[Draft] Restricting Polygamy

[Old Hope]

Dismayed at the many legal problems another marriage might bring on the other partner(s),

Wishing to protect people from having partners secretly being married to other partner(s),

The World Assembly mandates member states to enact the following as law:
1a.A person already married to one or more partners in marriage must inform these partners about any person they intend to marry(or have married) as soon as reasonably possible.
1b.People who were registered as missing persons at the time of intent to marry do not have to be informed until they ask their other partners about marriages they entered in whilst they were missing.
2.Before marriage, any potential partner must be informed about the other partner(s) marriages, and intents to marry.
3.Trying to get someone registered as missing person to skip the requirements in clause 1a shall be a crime.
4a.Preceding clauses 1a, 1b and 2 shall ignore purely religious marriages.
4b.A marriage recognized by this state leading to any additional legal privileges and/or duties is not a purely religious marriage.
4c.If the marriage includes enforceable contractual obligations it is not a purely religious marriage.

Moral Decency; Significant

Thoughts?

[Imperium Anglorum]

There are legitimate reasons for a member nation not to recognise any marriages at all. This resolution would use state power to enforce religious norms. Against.

[Old Hope]

There are legitimate reasons for a member nation not to recognise any marriages at all. This resolution would use state power to enforce religious norms. Against.

Legitimate reasons like... what exactly? Nothing in this resolution forces a member state to perform, allow to perform marriage, or to give married people any additional rights beyond notification of other marriages.

[Kenmoria]

There are legitimate reasons for a member nation not to recognise any marriages at all. This resolution would use state power to enforce religious norms. Against.

Legitimate reasons like... what exactly? Nothing in this resolution forces a member state to perform, allow to perform marriage, or to give married people any additional rights beyond notification of other marriages.

(OOC: Marriage can be viewed as a purely religious ritual, without any governmental regulation or interference. With exceptions for things such as child marriage, this means that laws governing marriage don’t take account of this, very reasonable, situation.)

[Old Hope]

Legitimate reasons like... what exactly? Nothing in this resolution forces a member state to perform, allow to perform marriage, or to give married people any additional rights beyond notification of other marriages.

(OOC: Marriage can be viewed as a purely religious ritual, without any governmental regulation or interference. With exceptions for things such as child marriage, this means that laws governing marriage don’t take account of this, very reasonable, situation.)

OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Marriage can be viewed as a purely religious ritual, without any governmental regulation or interference. With exceptions for things such as child marriage, this means that laws governing marriage don’t take account of this, very reasonable, situation.)

OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?

(OOC: It is all the clauses apart from clause 3 which would pose the problem. A member state under this model wouldn’t care about marriage, and would leave it entirely to the local religious bodies to decide. In which case, adding regulations would require member states to regulate marriage, compromising the secularity of marriage.)

[Old Hope]

OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?

(OOC: It is all the clauses apart from clause 3 which would pose the problem. A member state under this model wouldn’t care about marriage, and would leave it entirely to the local religious bodies to decide. In which case, adding regulations would require member states to regulate marriage, compromising the secularity of marriage.)

(OOC:Not beyond the clauses mandated by this resolution. Alternatively, I could introduce an exception for marriages with solely religious character that do not result in any additional legal duties or privileges for the married people - if needed.

[Ardiveds]

"Ambassador, just to be clear, we are talking about legal marriages here and not social or religious marriages, right?"

[Attempted Socialism]

"We are against government in the bedroom unless there is a real, compelling reason. This shoddy draft reads as a compelling reason to get government farther away from the bedrooms of citizens. I don't think the draft is redeemable."

[Old Hope]

"We are against government in the bedroom unless there is a real, compelling reason. This shoddy draft reads as a compelling reason to get government farther away from the bedrooms of citizens. I don't think the draft is redeemable."

General Assembly Resolution #383 already protects that. This draft does not regulate sexual activity at all.

[Attempted Socialism]

"We are against government in the bedroom unless there is a real, compelling reason. This shoddy draft reads as a compelling reason to get government farther away from the bedrooms of citizens. I don't think the draft is redeemable."

General Assembly Resolution #383 already protects that. This draft does not regulate sexual activity at all.

"Oh sorry, we must have turned out subtext-to-text translator on by accident. Let me rephrase, then. Government has no legitimate role to play between consenting adults. Especially so if the law in question is written by the delegation from Old Hope."

[Old Hope]

General Assembly Resolution #383 already protects that. This draft does not regulate sexual activity at all.

"Oh sorry, we must have turned out subtext-to-text translator on by accident. Let me rephrase, then. Government has no legitimate role to play between consenting adults. Especially so if the law in question is written by the delegation from Old Hope."

I see that you are already resorting to personal attacks. The rest of your argument is bad, because in this case it greatly affects a third person, notification requirements are reasonable. Your arguments are not convincing.

[Barfleur]

Concerned that polygamous marriages frequently become abusive,

"And how have you come to that conclusion? What evidence do you have for such a statement?"

Dismayed at the many legal problems another marriage might bring on the other partner(s),

"Coming from Barfleur, a nation in which polygamy has been prohibited, I must confess I do not exactly know how such a marriage might be arranged, but I would assume the marriage would be done as a group, rather than starting out with two partners and wantonly bringing in more."

Wishing to protect people from having partners secretly being married to other partner(s),

"I'm sure most nations that permit polygamy have some law requiring people to know who they or their spouse are married to."

The World Assembly mandates member states to enact the following as law:

1a.A person already married to one or more partners in marriage must inform these partners about any person they intend to marry(or have married) as soon as reasonably possible.

"Agreed."

1b.People who were registered as missing persons at the time of intent to marry do not have to be informed until they ask their other partners about marriages they entered in whilst they were missing.

"If a person is able to enter into marriages, which I would presume requires identification of some sort from the government, how would they still be considered missing? If a missing person walks into a courthouse and asks for a marriage license, they are no longer a missing person."

2.Before marriage, any potential partner must be informed about the other partner(s) marriages, and intents to marry.

"That sounds about right."

3.Trying to get someone registered as missing person to skip the requirements in clause 1a shall be a crime.

"Doesn't registering someone as missing actually require them to be missing?"

[Grays Harbor]

polygamous marriages frequently become abusive

According to who? I haven’t seen any evidence that it is either more or less so than a 2 person marriage. It would be helpful if you didn’t use a fallacious premise as a basis for your proposal.

(Also, not seeing this as significant strength)

[Old Hope]

OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?

(OOC: It is all the clauses apart from clause 3 which would pose the problem. A member state under this model wouldn’t care about marriage, and would leave it entirely to the local religious bodies to decide. In which case, adding regulations would require member states to regulate marriage, compromising the secularity of marriage.)

We have changed the text of this resolution based on your concerns. Feedback is appreciated.

polygamous marriages frequently become abusive

According to who? I haven’t seen any evidence that it is either more or less so than a 2 person marriage. It would be helpful if you didn’t use a fallacious premise as a basis for your proposal.

(Also, not seeing this as significant strength)

OOC:Are you sure? The resolution uses terms like "must", so Mild is a bit questionable, but it is not "strong" because it does not have an effect beyond notification(and criminalizing something that is probably illegal in many member states anyways).

[Great Robertia]

"Firmly opposed. This resolution is sticking its long nose into affairs it doesn't belong in."

[Morover]

"I might support a resolution that makes it so that in instances where marriage is a state-run ordeal, and polygamy is permitted for anybody, it must be permitted for everyone. The keyword is might there, and I just got out of a tiring meeting with my cousin from the other assembly, so even that possible support may be due to the headache that I've endured."

[Old Hope]

"Firmly opposed. This resolution is sticking its long nose into affairs it doesn't belong in."

You read the draft, right? Not just the title?

"I might support a resolution that makes it so that in instances where marriage is a state-run ordeal, and polygamy is permitted for anybody, it must be permitted for everyone. The keyword is might there, and I just got out of a tiring meeting with my cousin from the other assembly, so even that possible support may be due to the headache that I've endured."

What you are saying makes no sense, ambassador.

[Great Robertia]

"Firmly opposed. This resolution is sticking its long nose into affairs it doesn't belong in."

You read the draft, right? Not just the title?

"We did, Ambassador, I find it most curious you think I didn't. Is it reflective of your own style in commenting on proposals?

No, don't answer that, as I digress. My response remains the same, no matter how many times I'll reread the current draft."

[Godular]

“Opposed. If you have issues with people using polygamy for the purposes of tax fraud, you can damn well fix it on your end.”

[Separatist Peoples]

You read the draft, right? Not just the title?

"We did, Ambassador, I find it most curious you think I didn't. Is it reflective of your own style in commenting on proposals?

No, don't answer that, as I digress. My response remains the same, no matter how many times I'll reread the current draft."

"My, my. Even ambassadors who arrived recently are sensing a pattern..." Bell mused quietly.

"We do not object in principle to the concept of notification of parties to a polygamous marriage. We have a problem with any resolution that gives broad religious exceptions to marital regulations. We also share the Godulan opinion. Opposed."

[Old Hope]

"We do not object in principle to the concept of notification of parties to a polygamous marriage. We have a problem with any resolution that gives broad religious exceptions to marital regulations. We also share the Godulan opinion. Opposed."

These exceptions are no longer broad, which was an oversight.
Tax fraud is not the only concern, Ambassador Bell. A partner should simply be notified because it is just not right to put someone into a polygamous marriage without their knowledge.

[Wealthatonia]

Ambassador, you're forgetting that monogomous marriages have abuse in them too.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We do not object in principle to the concept of notification of parties to a polygamous marriage. We have a problem with any resolution that gives broad religious exceptions to marital regulations. We also share the Godulan opinion. Opposed."

These exceptions are no longer broad, which was an oversight.
Tax fraud is not the only concern, Ambassador Bell. A partner should simply be notified because it is just not right to put someone into a polygamous marriage without their knowledge.

"This same logic would follow for a non-marital relationship. Thus it would be incumbent on a person to warn their spouse of an extra-marital relationship. I think most of us may agree that however morally bankrupt such an act may be, it is entirely outside the concern of the state to enforce the sanctity of a marital bed. Ye Old Gods, the expense of enforcement! The constant violations of privacy! The petty abuses inherent in a system that criminalizes matters best handled by private parties! No, ambassador, I cannot support such an ill conceived approach to what is hardly even a national concern. Given the right to divorce enshrined in World Assembly law, I see no further need for regulation.

"I must thank you for pointing out the concerns I did not previously see, even at the cost of my support."

[Silver Commonwealth]

''We aren't members of WA, so no formal diplomatic messages, but just notes with our opinion.''

''As much as we in the government would dislike and restrict polygamy, and government sticking its nose in such matters is not exactly something we would oppose, in the end in reality of WA it should ultimately be a decision for each country on their own. Opposed.''

Samuel Marshall, the Commonwealth's Representative to WA, and one of the SC's ambassadors
The Ministry of Foreign and Internal affairs as a whole

(OOC: I heard that non-WA nations can post in WA threads as well, so here's my first attempt at the new waters.)