recognizing standing efforts by the World Assembly to support international civil rights,

Applauding the World Assembly's commitment to ensuring recognition of civil unions and marriage internationally,

Dismayed by an unfortunate oversight in standing legislation,

Distraught that certain Member-States would suffer complete government and civil breakdown if ever forced to consider legally unclear matters which may be best resolved in accordance with basic reasoning abilities and legal competence,

Therefore obligated to micromanage the fragile and skittish legislatures of Member-States, lest they flee back into the forest, never to be seen again,

Hereby:

Defines:

1. Civil Union as a legal union of two individuals which grants certain rights to partners therein, legally equivalent to marriage,
2. Marriage as a legal union of two individuals which grants certain rights to partners therein, legally equivalent to a civil union,
3. Plural Union as a legal union of three or more individuals, which grants certain rights to partners therein, legally equivalent to civil union or marriage,

Mandates:

1. That all Member-States which recognize civil unions or legally equivalent marriage similarly recognize plural unions,
2. That any and all rights reserved to civil unions or legally equivalent marriage be similarly extended to plural unions, subject to the following stipulations:
   1. That all plural unions include clearly delineated descriptions of the relations of all parties to the union, agreed upon by all parties, and subject to update on request,
   2. That all plural unions include delineated distributions of medical crisis and/or end-of-life rights, agreed upon by all parties, and subject to update on request,
   3. That all plural unions include clearly delineated distributions of parental rights and obligations, agreed upon by all parties, and subject to update on request,
   4. That the parties to plural unions may be removed as-per standard divorce procedure, involving all parties in a union relevant to divorce proceedings,
   5. That the parties to plural unions may be added with consent all of parties to whom the individual seeking addition claims a relationship to,
3. That all Member-States allow parental, guardianship, and any other documents which may be relevant to a plural union, to include more than two individuals as necessary for legal completeness and accuracy,

OOC:
Totally not a personally-motivated drafting effort. Promise.

"Opposed. There are myriad practical reasons for limiting marriage to two individuals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of the act."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. There are myriad practical reasons for limiting marriage to two individuals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of the act."

EMW: We concur.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. There are myriad practical reasons for limiting marriage to two individuals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of the act."

EMW: We concur.

"One would imagine," said Cirixiat, with the resigned tone of one who should not have expected better, "That either of you would wish to establish these reasons? To simply gesture to something's existence with no mention of its nature is poor argument."

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:EMW: We concur.

"One would imagine," said Cirixiat, with the resigned tone of one who should not have expected better, "That either of you would wish to establish these reasons? To simply gesture to something's existence with no mention of its nature is poor argument."

"Difficulty parsing benefits, for one. Which spouse has end of life decision power? Custody of a child? Visitation? Who pays alimony? How do you determine prima facie parentage? Inheritance becomes a nightmare when passing intestate if the spousal share is tripled or more. To the extent tax breaks or relief is offered, how does one determine good faith in seeking them? Do extant spouses have the power to veto future spouses? Is the marriage dissolved and reformed with every addition or subtraction? If so, how does that affect the aforementioned rights?

"To be clear, the World Assembly needn't ban polygamy or bigamy. But it need not mandate it, as doing so would require a fundamental shift in underlying policies inherent to the family unit. We might support decriminalizing polygamy, insofar as that hasn't already been done, but not a mandated legalization."

Same comment as given to the opposite draft:

There is no sound reason for this body to further meddle in matters that are best left to the sound discretion of member states to regulate according to the traditions and mores of their societies.

Opposed.

Against. National governments ought not to encourage immorality.

Opposed. After a certain point, you’ve diluted the institution so much that it is functionally meaningless. Travel down that road yourself if you must, but don’t drag us along behind you.

A quiet voice, seemingly coming out of nowhere, speaks behind Cirixiat's left ear. "Isn't it a bit odd for you to be addressing this subject, given that Velrahn do not have marriages of any kind?"

"There are too many legal and economical difficulties, already raised by the representative of Separatist Peoples, that are best left to individual nations.

"In addition, it concerns this delegation that mandating plural marriage as a civil right across the WA could cause difficulties for nations wishing to protect young adults against coercion to enter a plural marriage under the guise of religious or cultural custom. We do not mean a forced marriage (as covered by #160), but rather parental/social pressure to enter a plural marriage -- as opposed to a monogamous marriage or other relationship -- when that is not what their heart truly desires.

"We are also concerned that this legislation is heavy-handed and over-reaching in its over-turning of local customs in societies that are monogamous, especially as we are cognisant that not all populations in the WA are human (and some WA nations' non-human populations may exhibit strictly monogamous behaviours, especially among some bird populations).

"This delegation is opposed."

OOC:
It's back! And let's not pretend paperwork is a good excuse to deny people their rights this time, shall we?

“Although I acknowledge that there are administrative difficulties in processing plural unions, this seems to be an unobjectionable act from my perspective. The Kenmorian legal system has recently been restructured so as to be compatible with polygamous relationships, following some new legislation, so there are no issues as far as I am concerned. However, I do recognise that other nations will have serious difficulties.”

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:OOC:
It's back! And let's not pretend paperwork is a good excuse to deny people their rights this time, shall we?

(OOC: Serious difficulties in how a legal system would process polygamous relationships, especially where dependents are involved, aren’t trivial.)

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. There are myriad practical reasons for limiting marriage to two individuals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of the act."

EMW: We concur.

As do we. As much as most Baraelim oppose it on a moral scale, our government wishes not to weigh in on this matter. However, from a purely practical and logistical standpoint, we believe that this would be problematic, and it may also restrict the rights of nations which are opposed to polygamy as well. Our government officially will hold this standpoint: if a nation wishes to legalize polygamy, then we will not protest, but they should not impose their will on other WA member states.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Serious difficulties in how a legal system would process polygamous relationships, especially where dependents are involved, aren’t trivial.)

OOC:
And mysteriously none of you seem particularly interested in solutions, rather, simply declaring it too hard and being done with it.

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:OOC:
It's back! And let's not pretend paperwork is a good excuse to deny people their rights this time, shall we?

"Paperwork? No. Genuine legal issues? Absolutely a valid concern."

Tinfect wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Serious difficulties in how a legal system would process polygamous relationships, especially where dependents are involved, aren’t trivial.)

OOC:
And mysteriously none of you seem particularly interested in solutions, rather, simply declaring it too hard and being done with it.

OOC: The only solution to a great deal of these problems is to modify business entity law to accommodate family concerns. The result being an invitation of the state into the family abode to a degree that most persons would find extremely concerning.

"Opposed. Ambassador, Ardiveds doesn't punish plural marriages as long as all the parties consent to it and are aware of each other but that doesn't mean the government wants to get involved in that bureaucratic nightmare. Here, legal marriages have always been between two individuals and we wish to keep it that way."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Paperwork? No. Genuine legal issues? Absolutely a valid concern."

OOC:
That post was OOC; I've never marked them unclearly.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: The only solution to a great deal of these problems is to modify business entity law to accommodate family concerns. The result being an invitation of the state into the family abode to a degree that most persons would find extremely concerning.

That's utter nonsense. Genuinely that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard and I cannot possibly imagine how you came to it.

Ardiveds wrote:"Opposed. Ambassador, Ardiveds doesn't punish plural marriages as long as all the parties consent to it and are aware of each other but that doesn't mean the government wants to get involved in that bureaucratic nightmare. Here, legal marriages have always been between two individuals and we wish to keep it that way."

"And you don't see anything wrong, legally or morally, with the idea that only a single partner in a relationship may have any rights whatsoever?"

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:"Opposed. Ambassador, Ardiveds doesn't punish plural marriages as long as all the parties consent to it and are aware of each other but that doesn't mean the government wants to get involved in that bureaucratic nightmare. Here, legal marriages have always been between two individuals and we wish to keep it that way."

"And you don't see anything wrong, legally or morally, with the idea that only a single partner in a relationship may have any rights whatsoever?"

"When did we say that? Both partners have their legal rights secure. Now if you're talking about those other partners beside the two of them who married, well they entered the relationship knowing the caveats. Our courts are already clogged with petulent couples applying for divorce, we don't want to clog it up further. If we're being honest, we'd rather just get rid of legal marriage altogether if we could."

Tinfect wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Paperwork? No. Genuine legal issues? Absolutely a valid concern."

OOC:
That post was OOC; I've never marked them unclearly.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: The only solution to a great deal of these problems is to modify business entity law to accommodate family concerns. The result being an invitation of the state into the family abode to a degree that most persons would find extremely concerning.

That's utter nonsense. Genuinely that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard and I cannot possibly imagine how you came to it.

Ooc: I haven't. Legal scholars have, beause a plural union looks a whole lot like a General Partnership. A group of people intending to come together for a particular purpose as coequals. Utah in particular has a surprising amount of proposed codification on the topic, much of which I read as research the last time this came up here.

In my experience, those who firm a GP end up bound by rules they were unaware of, causing endless issues with regulation. Mostly they default to Majority Rules, but not always. The result is government intrusion into your business model when things go pear-shaped.

Applying it to marriage invites as much or more, given the much more personal nature of marriage as opposed to business.

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:"Opposed. Ambassador, Ardiveds doesn't punish plural marriages as long as all the parties consent to it and are aware of each other but that doesn't mean the government wants to get involved in that bureaucratic nightmare. Here, legal marriages have always been between two individuals and we wish to keep it that way."

"And you don't see anything wrong, legally or morally, with the idea that only a single partner in a relationship may have any rights whatsoever?"

"No, I do not see anything wrong with this, legally or morally. Marriage has been decreed by God as between a man and a woman, as that is the best environment for raising children; however, marriage in Germany is legal between any two adults as the government believes in equal rights for homosexuals and bisexuals. What the government here does not believe in is the complete perversion of the institution of marriage that results from polygamy."

Marxist Germany wrote:

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:
"And you don't see anything wrong, legally or morally, with the idea that only a single partner in a relationship may have any rights whatsoever?"

"No, I do not see anything wrong with this, legally or morally. Marriage has been decreed by God as between a man and a woman, as that is the best environment for raising children; however, marriage in Germany is legal between any two adults as the government believes in equal rights for homosexuals and bisexuals. What the government here does not believe in is the complete perversion of the institution of marriage that results from polygamy."

"I withdraw my vociferous resistance. Any appeal to a god in the context of marriage is a position on which I have no desire to spend energy defending."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:"No, I do not see anything wrong with this, legally or morally. Marriage has been decreed by God as between a man and a woman, as that is the best environment for raising children; however, marriage in Germany is legal between any two adults as the government believes in equal rights for homosexuals and bisexuals. What the government here does not believe in is the complete perversion of the institution of marriage that results from polygamy."

"I withdraw my vociferous resistance. Any appeal to a god in the context of marriage is a position on which I have no desire to spend energy defending."

"Your opposition to this proposal is contingent on what other ambassadors' opinions are? That does not sound like a sincere position to hold."