Advertisement
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:08 pm
by EvilGirnia » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:35 pm
by The Cat-Tribe » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:49 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Oh, is that how we set legislative policy in the WA now? By nonbinding forum polls? Awesome, I guess half the things I introduced before may now be repealed, seeing how most of them failed at forum vote.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Freedom of Marriage Act is a horrid resolution, plagued by legalese and ambiguous mandates; it was hard to tell if any nation was in compliance with it at all. Note that Brutland and Norden sought to get around this resolution by discontinuing all state-sponsored marriages...to this day I sill don't know if that was a legit response.Rawrgirnia wrote:For good reason, too! It was a hard battle to attain those rights. If you attempt to remove them, your nation will be seen as an enemy of equality and human rights.
Really? You were around in the summer of '08 when this passed? You can speak with authority about how easy or hard it was to pass it? It was a single vote, swiftly adopted because it had a popular title. Moreover, I am sick and tired of the continuing assumption that because this resolution has a fluffy title, it automatically makes it a good resolution.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Just that the parameters it introduces are imprecise to the point of meaninglessness. It applies to "civil contracts" and lists the duties of "the State" in granting them to couples, while excluding religious conditions for participating in "rites." "Civil contracts" is not defined. Are they necessarily afforded by the State, or can nations outsource the recognition of marriage to churches and safely escape this resolution's mandate? What if the churches are state churches? As agents of the State, is it their responsibility to abide by the conventions set for the State? What if the State recognizes the church as the official religion, but retains no control over its governance? The resolution is just far too vague and/or silent on all these points, which is why it was so hard to determine whether B+N's actions at the time were legal.
Freedom of Marriage Act wrote:(emphasis added)Freedom of Marriage Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Mendosia
Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,
CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,
CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,
DETERMINED to further the rights of persons that have been oppressed and discriminated against for ages,
RESOLVED to provide a legal framework that enhances the social recognition of these minorities,
RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,
ADOPT the following resolution:
Article 1 (Object)
(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.
(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.
Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)
(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.
(b) The protection referred to in the previous section does not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.
(c) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence.
Article 3 (Non-discrimination)
(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.
(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.
(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.Votes For: 5,506
Votes Against: 4,393
Implemented Wed Sep 3 2008
[WAR15 on NS] [WAR15 on NSwiki] [Official Debate Topic]
by Unibot » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:59 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:21 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Try not to be deliberately disingenuous. Christian Democrats (who is against the Act) seemed to think the poll numbers were significant. To the extent they show a trend toward increased support for the Freedom of Marriage Act, I think that is great but it is completely unscientific AND NO ONE IS SAYING IT IS BINDING OR SETS WA POLICY.
1. "Civil contracts" is not such a bizarre and foreign concept that it needs to be defined -- especially in the context of the resolution which makes clear it refers to the union of two persons in a relationship.
2. Any nation that had marriage and then abolishes it after the Act was passed is clearly in violation in the Act -- at least Article 2 (c) (which would then trigger other parts of the Act.
3. Article 2 (a) is crystal clear as to what the state must provide: " the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." No "outsourcing" or other shenanigans can escape this requirement. Similarly, if a state (by whatever means) recognizes any form of marriage or civil union it must recognize same-sex marriages. (Article 3).
4. The "loophole" regarding religious marriage (to the extent their is one) is limited to "the celebration of rites within religious communities." Not the actual trappings or existences of marital status but the RITES of marrige ceremonies.
If you don't like the resolution's wording, suggest a better one and we'll consider it. But your jumping in on something CD said and treating it like it was THE reason the Act should exist is being silly AND your objections are simply untrue or ill-conceived.
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:29 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:Try not to be deliberately disingenuous. Christian Democrats (who is against the Act) seemed to think the poll numbers were significant. To the extent they show a trend toward increased support for the Freedom of Marriage Act, I think that is great but it is completely unscientific AND NO ONE IS SAYING IT IS BINDING OR SETS WA POLICY.
Sarcasm eludes you.1. "Civil contracts" is not such a bizarre and foreign concept that it needs to be defined -- especially in the context of the resolution which makes clear it refers to the union of two persons in a relationship.
We apparently define "civil contracts" differently, as I always understood the term to mean those recognized by a civil government.2. Any nation that had marriage and then abolishes it after the Act was passed is clearly in violation in the Act -- at least Article 2 (c) (which would then trigger other parts of the Act.
Which directly flies in the face of the rule that resolutions apply equally to all members. If Flibbleites, a marriage-free society, can outlaw marriage and remain in compliance, then Brutland and Norden must also be able to do so. If you're suggesting under 2(c) that B+N must grandfather in all existing unions, fine, but you can't force one nation to keep civil marriage while allowing another to continue to ignore it. If Freedom of Marriage Act contained a clause forcing Flibbleites to institute civil marriage, that would be a different story, but it doesn't.3. Article 2 (a) is crystal clear as to what the state must provide: "the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." No "outsourcing" or other shenanigans can escape this requirement. Similarly, if a state (by whatever means) recognizes any form of marriage or civil union it must recognize same-sex marriages. (Article 3).
Or, conversely, it could recognize no form of marriage and leave it up to the church. Do you see where I'm going here? (Or, more accurately, where B+N was going?)4. The "loophole" regarding religious marriage (to the extent their is one) is limited to "the celebration of rites within religious communities." Not the actual trappings or existences of marital status but the RITES of marrige ceremonies.
Rites, exactly. If a church performs a rite for only some and the state refuses to recognize it for anyone, there's not much this resolution can do to force the churches to institute same-sex marriage. Probate courts will be under no obligation to respect the terms of privately afforded marriages, and will probably be directed to ignore them altogether, so in these cases I dearly hope the deceased thought to make out a will.If you don't like the resolution's wording, suggest a better one and we'll consider it. But your jumping in on something CD said and treating it like it was THE reason the Act should exist is being silly AND your objections are simply untrue or ill-conceived.
Like I said, sarcasm eludes you. I couldn't care less if this act exists or not; I was simply stating for the record that the act is shit.
by Just Guy » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:43 am
by New Azura » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:16 am
Just Guy wrote:CD, regardless of my position on this, please don't abandon it. If you make good, sound arguments, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with you. Listen to suggestions and you could write a great repeal.
by Urgench » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:02 am
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:07 am
Just Guy wrote:CD, regardless of my position on this, please don't abandon it. If you make good, sound arguments, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with you. Listen to suggestions and you could write a great repeal.
New Azura wrote:Just Guy wrote:CD, regardless of my position on this, please don't abandon it. If you make good, sound arguments, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with you. Listen to suggestions and you could write a great repeal.
I agree 100%. The "threat of force" demonstrated to get you to abandon legislation is pretty bush league, IMO, and should be ignored. Spruce it up a bit and resubmit. A repeal really needs to be based on the sovereignty of the nations, for I think that's the real problem with the resolution. It should be the sovereign decision of each individual state to recognize gay marriage within their borders. However, a new resolution should also call upon all WA nations to recognize the legality of gay marriages in other WA-nations that choose to legalize such unions, and to not interfere with said processes. If you want to get a little further out, add a section where WA-nations will recognize gay marriages performed in other WA-nations that permit those unions if you wish.
by New Azura » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:10 am
Urgench wrote:We should point out that even if the FoMA is repealed this will not mean that member states may return to the bad old days of discriminating against homosexual couples in only recognising the civil unions or marriages of heterosexual persons.
The CoCR would make it absolutely and completely illegal to recognise couples who happen to be heterosexual in rights which were denied to homosexual couples.
We remain thoroughly opposed to this repeal however, and have always opposed passed attempts to repeal it.
Yours,
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:12 am
New Azura wrote:@ the Cat-Tribe: The threat entails the nations who threatened to raid CD's region for even attempting this repeal. And good sir, if you can't see the threat in that, it is you who demeans this thread.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:22 am
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Sarcasm may elude me, but plain English eludes you. With all due respect to B+N, Article 2(a) requires the State to provide "the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." You can call that "marriage," "civil unions," or "hula hoops," but the State must provide it. You cannot escape the effects of the Act by "recognizing no form of marriage."
Is there precedent for a repeal & reform tandem resolution? A resolution which repeals while reforming the bill to be more concise and clear-cut?
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:30 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:Sarcasm may elude me, but plain English eludes you. With all due respect to B+N, Article 2(a) requires the State to provide "the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." You can call that "marriage," "civil unions," or "hula hoops," but the State must provide it. You cannot escape the effects of the Act by "recognizing no form of marriage."
Nope, it mustn't provide "unions"; it must provide "minimum conditions to protect" such unions. And if the unions don't exist, there's not much it can protect.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:05 am
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Even disregarding the context of the rest of the Act and the preliminary statements, that is an incredibly disingenuous and downright dishonest reading of a clear mandate. You are assuming "the union of two persons" means some specific legal ceremony or ritual or status.
The State must provide at least "minimum conditions" to protect two person in a relationship including "the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights" of said couple.
These semantic games are beneath you.
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:11 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:1. "Civil contracts" is not such a bizarre and foreign concept that it needs to be defined -- especially in the context of the resolution which makes clear it refers to the union of two persons in a relationship.
We apparently define "civil contracts" differently, as I always understood the term to mean those recognized by a civil government.
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:14 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:Even disregarding the context of the rest of the Act and the preliminary statements, that is an incredibly disingenuous and downright dishonest reading of a clear mandate. You are assuming "the union of two persons" means some specific legal ceremony or ritual or status.
Only because that is what the resolution limits itself to: "civil contracts."The State must provide at least "minimum conditions" to protect two person in a relationship including "the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights" of said couple.
These semantic games are beneath you.
Have we met?
At any rate, you are the one playing silly semantic games, if you can honestly read the very first clause, containing the proviso "civil contracts", and assume it to mean that the state must protect any union, formal or informal, that could conceivably exist within a nation, including high-school sweethearts or couples just shacking up. Those relationships would carry no more legal weight in (to pick on Flib again) Flibbleites than couples who have made an informal life commitment to each other. If the state will not extend civil contracts to these couples, so long as they regard all couples equally (i.e., no civil contracts for any of them), what is there for you or the WA to do about it? Nothing.
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:15 am
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 39
The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,
RECOGNIZING that legal unions of marriage vary among member nations and include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including nationally recognized effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the parties,
[...]
6) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.
Kryozerkia wrote:Sionis Prioratus wrote:Besides being A SHIPMENT OF FAIL, it's illegal:
Red parts: FALSE. Mod Ruling.
Blue parts: Repeal based on NatSov.
Thank you. That saves me time, and best of all, that's my ruling. Now to enforce it.
EDIT - While reading over res #15, while it does specifically say "two persons", however, it doesn't say that the government is to limit marriages to just two persons.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:43 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Rawrgirnia wrote:For good reason, too! It was a hard battle to attain those rights. If you attempt to remove them, your nation will be seen as an enemy of equality and human rights.
Really? You were around in the summer of '08 when this passed? You can speak with authority about how easy or hard it was to pass it? It was a single vote, swiftly adopted because it had a popular title. Moreover, I am sick and tired of the continuing assumption that because this resolution has a fluffy title, it automatically makes it a good resolution. Freedom of Marriage Act is a horrid resolution, plagued by legalese and ambiguous mandates; it was hard to tell if any nation was in compliance with it at all. Note that Brutland and Norden sought to get around this resolution by discontinuing all state-sponsored marriages...to this day I sill don't know if that was a legit response.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:49 am
EvilGirnia wrote:Okay, valid points. But do you think that there is a way to fix those problems? I mean, from what I understand, it forces governments to recognize that gay couples are just as valid as straight couples. In the case that the church is a government body, wouldn't the church be held to the same rules as the government? It would just be another department. They can let the churches define what they want, but in all legal matters, gay couples and straight couples must be treated the same.
EDIT: Oops, wrong nation.. This is Rawrgirnia
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:54 am
Unibot wrote:Also, Kenny's objections don't seem to have anything to do with the homophobia of CD's repeal... so I'd recommend that he repeal it himself if wants it replaced, instead of having others confuse his position with this junk. Of course, my recommendations don't mean squat to Kenny, yet I digress.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:59 am
New Azura wrote:A repeal really needs to be based on the sovereignty of the nations
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:02 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Unibot wrote:Also, Kenny's objections don't seem to have anything to do with the homophobia of CD's repeal... so I'd recommend that he repeal it himself if wants it replaced, instead of having others confuse his position with this junk. Of course, my recommendations don't mean squat to Kenny, yet I digress.
Homophobia? I pointed out that there was a legitimate state interest in promoting only heterosexual relationships because such relationships are the only kind that can produce children. (Granting benefits to gay and lesbian couples draws away resources that could be used to help heterosexual married couples raise their children.)
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:09 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Rawrgirnia » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:11 am
Christian Democrats wrote:EvilGirnia wrote:Okay, valid points. But do you think that there is a way to fix those problems? I mean, from what I understand, it forces governments to recognize that gay couples are just as valid as straight couples. In the case that the church is a government body, wouldn't the church be held to the same rules as the government? It would just be another department. They can let the churches define what they want, but in all legal matters, gay couples and straight couples must be treated the same.
EDIT: Oops, wrong nation.. This is Rawrgirnia
I my country, the government is a department of the Church.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Miraregna
Advertisement