NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Punk Reloaded
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: May 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Punk Reloaded » Fri May 28, 2010 7:55 am

Thanks Hirota...my previous post was written before seeing yours.

I agree with you that the title is a bit of a misnomer...However, since the resolution does state "Freedom of Marriage" and was found to be valid, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is not defining the term marriage. And by implication since this definition is different than it was before the resolution, that also by definition is a 'redefining'.

With respect to minors, this isn't rhetorical at all and definitely has relevance to the question of marriage. I'm not clear how you think this is rhetorical, but I'll explain my thinking a bit more. The resolution doesn't restrict itself to minors and therefore is open to minors. Within different member nations there are restrictions to minors for various reasons usually because the minor is not quite psychologically advanced to deal with the issues (i.e. voting) or may not completely understand the consequences of their actions (e.g. criminal cases). My proposal is stating that the resolution is too vague in this instance and far too open for interpretation on this point which could lead to unintended consequences of minors being legally able to marry at whim, be they opposite sex or same sex couples. The question there is do we, as the World Assembly, wish to continue to support a resolution that leaves that loophole. But it's definitely not just a rhetorical statement. I may rephrase just to remove any potential stigmas.

Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated.


To Zemnaya: valid point
To Nullarni: poster above you says he/she doesn't find much technically wrong with it. You write that I've never even read a proposal. Who should I believe? And further, what branding mistakes are there?
Former Delegate of The West Pacific
Former Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific

Punk Reloaded - Retired
Big D Baby - Retired
Punk Daddy - Citizen of TSP

In TWP, we go Commando. - Darkesia

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Fri May 28, 2010 8:13 am

Punk Reloaded wrote:Thanks Hirota...my previous post was written before seeing yours.

I agree with you that the title is a bit of a misnomer...However, since the resolution does state "Freedom of Marriage" and was found to be valid, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is not defining the term marriage. And by implication since this definition is different than it was before the resolution, that also by definition is a 'redefining'.

With respect to minors, this isn't rhetorical at all and definitely has relevance to the question of marriage. I'm not clear how you think this is rhetorical, but I'll explain my thinking a bit more. The resolution doesn't restrict itself to minors and therefore is open to minors. Within different member nations there are restrictions to minors for various reasons usually because the minor is not quite psychologically advanced to deal with the issues (i.e. voting) or may not completely understand the consequences of their actions (e.g. criminal cases). My proposal is stating that the resolution is too vague in this instance and far too open for interpretation on this point which could lead to unintended consequences of minors being legally able to marry at whim, be they opposite sex or same sex couples. The question there is do we, as the World Assembly, wish to continue to support a resolution that leaves that loophole. But it's definitely not just a rhetorical statement. I may rephrase just to remove any potential stigmas.

Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated.


To Zemnaya: valid point
To Nullarni: poster above you says he/she doesn't find much technically wrong with it. You write that I've never even read a proposal. Who should I believe? And further, what branding mistakes are there?





The resolution is restricted to consenting adults, and it's title is not an operative clause, therefore its title in no way contributes to a proposed redefinition of marriage.


Yours,
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Zemnaya Svoboda
Diplomat
 
Posts: 823
Founded: Jan 06, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Zemnaya Svoboda » Fri May 28, 2010 8:28 am

The Resolution is not explicitly restricted to consenting adults, however it leaves member states the right to restrict unions based on age.

User avatar
Nullarni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1348
Founded: Sep 26, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Nullarni » Fri May 28, 2010 8:37 am

Punk Reloaded wrote:Thanks Hirota...my previous post was written before seeing yours.

I agree with you that the title is a bit of a misnomer...However, since the resolution does state "Freedom of Marriage" and was found to be valid, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is not defining the term marriage. And by implication since this definition is different than it was before the resolution, that also by definition is a 'redefining'.

With respect to minors, this isn't rhetorical at all and definitely has relevance to the question of marriage. I'm not clear how you think this is rhetorical, but I'll explain my thinking a bit more. The resolution doesn't restrict itself to minors and therefore is open to minors. Within different member nations there are restrictions to minors for various reasons usually because the minor is not quite psychologically advanced to deal with the issues (i.e. voting) or may not completely understand the consequences of their actions (e.g. criminal cases). My proposal is stating that the resolution is too vague in this instance and far too open for interpretation on this point which could lead to unintended consequences of minors being legally able to marry at whim, be they opposite sex or same sex couples. The question there is do we, as the World Assembly, wish to continue to support a resolution that leaves that loophole. But it's definitely not just a rhetorical statement. I may rephrase just to remove any potential stigmas.

Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated.


To Zemnaya: valid point
To Nullarni: poster above you says he/she doesn't find much technically wrong with it. You write that I've never even read a proposal. Who should I believe? And further, what branding mistakes are there?


Wow, that is embarassing. I was refering to your "proposal" in your first post. I retract my previous statement, and apologize.
Proud founder of the NEW WARSAW PACT. Visitors welcome.

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Fri May 28, 2010 8:52 am

Put it this way, in Punk Reloaded we have a long tradition of mother's marrying their eldest son if their husband passes away. I see no reason to put forth a resolution that requires the same for all fellow World Assembly nations. Instead, I respect the customs and traditions of my fellow members and think this resolution should be repealed as it unilaterally forces a particular morality on ALL member nations.


And if the eldest son is a minor in Punk Reloaded? Wouldn't your attempt to repeal this possibly effect the long standing incest tradition in Punk Reloaded?
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Zemnaya Svoboda
Diplomat
 
Posts: 823
Founded: Jan 06, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Zemnaya Svoboda » Fri May 28, 2010 8:52 am

Oh and another sematic issue: given the way you've structured the language, I think it'd be better to finish with

HEREBY REPEAL the “Freedom of Marriage” resolution.


Otherwise you have an inconsistently framed sentence >_>

User avatar
Silver Beach
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1949
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 10:04 am

Since it was passed, it infringes WAY too much on the sovereignty of nations, and this is enough cause for Silver Beach to withdraw from the WA. It is being discussed in Parliament, if the Repeal of the Freedom of Marriage Act is lost, then Silver Beach will either A. go to court with the WA or B. withdraw from the WA

OOC: I am taking about the freedom of marraige act
Head of State: President Gabriel Kantor
Champions of- International Cardinal's Cup 1, Arena Bowl II
RP Population: 22 million

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Fri May 28, 2010 10:05 am

What court does the ambassador refer to?
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Silver Beach
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1949
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 10:07 am

Philimbesi wrote:What court does the ambassador refer to?


OOC: Doesn't the WA have a court where you can challenge laws? Or do you just do repeals? I will edit if I have to
Head of State: President Gabriel Kantor
Champions of- International Cardinal's Cup 1, Arena Bowl II
RP Population: 22 million

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Fri May 28, 2010 10:15 am

OOC: Nope, don't like it vote against it, still don't like repeal, resign, or relax.
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Silver Beach
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1949
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 10:28 am

OOC: OK

IC: We will support this repeal the freedom of marriage act, and if it does not get passed, we will resign
Head of State: President Gabriel Kantor
Champions of- International Cardinal's Cup 1, Arena Bowl II
RP Population: 22 million

User avatar
Toiletdonia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1346
Founded: Dec 10, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Toiletdonia » Fri May 28, 2010 10:32 am

I don't agree with a repeal. Making marriage liberal and free is a very valid resolution.
Trust member in Taltos industry!
10th December 2009-10th December 2010!
I do weddings! And I'm probably official as well!
I'm English and not very proud of it!
Writer Emeritus of F7's most Godawful play. Thanks for the title Nana.
Astronaut
Finance manager
Hallucinater
Trust member in Taltos industry
Priest
Jalanat wrote:Or like that time I misheard something my mom said about the rain and I thought that rain was made of dirty goats for 5 months.

Jalanat wrote:I hope you weren't trying to call me a reindeer, we mooselike are a hundred times better than the reindeerlike. Stupid reindeers. Oh, look at me, I am a reindeer, look at my not so big antlers which look ugly compared to mooses, oooh look at me, I am a reindeer, I am flying in the sky pulling a fat man in red clothes in a sled.

User avatar
Silver Beach
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1949
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 11:21 am

Toiletdonia wrote:I don't agree with a repeal. Making marriage liberal and free is a very valid resolution.


But a decision decided by nations. Not the WA. I still hold my stance on what I said before
Head of State: President Gabriel Kantor
Champions of- International Cardinal's Cup 1, Arena Bowl II
RP Population: 22 million

User avatar
Embolalia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1670
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Embolalia » Fri May 28, 2010 11:38 am

Philimbesi wrote:OOC: Nope, don't like it vote against it, still don't like repeal, resign, or relax.

Repeal, Resign, or Relax. I think I have a new motto.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Bible quote? No, that's just common sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia

Gafin Gower, Prime minister
E. Rory Hywel, Ambassador to the World Assembly
Gwaredd LLwyd, Lieutenant Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author: GA#95, GA#107, GA#132, GA#185
Philimbesi wrote:Repeal, resign, or relax.

Embassy Exchange
EBC News
My mostly worthless blog
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
@marcmack wrote:I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water & dirt. Also, not sure where to put it."

User avatar
TurtleShroom
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5942
Founded: Oct 13, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby TurtleShroom » Fri May 28, 2010 11:53 am

Urgench wrote:And exactly what kind of morality does your Majesty suggest is being forced on all member nations by the FoMA?



IC:
FROM THE REPUBLIC OF TURTLESHROOM:
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JONESBORO OFFICE #2
BUREAUCRAT

To Whom it May Concern:

They are forcing all countries in the World Assembly to legitimatize and recognize gay marriage/same-sex unions as equal to the real thing, and making them extend the benefits of holy matrimony to said perverts. It bars them from banning marriage of the same gender! The Holy Republic of TurtleShroom dropped out of the WA because it refuses to compromise its morals just because the homosexuals so demand "recognition" of a defiance of human genetics and mating. They can be gay in private and amongst their own kind, but when the try and force their way of life down the State and the majority's throats, we take action. Marriage is the union of one male and one female, of whom were that gender at birth. No compromise, no exception!

We applaud the logic of King Maximus.


Regards,
Sobe Ittson, Bureaucrat of the Federal Government of the Holy Republic of TurtleShroom, acting on behalf of the Chancellary


Silver Beach wrote:Since it was passed, it infringes WAY too much on the sovereignty of nations, and this is enough cause for Silver Beach to withdraw from the WA. It is being discussed in Parliament, if the Repeal of the Freedom of Marriage Act is lost, then Silver Beach will either A. go to court with the WA or B. withdraw from the WA


P.S.: Withdraw from the WA. Do it. You'll be better off not being commanded by their liberal agenda...
Last edited by TurtleShroom on Fri May 28, 2010 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
THE FUTURE
IS IN THE
PAST!!

Jesus Loves You and Died for You!!
●▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ש✞ש▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬●
NationStates' only surviving States' Rights Democrat/Dixiecrat (minus the rascism)!


User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Fri May 28, 2010 11:58 am

Embolalia wrote:
Philimbesi wrote:OOC: Nope, don't like it vote against it, still don't like repeal, resign, or relax.

Repeal, Resign, or Relax. I think I have a new motto.


OOC: Glad I could help... Yea! I made a sig!!! :clap:


IC:


After reading the same old, we-quit-cause-your-pushing-an-agenda-different-than-the-agenda-we'd-like-you-to-push... crap. Nigel turn to Ginger and said.

We must write the turtleshroomers and thank them for leaving such wonderful office supplies when they decided it was better to criticize the WA instead from outside of trying to actually make a difference and ran away like a bunch of spoiled children.
Last edited by Philimbesi on Fri May 28, 2010 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Embolalia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1670
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Embolalia » Fri May 28, 2010 12:07 pm

TurtleShroom wrote:They are forcing all countries in the World Assembly to legitimatize and recognize gay marriage/same-sex unions as equal to the real thing, and making them extend the benefits of holy matrimony to said perverts.

False. The resolution specifically excludes religious communities.
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia wholeheartedly condemns your characterization of gay people as perverts.

In an accurate answer to the question, the resolution requires the equal recognition of same- and opposite-sex marriages by your nation's government. To be clear, this applies only to those legal protections your nation grants to marriage. For example, if your government, prior to this resolution or joining the WA, gave opposite-sex couples the right to visit one another in the hospital, or gave them certain tax advantages, your nation must now afford the same to same-sex couples. However, if it is traditional within a religion in your nation to have a marriage within a place of worship, or if it is believed that married couples are afforded some religious sanctity, this resolution does not require that to be inclusive of same-sex couples.

The effects are easier to understand if you consider marriage, for the purposes of the resolution, as a civil contract, rather than as a religious concept. This resolution requires that contract, and the legal benefits associated with it, to be honored regardless of the sexes of the persons involved.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Bible quote? No, that's just common sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia

Gafin Gower, Prime minister
E. Rory Hywel, Ambassador to the World Assembly
Gwaredd LLwyd, Lieutenant Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author: GA#95, GA#107, GA#132, GA#185
Philimbesi wrote:Repeal, resign, or relax.

Embassy Exchange
EBC News
My mostly worthless blog
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
@marcmack wrote:I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water & dirt. Also, not sure where to put it."

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Fri May 28, 2010 12:25 pm

TurtleShroom wrote:
IC:
FROM THE REPUBLIC OF TURTLESHROOM:
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JONESBORO OFFICE #2
BUREAUCRAT

To Whom it May Concern:

They are forcing all countries in the World Assembly to legitimatize and recognize gay marriage/same-sex unions as equal to the real thing, and making them extend the benefits of holy matrimony to said perverts. It bars them from banning marriage of the same gender! The Holy Republic of TurtleShroom dropped out of the WA because it refuses to compromise its morals just because the homosexuals so demand "recognition" of a defiance of human genetics and mating. They can be gay in private and amongst their own kind, but when the try and force their way of life down the State and the majority's throats, we take action. Marriage is the union of one male and one female, of whom were that gender at birth. No compromise, no exception!

We applaud the logic of King Maximus.


Regards,
Sobe Ittson, Bureaucrat of the Federal Government of the Holy Republic of TurtleShroom, acting on behalf of the Chancellary






Ambassador Ittson, you may tell his Majesty King Maximus that he has no business lecturing anyone on morality, the more so since his Majesty seems to be labouring under the delusion that his grotesque and aberrant prejudices are inspired by some distortion of morality and ethics. Indeed, having exposed himself as benighted and pitiful his Majesty clearly knows nothing of morality, common decency and the demands of an empathetic humanity.

In light of the fact that your Excellency's nation is in fact not a member of this organisation and has no particular stake in the outcome of this debate we suggest that your Excellency keep his unpleasant epithets and barbarous immorality to himself. Outbursts of this nature only serve to prove the point that the FoMA must not be repealed, and that the protections now afforded to billions upon billions of persons dwelling in WA member states must not be removed to allow the primitive prejudices of the likes of his Majesty, King Maximus, free reign. This is not a matter of national prerogative it is a matter of basic common sympathy and respect for the equality and value of every single individual citizen of a WA member state.


Yours,
Last edited by Urgench on Fri May 28, 2010 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Silver Beach
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1949
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 2:29 pm

Yes, but we must remember that gay marriage used to vary from nation to nation, and this is a thing that should be a domestic affair. You should not be forced to make this law in your nation, it is a domestic issue that needs to be decided by the people
Head of State: President Gabriel Kantor
Champions of- International Cardinal's Cup 1, Arena Bowl II
RP Population: 22 million

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Fri May 28, 2010 3:20 pm

Silver Beach wrote:Yes, but we must remember that gay marriage used to vary from nation to nation, and this is a thing that should be a domestic affair. You should not be forced to make this law in your nation, it is a domestic issue that needs to be decided by the people



Why is one human being on one side of a border more equal than their analogue on the other side of that border? How is equality divisible by nationality? One person is either equal to all others or they are not your Excellency, which is it? And if the happenstance of nationality can decide a single person's right to be treated equally on what possible logic is this justified?


Yours,
Last edited by Urgench on Fri May 28, 2010 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Silver Beach
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1949
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 3:33 pm

Urgench wrote:
Silver Beach wrote:Yes, but we must remember that gay marriage used to vary from nation to nation, and this is a thing that should be a domestic affair. You should not be forced to make this law in your nation, it is a domestic issue that needs to be decided by the people



Why is one human being on one side of a border more equal than there analogue on the other side of that border? How is equality divisible by nationality? One person is either equal to all others or they are not your Excellency, which is it? And if the happenstance of nationality can decide a single person's right to be treated equally on what possible logic is this justified?


Yours,


Sir,
One human on one side of the border is NOT as equal as someone else. BUT, this bill should be decided by the directly elected represenatives of the people, not by the World Assembly. This bill is a domestic bill, not a bill decided by the international community, but a domestic policy. This is each indivual nation's own buisness, and that is how it should stay
Head of State: President Gabriel Kantor
Champions of- International Cardinal's Cup 1, Arena Bowl II
RP Population: 22 million

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Fri May 28, 2010 3:41 pm

Silver Beach wrote:

Sir,
One human on one side of the border is NOT as equal as someone else. BUT, this bill should be decided by the directly elected represenatives of the people, not by the World Assembly. This bill is a domestic bill, not a bill decided by the international community, but a domestic policy. This is each indivual nation's own buisness, and that is how it should stay




Let us put aside the fact that there are a huge number of WA member states which are not democracies and where no elected representatives could decide anything on this issue, and point out that election does not confer supreme authority, nor does it confer the right to decide the value and equality of billions of individuals. One's personhood, and the equality of personhood it implies, is not dependent on one's nationality, it is a universal fixed point.


Your Excellency will find that even in if the FoMA is repealed the Charter of Civil Rights will demand that member states continue to treat all of their citizens and inhabitants equally. Make yourself familiar with the canon of this organisation's laws your Excellency.

Yours,
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Silver Beach
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1949
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 3:55 pm

Our citizens are being treated equally under the law, marriage is defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman, so we are doing that. It is being changed because of this resolution, but we are respecting those rights
Head of State: President Gabriel Kantor
Champions of- International Cardinal's Cup 1, Arena Bowl II
RP Population: 22 million

User avatar
Punk Reloaded
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: May 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Punk Reloaded » Fri May 28, 2010 6:32 pm

I obviously agree with the gentleman/woman from Silver Beach...marriage is a union between 1 man and 1 woman.

However, the repeal I am now proposing does not have anything to do with that actually, and I believe I will strike the mention of 'redefining' of marriage from the latest proposal. Moreso, I think the loophole with respect to children AND the fact that healthcare isn't explicitly stated give rise to exploitation of children and allows for 2nd class unions which I do not believe was the intent of the framers.
Former Delegate of The West Pacific
Former Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific

Punk Reloaded - Retired
Big D Baby - Retired
Punk Daddy - Citizen of TSP

In TWP, we go Commando. - Darkesia

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Fri May 28, 2010 6:39 pm

Punk Reloaded wrote:I obviously agree with the gentleman/woman from Silver Beach...marriage is a union between 1 man and 1 woman.

However, the repeal I am now proposing does not have anything to do with that actually, and I believe I will strike the mention of 'redefining' of marriage from the latest proposal. Moreso, I think the loophole with respect to children AND the fact that healthcare isn't explicitly stated give rise to exploitation of children and allows for 2nd class unions which I do not believe was the intent of the framers.

:palm:
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Desmosthenes and Burke, New Jorsonn

Advertisement

Remove ads