Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)

[Christian Democrats]

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.)

Has not Your Excellency ever heard that sperm and ova can be created from stem cells, or about ectogenesis (gestation outside a womb)? How does Your Excellency think that my Father, The Late King, brought into the world some of my siblings, fruits from the Holy Union with some of his husbands?

Yours in fostering comprehension,

In real life, such a procedure is not yet possible, and, while great for roleplay, it isn't practical to consider nonexistent procedures when writing proposals.

[Sionis Prioratus]

As was done in the Security Council concerning NAZI EUROPE, should we attempt a repeal of FOMA and simultaneously create replacement legislation requiring nations, at minimum, to recognize civil contracts between two people (i.e., domestic partnerships)?

Short answer: no.

From the rules:

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it."

Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. Many old Resolutions were in existence before this rule set (or the Enodian rules) were in effect; some were in effect before Moderators existed. On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint.

Amendments

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

[Christian Democrats]

I my country, the government is a department of the Church.

It is the ruling body, and therefore must follow the rules. Your church didn't have to join the WA.

I realize that and think I've said that earlier.

Outside of the WA, this game quickly becomes boring.

Since when did the WA become a body of only left-wing ideologues?

[Christian Democrats]

As was done in the Security Council concerning NAZI EUROPE, should we attempt a repeal of FOMA and simultaneously create replacement legislation requiring nations, at minimum, to recognize civil contracts between two people (i.e., domestic partnerships)?

Short answer: no.

From the rules:

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it."

Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. Many old Resolutions were in existence before this rule set (or the Enodian rules) were in effect; some were in effect before Moderators existed. On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint.

Amendments

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

Do you even know what happened in the Security Council?

I needed two resolutions -- first a repeal and then a piece of new legislation.

(OFFHAND COMMENT: We really need to add a third category of GA legislation -- REPLACEMENT.)

[Sionis Prioratus]

It is the ruling body, and therefore must follow the rules. Your church didn't have to join the WA.

I realize that and think I've said that earlier.

Outside of the WA, this game quickly becomes boring.

Since when did the WA become a body of only left-wing ideologues?

Since April 6th, 2008, and in the UN before that, since 2002

[Rawrgirnia]

It is the ruling body, and therefore must follow the rules. Your church didn't have to join the WA.

I realize that and think I've said that earlier.

Outside of the WA, this game quickly becomes boring.

Since when did the WA become a body of only left-wing ideologues?

Don't blame me for that one.. As was pointed out by Kenny, I'm pretty new here.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Do you even know what happened in the Security Council?

Yes, we know. They submitted a SECOND condemnation of NE, and then - later - repealed the FIRST.

The General Assembly does not work in that way.

Yours over the rainbow,

[Sionis Prioratus]

Has not Your Excellency ever heard that sperm and ova can be created from stem cells, or about ectogenesis (gestation outside a womb)? How does Your Excellency think that my Father, The Late King, brought into the world some of my siblings, fruits from the Holy Union with some of his husbands?

Yours in fostering comprehension,

In real life, such a procedure is not yet possible, and, while great for roleplay, it isn't practical to consider nonexistent procedures when writing proposals.

[The Cat-Tribe]

It is the ruling body, and therefore must follow the rules. Your church didn't have to join the WA.

I realize that and think I've said that earlier.

Outside of the WA, this game quickly becomes boring.

Since when did the WA become a body of only left-wing ideologues?

I'm sure I qualify as a left-wing ideology, but I can still take offense at the notion that only "left-wing ideologues" would be concerned about equal protection of the law, the fundmental right to marry, the fundamental right to privacy, recognition of the dignity of other persons, and basic fairness.

Continued OCC: (please read anyway)

1. The "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage" is a well-established fundamental right "protected by the Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 (1974).¹

The essential characteristic of this right to marriage is "a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). The U.S. Supreme Court has not limited that right to persons willing or able to procreate, see, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987), but has recognized that "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1974) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Constitution "afford[s] ... protection to personal decisions relating to marriage" and that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for [this] purpose[], just as heterosexual persons do." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003).

¹The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution in at least fourteen cases in the last century or so. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992); Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-96, Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 384; Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 685 (1977); Moore v. CIty of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 376, 383 (1971); Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 39 (1923); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

2. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96 (1987), is particularly relevant to some of the arguments made here. In Turner, the Court was unanimous on the question of the right of marriage applying to convicted felons in prison -- regardless of whether they had conjugal privileges and/or life sentences!!!. Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, explained:

The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

There simply is no rational explanation for why homosexuals should have less ability to the right to marry than convicted felons in prison.

[The Cat-Tribe]

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.)

Get this homophobic, unscientific, biased and overwhelming rebutted nonsense out of here.

Warning OCC content below:

The scientific evidence is overwhelming that: same-sex marriages are healthy, stable, and committed; denying marriage to same-sex couples causes harm to those couples; same-sex parenting does not harm (and may even benefit) children; AND denying same-sex marriage harms families. See, e.g., Amicus Brief of the American Psychological Assn., American Psychiatric Assn., etc (75p. pdf); American Psychological Association Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage (5p pdf); American Psychological Association Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (3p pdf); Lambda Legal: Denying Access to Marriage Harms Families.

Morevover, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's 136-page decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the Court made extensive findings of fact relevant to the arguments you are making -- many of them supported by the experts from the anti-same-sex-marriage defendants (emphasis added):

Plaintiffs entered into evidence the deposition testimony of two of proponents’ withdrawn witnesses, as their testimony supported plaintiffs’ claims. Katherine Young was to testify on comparative religion and the universal definition of marriage. Doc #292 at 4 (proponents’ December 7 witness list) Doc #286-4 at 2 (expert report). Paul Nathanson was to testify on religious attitudes towards Proposition 8. Doc #292 at 4 (proponents’ December 7 witness list); Doc #280-4 at 2 (expert report).

Young has been a professor of religious studies at McGill University since 1978. PX2335 Young CV. She received her PhD in history of religions and comparative religions from McGill in 1978. Id. Young testified at her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same-sex couples possess the same desire for love and commitment as opposite-sex couples. PX2545 (dep tr); PX2544 (video of same). Young also explained that several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples. Id.

Nathanson has a PhD in religious studies from McGill University and is a researcher at McGill’s Faculty for Religious Studies. PX2334 Nathanson CV. Nathanson is also a frequent lecturer on consequences of marriage for same-sex couples and on gender and parenting. Id. Nathanson testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians and that there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples. PX2547 (dep tr); PX2546 (video of same).
...
David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, testified [for the Defendants] on marriage, fatherhood and family structure. ... During cross-examination, Blankenhorn was shown a report produced by his Institute in 2000 explaining the six dimensions of marriage: (1) legal contract; (2) financial partnership; (3) sacred promise; (4) sexual union; (5) personal bond; and (6) family-making bond. PX2879 (Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, et al, The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles (Institute for American Values 2000)). Blankenhorn agreed that same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages would be identical across these six dimensions. Tr 2913:8-2916:18. When referring to the sixth dimension, a family-making bond, Blankenhorn agreed that same-sex couples could “raise” children. Tr 2916:17.
...
Blankenhorn testified on cross-examination that studies show children of adoptive parents do as well or better than children of biological parents. Tr 2794:12-2795:5. Blankenhorn agreed that children raised by same-sex couples would benefit if their parents were permitted to marry. Tr 2803:6-15. Blankenhorn also testified he wrote and agrees with the statement “I believe that today the
principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before.” DIX0956 at 2; Tr 2805:6-2806:1.
...
56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.

a. Tr 1332:19-1337:25 (Badgett: Same-sex couples and their children are denied all of the economic benefits of marriage that are available to married couples.);

b. PX0787 Position Statement, American Psychiatric Association, Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage at 1 (July 2005): “The children of unmarried gay and lesbian parents do not have the same protection that civil marriage affords the children of heterosexual couples.”;

c. Tr 1964:17-1965:2 (Tam: It is important to children of same-sex couples that their parents be able to marry.);

d. Tr 599:12-19 (Peplau: A survey of same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts shows that 95 percent of same-sex couples raising children reported that their children had benefitted from the fact that their parents were able to marry.).

...
70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

a. Tr 1025:4-23 (Lamb: Studies have demonstrated “very conclusively that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.” These results are “completely consistent with our broader understanding of the factors that affect children’s adjustment.”);

b. PX2565 American Psychological Association, Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality at 5 (2008): “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents —— concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people —— are unfounded.”);

c. PX2547 (Nathanson Nov 12, 2009 Dep Tr 49:05-49:19: Sociological and psychological peer-reviewed studies conclude that permitting gay and lesbian individuals to marry does not cause any problems for children); PX2546 at 2:20-3:10 (video of same).

71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted. Tr 1014:25-1015:19; 1038:23-1040:17

[Christian Democrats]

I realize that and think I've said that earlier.

Outside of the WA, this game quickly becomes boring.

Since when did the WA become a body of only left-wing ideologues?

I'm sure I qualify as a left-wing ideology, but I can still take offense at the notion that only "left-wing ideologues" would be concerned about equal protection of the law, the fundmental right to marry, the fundamental right to privacy, recognition of the dignity of other persons, and basic fairness.

Continued OCC: (please read anyway)

1. The "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage" is a well-established fundamental right "protected by the Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 (1974).¹

The essential characteristic of this right to marriage is "a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). The U.S. Supreme Court has not limited that right to persons willing or able to procreate, see, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987), but has recognized that "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1974) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Constitution "afford[s] ... protection to personal decisions relating to marriage" and that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for [this] purpose[], just as heterosexual persons do." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003).

¹The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution in at least fourteen cases in the last century or so. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992); Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-96, Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 384; Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 685 (1977); Moore v. CIty of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 376, 383 (1971); Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 39 (1923); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

2. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96 (1987), is particularly relevant to some of the arguments made here. In Turner, the Court was unanimous on the question of the right of marriage applying to convicted felons in prison -- regardless of whether they had conjugal privileges and/or life sentences!!!. Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, explained:

The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

There simply is no rational explanation for why homosexuals should have less ability to the right to marry than convicted felons in prison.

The Right is concerned with protection of life, family values, justice, and economic freedom. We also support strong national defense and patriotism and with this comes a belief that we should spread and encourage the values of republicanism and liberal democracy in foreign, oppressed lands.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'm sure I qualify as a left-wing ideology, but I can still take offense at the notion that only "left-wing ideologues" would be concerned about equal protection of the law, the fundmental right to marry, the fundamental right to privacy, recognition of the dignity of other persons, and basic fairness.

Continued OCC: (please read anyway)

1. The "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage" is a well-established fundamental right "protected by the Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 (1974).¹

The essential characteristic of this right to marriage is "a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). The U.S. Supreme Court has not limited that right to persons willing or able to procreate, see, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987), but has recognized that "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1974) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Constitution "afford[s] ... protection to personal decisions relating to marriage" and that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for [this] purpose[], just as heterosexual persons do." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003).

¹The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution in at least fourteen cases in the last century or so. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992); Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-96, Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 384; Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 685 (1977); Moore v. CIty of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 376, 383 (1971); Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 39 (1923); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

2. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96 (1987), is particularly relevant to some of the arguments made here. In Turner, the Court was unanimous on the question of the right of marriage applying to convicted felons in prison -- regardless of whether they had conjugal privileges and/or life sentences!!!. Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, explained:

The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

There simply is no rational explanation for why homosexuals should have less ability to the right to marry than convicted felons in prison.

The Right is concerned with protection of life, family values, justice, and economic freedom. We also support strong national defense and patriotism and with this comes a belief that we should spread and encourage the values of republicanism and liberal democracy in foreign, oppressed lands.

Although we don't have a hive mind and disagree about how such things are best achieved, the "Left" is also concerned with protection of life, family values, justice, and economic freedom. We also support national defense and patriotism and believe in the values of republicanism and liberal democracy. We believe in spreading these values, but don't necessarily agree that they can forcefully be imposed on a foreign country. We also believe in helping the oppressed.

Not a single thing you mention is relevant to the resolution that is the subject of this thread. Moreover, you conspicuously ignored the argument as to how family values, justice, republicanism, and liberal democracy inherently require allowing and recognizing same-sex marriage.

[Flibbleites]

(OFFHAND COMMENT: We really need to add a third category of GA legislation -- REPLACEMENT.)

To which I must ask, how would you suggest the admin code it? A "Replacement" category runs into the same problem that amendments have, there's no way to set up the coding for the affect the proposals would have on nation's stats.

[Urgench]

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.

OOC (my god I've been driven to OOC a lot recently) I was around at the time, and was privy to the private views of Mendosia whom I gave some degree of assistance in passing this resolution. Mendosia was relatively un-concerned (by which I mean he was less outraged and furious) that member states like B&N simply refuse to recognise all marriages, I was less convinced that the wording of his resolution allowed that to be the case and would probably agree with TCT's reading of it.

In any case I can see your point about some of its ambiguities, and if I was convinced anyone in the WA currently writing resolutions (SP being on hiatus, among others, and Mousey probably wouldn't be interested in it) is up to the task of writing something better I would proobably support a repeal, but there isn't anyone currently writing resolutions who is up to the task of drafting a better replacement for the FoMA, so I'm both personally, and from an IC perspective opposed to a repeal.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

Just as an aside, I believe the title of FOMA is a knock-off of DOMA, a real life piece of legislation in the United States.

DOMA = Defense of Marriage Act
House: 342-67
Senate: 85-14
President Bill Clinton signed into law September 21, 1996.

BASIC SUMMARY:

• Recognizes the constitutional right (i.e., 10th Amendment) of each individual state to define marriage as it sees fit
• Per the "full faith and credit" clause, Congress allows states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states if they wish
• For federal purposes, only heterosexual marriages will be recognized

The Respect for Marriage Act, an attempt to repeal DOMA, has gone nowhere.

---------------------

To anyone:

Concerning NS, feel free to write a piece of replacement legislation that we could enact immediately after a repeal of FOMA (if such could be achieved).

Also, realize that the LGBT community already has extensive protection from other resolutions (i.e., those protecting sexual privacy and preventing discrimination).

I believe a more broadly acceptable resolution recognizing domestic partnerships would be better than FOMA and also would respect national sovereignty.

I will not debate this issue any further, at least for the meantime, while I focus on the "Beginning of Life Act" for which a ruling just was made.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Just as an aside, I believe the title of FOMA is a knock-off of DOMA, a real life piece of legislation in the United States.

DOMA = Defense of Marriage Act
House: 342-67
Senate: 85-14
President Bill Clinton signed into law September 21, 1996.

BASIC SUMMARY:

• Recognizes the constitutional right (i.e., 10th Amendment) of each individual state to define marriage as it sees fit
• Per the "full faith and credit" clause, Congress allows states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states if they wish
• For federal purposes, only heterosexual marriages will be recognized

The Respect for Marriage Act, an attempt to repeal DOMA, has gone nowhere.

What does this have to do with anything?

Concerning NS, feel free to write a piece of replacement legislation that we could enact immediately after a repeal of FOMA (if such could be achieved).

They should probably do so in another thread, since this one is about a repeal.

[Rawrgirnia]

They should probably do so in another thread, since this one is about a repeal.

Not anymore apparently.. Title="Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC (my god I've been driven to OOC a lot recently) I was around at the time, and was privy to the private views of Mendosia whom I gave some degree of assistance in passing this resolution. Mendosia was relatively un-concerned (by which I mean he was less outraged and furious) that member states like B&N simply refuse to recognise all marriages, I was less convinced that the wording of his resolution allowed that to be the case and would probably agree with TCT's reading of it.

In any case I can see your point about some of its ambiguities, and if I was convinced anyone in the WA currently writing resolutions (SP being on hiatus, among others, and Mousey probably wouldn't be interested in it) is up to the task of writing something better I would proobably support a repeal, but there isn't anyone currently writing resolutions who is up to the task of drafting a better replacement for the FoMA, so I'm both personally, and from an IC perspective opposed to a repeal.

Well, at least you're not screaming "homophobe!!" every other post anymore; that's a start.

At the time, I was more concerned with a lack of a sexual privacy act, meaning couples could show up to get married, than be thrown in the clink for sodomy, but to Mendosia's credit he wrote a sexual privacy resolution soon after that. I just found it frustrating that I couldn't figure out from a simple reading of FOMA whether or not the loophole B+N tried to exploit even existed. TCT's reading seems to suggest that it doesn't, but I don't think players should have to consult Black's Law Dictionary just to find out if their nation is in compliance with a resolution or not.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

They should probably do so in another thread, since this one is about a repeal.

Not anymore apparently.. Title="Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)"

Not even OPs are allowed to threadjack their own threads. At least I don't think they should be.

[The Rich Port]

Not anymore apparently.. Title="Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)"

Not even OPs are allowed to threadjack their own threads. At least I don't think they should be.

It's stupid, I know, but it IS C.D.'s thread.

[Christian Democrats]

Not even OPs are allowed to threadjack their own threads. At least I don't think they should be.

It's stupid, I know, but it IS C.D.'s thread.

It's not a "threadjack" because it concerns the same piece of legislation, the Freedom of Marriage Act (GAR #15).

[Rawrgirnia]

Not anymore apparently.. Title="Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)"

Not even OPs are allowed to threadjack their own threads. At least I don't think they should be.

I agree with you this time, but I've seen it happen a few times in my limited history here.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

It's stupid, I know, but it IS C.D.'s thread.

It's not a "threadjack" because it concerns the same piece of legislation, the Freedom of Marriage Act (GAR #15).

alright, fine. The answer still remains: NO.
Do so, and I will propose to Condemn you.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It's stupid, I know, but it IS C.D.'s thread.

It's not a "threadjack" because it concerns the same piece of legislation, the Freedom of Marriage Act (GAR #15).

It is a threadjack, because one issue concerns the repeal, and the other concerns the replacement. If you want to continue discussing/drafting your repeal, fine, but mixing it up with drafts/discussions on a replacement is only going to confuse the hell out of everyone. I can post a request in Moderation, if that will make it easier for you.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It's not a "threadjack" because it concerns the same piece of legislation, the Freedom of Marriage Act (GAR #15).

alright, fine. The answer still remains: NO.
Do so, and I will propose to Condemn you.

1. Wrong forum. Take your threats to the Security Council.
2. It is an extremely idle threat, as condemnations are merely a sticky.
3. SCers are not going to like you using their organization to re-argue a repeal vote you couldn't win the first time.
4. Even if they could tolerate such a stunt, it would be considered incredibly weak grounds to condemn someone for writing a repeal, anyway.