[DRAFT] Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

[Quadrimmina]

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.

The Republic of Quadrimmina would like to point out the difference between marriage under the law and marriage under religion. They're two separate entities. If marriage occurs under the law, then it's a civil union between two people who wish to cohabit and share their lives. If it occurs under religion, its a spiritual connection, at least so goes the theory. Simply put, if someone's religious beliefs give them the opportunity to marry those of the same-sex, it is not up to the government of any nation or entity to deny them that inherent right. Hence the resolution currently before us in the World Assembly.

I for one want these repeals to go away! Shoo! Us serious international people have important matters to tend to other than repealing a law that will get defeated. Why waste 3 days' worth of queue space on a resolution that will never pass? We should be focusing on more important things (like medical ethics, lol!)

[Grays Harbor]

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.

We really do not require every little eventuality explicitly stated in every bloody issue. We are also quite uncertain as yet why "healthcare" needs to be addressed in a resolution of marriage rights?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Attention all bigots and nit-pickers: We will fight any attempt to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It is a well-written GAR that ensures basic equity and fundamental human rights.

Please stop wasting our time with this pathetic nonsense.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Attention all bigots and nit-pickers: We will fight any attempt to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It is a well-written GAR that ensures basic equity and fundamental human rights.

Please stop wasting our time with this pathetic nonsense.

We agree, and we shall join this fight, should this inanity ever see the light of day, to our very last drop of blood.

Yours in liberty,

[Ardchoille]

I'm not sure which version of your proposal is the current one, but if it still contains this clause --

CONCERNED that the resolution does not specifically mention partner’s rites in emergency medical situations or general health care at all;

-- you should change that to "rights". Otherwise it sounds as if your problem with the original is that it should have said something like, "If either partner looks like dying, the other partner should have some say in what religion organises the send-off".

Also, re "which is the current one": it helps other posters if you edit the current version of the proposal into the first post in the thread. If it's been through several minor changes, you just use a different colour for the new words or phrases, or a strike-through for what's been deleted.

(Note, this is not a legality ruling.)

[Hirota]

Attention all bigots and nit-pickers: We will fight any attempt to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It is a well-written GAR that ensures basic equity and fundamental human rights.

Please stop wasting our time with this pathetic nonsense.

I'll be voting against this proposal on this basis...unless a nation comes up with something more relevant than bawling their ickle eyes out about national soverignty or trying to employ the Helen Lovejoy argument. And lets face it, nobody has come up with anything better thus far, so I'm not holding my breath.

[Quadrimmina]

Attention all bigots and nit-pickers: We will fight any attempt to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It is a well-written GAR that ensures basic equity and fundamental human rights.

Please stop wasting our time with this pathetic nonsense.

We agree, and we shall join this fight, should this inanity ever see the light of day, to our very last drop of blood.

Yours in liberty,

The Republic of Quadrimmina, our Chancellor, our Leadership, and our People join you in this fight. Except for the few bigots who do exist here.

[Manticore Reborn]

Attention all bigots and nit-pickers: We will fight any attempt to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It is a well-written GAR that ensures basic equity and fundamental human rights.

Please stop wasting our time with this pathetic nonsense.

We agree, and we shall join this fight, should this inanity ever see the light of day, to our very last drop of blood.

Yours in liberty,

The Republic of Quadrimmina, our Chancellor, our Leadership, and our People join you in this fight. Except for the few bigots who do exist here.

The representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn objects to the term bigot being applied to those whom wish to see this legislation repealed. My government allows for same-sex marriages, we allow have legalized marriages involving more then just two persons--regardless of gender. However, we support a repeal of the Freedom of Marriage Act as we feel this is a direct violation of national sovereignty and is an attempt to legislate morality--an area the WA should not intrude upon. The FMA should be repealed based on that and not any discriminatory reason.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

[Shazbotdom]

The representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn objects to the term bigot being applied to those whom wish to see this legislation repealed. My government allows for same-sex marriages, we allow have legalized marriages involving more then just two persons--regardless of gender. However, we support a repeal of the Freedom of Marriage Act as we feel this is a direct violation of national sovereignty and is an attempt to legislate morality--an area the WA should not intrude upon. The FMA should be repealed based on that and not any discriminatory reason.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

"Claiming that it is a violation of 'National Soverignty' has been a long standing invalidated argument for the repeal of any argument since the 'Organization that Predates the World Assembly'. The inability for a proper reasoning for said repeal from all nations that are against it further makes those of us here in the Shazbotdom Empire feel that they have no damn clue what they are talking about and are attempting to further a Religious ideal within the World Assembly."

Mr. Antuan D. Flaberghast
10th Level Diplomat
Shazbotdom Ambassador to the WA

[Urgench]

Indeed it must be pointed out once again that the FoMA barely infringes upon national sovereignty at all, certainly not in comparison to a multitude of other resolutions, some of which "violate" national sovereignty for the most spurious reasons possible. That the FoMA should be attacked for violating national sovereignty is frankly absurd in this context and such defences of its repeal tend to suggest that the contention is a facade behind which actual bigots and those motivated by hate will disguise their appalling attitudes which would otherwise prove utterly indefensible.

We will oppose this repeal at every stage of its development, and will not sit idly by as bigots and hatemongers abuse the defense of national prerogative to justify their prejudices.


Yours,

[La Tour Argent]

After a brief but bloody struggle with the WA translation gnomes over finding a language said gnomes are capable of translating properly given his rather unfortunate tendency to tell the truth in an orginization where no one ever says what they mean, the Monsieur humbly accepts the floor.

"We feel that we must agree with Monsieur, the Ambassador of Urgench as to the extent of the infringement upon national sovereignty in regards to the original proposal for which we are discussing a repeal. The proposal in question deals with rights regarding inheritance and something called "the common estate" though we are unaware as to the meaning of that term. As such, we do not consider the national sovereignty argument as valid grounds, especially as, at least under our understanding of our Civil Code system, the resolution in question calls for no changes in our own laws and in no way forces any nation to legalize Same-sex Marriage in so far as we understand the term marriage.

However, we do still support a repeal on other grounds. Namely, may the Holy Spirit of Ayn Rand protect us, that the proposal does not sufficiently violate national sovereignty as to give effect to its presumed, though unstated, goals. It is the understanding of our legal experts that the resolution in question does nothing to protect homosexual unions in the vast majority of the world, especially in Civil Law systems such as our own, wherein inheritence issues are a matter not addressed by the formal sexual relationships of a person and further where no "common estate" exists, making the proposal devoid of any meaning and inaptly named. We would prefer to see a repeal based upon the grounds of the insufficiency of the original proposal to achieve its presumed goals, that a resolution which adequately adresses the necessary issues might be brought forward.

[Urgench]

After a brief but bloody struggle with the WA translation gnomes over finding a language said gnomes are capable of translating properly given his rather unfortunate tendency to tell the truth in an orginization where no one ever says what they mean, the Monsieur humbly accepts the floor.

"We feel that we must agree with Monsieur, the Ambassador of Urgench as to the extent of the infringement upon national sovereignty in regards to the original proposal for which we are discussing a repeal. The proposal in question deals with rights regarding inheritance and something called "the common estate" though we are unaware as to the meaning of that term. As such, we do not consider the national sovereignty argument as valid grounds, especially as, at least under our understanding of our Civil Code system, the resolution in question calls for no changes in our own laws and in no way forces any nation to legalize Same-sex Marriage in so far as we understand the term marriage.

However, we do still support a repeal on other grounds. Namely, may the Holy Spirit of Ayn Rand protect us, that the proposal does not sufficiently violate national sovereignty as to give effect to its presumed, though unstated, goals. It is the understanding of our legal experts that the resolution in question does nothing to protect homosexual unions in the vast majority of the world, especially in Civil Law systems such as our own, wherein inheritence issues are a matter not addressed by the formal sexual relationships of a person and further where no "common estate" exists, making the proposal devoid of any meaning and inaptly named. We would prefer to see a repeal based upon the grounds of the insufficiency of the original proposal to achieve its presumed goals, that a resolution which adequately adresses the necessary issues might be brought forward.

The FoMA should be viewed in combination with this statute your Excellency (resolutions #16) - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=331#p328 and more importantly in view of this resolution (resolution #35) - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=428#p414

In toto these laws create a framework which we feel is absolutely capable of protecting homosexual unions or marriages. Though we would be interested to know more of what your Excellency proposes in regard to a replacement for the FoMA.


Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

The FoMA should be viewed in combination with this statute your Excellency (resolutions #16) - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=331#p328 and more importantly in view of this resolution (resolution #35) - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=428#p414

And, Noble Khan, might we add to the list Resolution #91 (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&start=75#p2035664). Before that, there were no guarantees that an intersex, transgender or intergender person would be officially recognized in their appropiate gender (different from their birth gender), with obvious implications for obtaining a state-sanctioned marriage licence.

Yours in the love for the truth,

[Sum-sum]

I agree wholeheartedly. While in my nation freedom of marriage is welcomed with open arms, other nations that are more based on religions should not be forced to follow these laws. People who consider themselves liberally progressive who then go on to force their beliefs on others are just as bad as dictators who allow no rights to their people. By forcing this law on nations that don't want it, is that not what you are doing?

[Urgench]

I agree wholeheartedly. While in my nation freedom of marriage is welcomed with open arms, other nations that are more based on religions should not be forced to follow these laws. People who consider themselves liberally progressive who then go on to force their beliefs on others are just as bad as dictators who allow no rights to their people. By forcing this law on nations that don't want it, is that not what you are doing?

So to further the cause of freedom and liberality, and basic common decency, certain nations should be permitted to continue to persecute and marginalise billions of people? How would such a situation make any kind of sense? In order not to force one set of beliefs (as your Excellency would have it) upon some national governments one must be content for these national governments to force their wicked prejudices on countless innocent persons? What illogic is this?


Yours,

[Quadrimmina]

Attention all bigots and nit-pickers: We will fight any attempt to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It is a well-written GAR that ensures basic equity and fundamental human rights.

Please stop wasting our time with this pathetic nonsense.

We agree, and we shall join this fight, should this inanity ever see the light of day, to our very last drop of blood.

Yours in liberty,

The Republic of Quadrimmina, our Chancellor, our Leadership, and our People join you in this fight. Except for the few bigots who do exist here.

The representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn objects to the term bigot being applied to those whom wish to see this legislation repealed. My government allows for same-sex marriages, we allow have legalized marriages involving more then just two persons--regardless of gender. However, we support a repeal of the Freedom of Marriage Act as we feel this is a direct violation of national sovereignty and is an attempt to legislate morality--an area the WA should not intrude upon. The FMA should be repealed based on that and not any discriminatory reason.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

We would like to put on the record the fact that even IF we were to consider marriage as a national sovereignty issue, preventing freedom of marriage infringes on individual sovereignty, which is why the World Assembly prevents it from occurring with this resolution.

[Vervaria]

We stand firmly against any attempt to repeal this act. Vervaria shall not support repealing this act in the name of bigotry cloaked by the disingenuous argument of national sovereignty. It is a well written and effective resolution.

Sincerely, Ambassador James Marvay.

[Dredafen]

We would advise the author of this bill to check the back proposals of the general assembly before submitting their own attempts at what has already been tried.

I myself, and several others after me attempted to write a plausible repeal for the Freedom of Marriage act under the same grounds, and received the same response.

I'll not lie and say that I don't believe there is some validity to the argument presented. However, allow me to advise you that you will receive practically no support, and due to the fact that I already tried and failed to accomplish this, you will be accused of being unoriginal in addition to being wrong.

However, if you will do what I did not, and persist in your efforts, I offer up my support for the proposed repeal.

[Hirota]

I agree wholeheartedly. While in my nation freedom of marriage is welcomed with open arms, other nations that are more based on religions should not be forced to follow these laws. People who consider themselves liberally progressive who then go on to force their beliefs on others are just as bad as dictators who allow no rights to their people. By forcing this law on nations that don't want it, is that not what you are doing?

Clearly we must be dictators...giving all those rights away to the population previously oppressed by their governments. Naughty WA!

[Philimbesi]

By forcing this law on nations that don't want it, is that not what you are doing?

No, we're making certain that all individuals are treated the same under the laws of the nations who voluntarily enter this body of nations. If nations wish to legislate love within their boarders they are perfectly allowed to do so, they simply have to leave our oppressive freedom loving clutches and they are free to be as bigoted, homophobic, and shortsighted as they wish.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA.

[The Altani Federation]

As we always have, we will oppose any attempts to repeal this legislation. We normally lean towards the sovereigntist side of arguments, but some things do trump that argument. When it comes to human rights, we don't tend to be quite as eager to accept the "we should be free to be as discriminatory and unfair as we want to be" argument.

- Yūsuf al-Shishakli, Acting Federation Ambassador to the WA

[Dredafen]

The only legitimate argument for the repeal of this bill is the one that it actually contains loophole(s) that allow governments of a theocratic nature to twist the bill to suit their purposes so they don't have to recognize marriages of a homosexual nature on religious grounds.

The next logical step would be to argue in favor of passing a more clearly worded, liberal version of the bill to remove this relatively small loophole, which some claim does not actually exist.

In any case, the window of opportunity for the success of this argument is very small, since the chances of passing anything more reasonable on the WA floor is astronomical. Frankly I'm surprised this managed to pass in the first place.

Of course, the bigotry which will inevitably fuel SOME nations' support of this repeal will not work so well for passing the replacement, so this becomes troublesome if your motivations are NOT homophobic in nature.

[Urgench]

The only legitimate argument for the repeal of this bill is the one that it actually contains loophole(s) that allow governments of a theocratic nature to twist the bill to suit their purposes so they don't have to recognize marriages of a homosexual nature on religious grounds.

The next logical step would be to argue in favor of passing a more clearly worded, liberal version of the bill to remove this relatively small loophole, which some claim does not actually exist.

In any case, the window of opportunity for the success of this argument is very small, since the chances of passing anything more reasonable on the WA floor is astronomical. Frankly I'm surprised this managed to pass in the first place.

Of course, the bigotry which will inevitably fuel SOME nations' support of this repeal will not work so well for passing the replacement, so this becomes troublesome if your motivations are NOT homophobic in nature.

This position fails to recognise the full regulatory and statutory framework which the WA has introduced. The kinds of loopholes your Excellency describes are in fact made impossible to use by other resolutions.


Yours,

[Illyriel]

Attention all bigots and nit-pickers: We will fight any attempt to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act. It is a well-written GAR that ensures basic equity and fundamental human rights.

Please stop wasting our time with this pathetic nonsense.

The Catty Kitten Empire of Illyriel joins our fellow cats from The Cat-Tribe in support of the Freedom of Marriage Act. We will continue to oppose any efforts to repeal this resolution.

[Dredafen]

We agree with the honored delegate from Urgench that the loophole(s) in the law in question are not so sigificant as we had originally believed, and would like to formally apologize to the assembly for bringing this issue up in the first place with our initial proposal.

It is clear to us at this point that no justification for such a repeal exists as described by the delegates in favor, and that even if it does, no such repeal will ever have a chance of passing on the WA floor.

We advise the assembly to recognize the clear lack of support for this resolution, and drop the issue entirely.