Repeal WA resolution #15

[Ardchoille]

I'm reluctant to close a thread while the proposal's still alive, though its chances of making the queue seem small, so I'll just draw everyone's attention to the green print at the top of each post -- the stuff that says "Repeal WA resolution #15".

It's what we in the moderation trade know technically as "the topic". It's the thing posters are supposed to "address".

Try it, you'll like it.

[Gobbannium]

Since the honoured Ambassador for Bullgaranif, we think it appropriate to respond to him rather than the vague and ill-formed thoughts of the originator of this debate.

Imperial Government of Bullgarganif informs repealing of FoMA. Our argumentation is the following:
1. The resolution does not contain an acceptable definition of «marriage». The proposed definition («union of two people») allows multiple interpretations and, consequently, leads to abuses. In particular, the resolution does not take into consideration the interests of nations and cultures in which marriage traditionally is a union of more than two people.

This is a valid reason, and did cause us a modicum of concern at the time. Were we in any way convinced that the honoured ambassador was intending to draft a replacement extending the definition, we might be inclined to support a repeal.

2. The resolution does not provide for situations where the State is a religious community itself (as in the case of a theocracy, etc.), which creates prerequisites for the discrimination of entire nations on the basis of their polity.

Nor should it. We entirely approve of discriminating against entire nations that discriminate against their citizenry; that is, after all, the point of Human Rights law.

3. The resolution does not take into consideration the interests of nations in which marital relations are governed by customary law, without the participation of state structures.

Nor again should it. The resolution is concerned with discriminatory practices, and where the state does not recognise marriage no such exist. Where the state does, however, it is and should be required to be just.

In brief, this is one of the better attempts at a repeal that we have seen, but it still smacks rather of the age-old tyrant's argument that has seen so much retreading already in this discussion. We would ask the honoured ambassador if he is in fact contemplating a replacement -- though to forestall the traditional cries of outrage, we point out that this is for our information, not as a matter of requirement to the World Assembly.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Stating what should be obvious. Definitely AGAINST repeal.
Human rights have only one direction, and it is forward.

[Bullgarganif]

Imperial Government must state with a deep regret, that the struggle against political tyranny too often ends in a struggle against the “tyranny” of common sense and logic.

To the honoured representative of Gobbannium

On the first item.
Primo. Imperial Government never supplied the honoured representative with any reason to doubt our intentions. The need of adopting a new resolution on the issue of marriage has never been rejected by our Government. However, a prerequisite for a normal work on the new text is cancelation of former.
Secundo. As already mentioned in the discussion, the Resolution # 15 in its present form does not perform the function of protection of the minorities. In these circumstances any appeals to this function seem somewhat hypocritical.

On the second item.
The honoured representative states, that discrimination is acceptable to combat discrimination. Fine and frank, I dare say. But such a view contradicts Article 1 of Resolution # 2.

On the third item.
WA resolutions are equally binding for all WA members, without distinction of legal principles that govern marital relations in these countries (or any other distinctions). Anyway, we do not know about existence of a mechanism that provides such distinctions.


To the honoured representative of Sionis Prioratus

The honoured representative has formulated the essence of our concerns very precisely. The matter is that a reasonable person will not use a vehicle that can move only forward.

[Shazbotdom]

WA resolution # 15 "freedom of marriage act" although has good intentions, should be repealed. for it forces member nations to accept same-sex marriages. it is up to each individual nation to decide if it wants to allow same-sex marriages. some nations might have laws against, or religious views against same-sex marriages, and this resolution, like stated above forces all member nations to accept, something that they are morally or religiously against. citizens of nations should vote in their each national elections, whether to accept or not accept same-sex marriages, not have it forced upon them by some liberal nutcase.

Honored deligation/leadership of the Nation of South Confederate States,
I have been tasked by the Supreme Emperor of the Shazbotdom Empire to ask a direct question to you as we are slightly puzzled by your reasoning for this. Are you basically saying that you are basing your position against this legislation on National Soverignty and nothing more?