NationStates

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?

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,

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

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.

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?

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 >_>

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

What court does the ambassador refer to?

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

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

OOC: OK

IC: We will support this repeal the freedom of marriage act, and if it does not get passed, we will resign

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

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

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.

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

IC:

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...

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!!!


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.

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.

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,

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

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,

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

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,

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

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.

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.