Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)

[Sedgistan]

Kenny is correct - if you want to discuss a replacement of FOMA, you should do so in a new thread.

[Urgench]

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

Damn you! Homophobe! Now I have to find somewhere to make this my sig!

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.

I agree the FoMA could be written in more every day language, and could be clearer. I can see a good argument for why many players should have to read Black's Law Dictionary before they even start playing the WA but that's beside the point

As I say if I thought something better were in the offing I'd probably support a repeal.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I can see a good argument for why many players should have to read Black's Law Dictionary before they even start playing the WA but that's beside the point

OOC: Hell, for many players, having to read the dictionary before they even start playing the WA would be a good idea!

[Christian Democrats]

Kenny is correct - if you want to discuss a replacement of FOMA, you should do so in a new thread.

Besides reading the posts of others, I've pretty much abandoned this thread.

[The Cat-Tribe]

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.

FFS, don't get your bollocks in a twist because you failed to properly read clear language. I tried to point out to you that "a simple reading of FOMA" made clear there was no loophole. It was you that erroneously claimed "civil contracts" had some magical meaning that was unknown and determined whether a nation was in compliance with the resolution.

To disprove your sophistry, I didn't consult obscure legal meanings of "civil" or "contract." Those were common meanings of the terms. I could have used Webster's or any number of dictionaries. See, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... ?o=100074; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil?o=100074. I happened to use Black's Law Dictionary because I have them here on my desk and they are authoritative.

Just admit that you deliberate tried to read ambiguities and loopholes into FOMA, not that it honestly baffled you.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I agree the FoMA could be written in more every day language, and could be clearer.

I honestly don't understand how "contracts" (which is the word Kenny had problems with) is NOT everyday language.

EDIT: If anything, the author of FOMA appears to have gone out of his/her way not to use everyday language -- and Kenny and others have tried to exploit that.

EDIT2: Oops. That not was a typo that screwed up my whole sentence.

[The Cat-Tribe]

To anyone:

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.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

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

Waiting for the moderators to make a ruling on one of my proposals, the Beginning of Life Act, an act that would ban elective third trimester abortions; recognizing that the predecessor to the World Assembly was able to repeal gay marriage by a vote of 8,776 to 5,767 in HR #173 (8/30/2006); recognizing that HR #182, the Marriage Protection Act (authored by Witchcliff), passed 11,301 to 3,260 (10/20/2006); and noting that today's assembly (and, in fact, most of the real world) is more socially progressive than its predecessor assembly, I want to try to repeal and believe it is quite possible to repeal GAR #15, the Freedom of Marriage Act.

DRAFT

BELIEVING that individual governments should have a right to define marriage as they see fit or to privatize marriage,

BELIEVING that the imposition of an international definition of marriage, applied to all member nations, is extremely difficult due to wide ranging differences and that doing so causes serious problems for those nations with unusual marriage laws and customs,

RECOGNIZING that some World Assembly member states are theocracies, wherein the Church is the State and that, in effect, the State is a religious community, and that some state religions view homosexual acts as immoral,

RECOGNIZING that, in some World Assembly member states, marriage is always a religious rite,

RECOGNIZING that the Freedom of Marriage Act (FOMA) shows little respect for a sovereign nation's societal structure,

RECOGNIZING that there can be a compelling state interest to recognize only heterosexual marriages in order to promote procreation, a continuance of the population, or an expansion of the population,

NOTING that conjugal acts are a common, if not integral, part of a marriage and that, currently, children cannot be begotten of homosexual acts,

BELIEVING that the recognition of homosexual marriages can lead to violence against the LGBT community in certain nations hostile to homosexuality and wanting to prevent such violence,

RECOGNIZING that the bequeathal of property is not integrally connected with marriage and that such bequeathal can occur through legal wills,

COMMENDING the former nation of Mendosia, the author of FOMA, for standing by its ideology and attempting to advance LGBT rights,

AFFIRMING that some nations may choose to recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or similar contracts after the enactment of this repeal,

BELIEVING that marriage is not a significant human right, as stated by FOMA,

WELCOMING religious nations or nations otherwise opposed to the recognition of homosexual marriages who are not members of the World Assembly because of FOMA to join the World Assembly because of this repeal,

AFFIRMING that, under a grandfather clause, member states must continue to recognize the marriages of those homosexual couples that are already married, and

ENCOURAGING the General Assembly to enact legislation after this repeal to provide benefits to gay and lesbian couples in committed, lifelong relationships,

The General Assembly hereby repeals Resolution #15, the Freedom of Marriage Act.

FOMA DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPLACED. LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE.

[Ardchoille]

Okay, o-KAY. Cool it, gentlebeings. No need to shout. Calm down. Take your ambassadors off to the Strangers Bar for a while and let them get a bit mellow.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Okay, o-KAY. Cool it, gentlebeings. No need to shout. Calm down. Take your ambassadors off to the Strangers Bar for a while and let them get a bit mellow.

Sorry, just trying to match the OP's big font. Misjudged the tone a bit. Blame the eggnog .... and the rum .... and the brandy ....

[Darenjo]

We will never support a repeal of FoMA.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper would not be able to support any attempt to repeal the reasonably written Freedom of Marriage Act.

[Urgench]

I agree the FoMA could be written in more every day language, and could be clearer.

I honestly don't understand how "contracts" (which is the word Kenny had problems with) is NOT everyday language.

EDIT: If anything, the author of FOMA appears to have gone out of his/her way not to use everyday language -- and Kenny and others have tried to exploit that.

I don't have any problem with the word "contracts" or the phrase "civil contracts". But I think while the FoMA is a perfectly serviceable resolution it could be improved. As I say I'm not in favour of repealing it.

[Sionis Prioratus]

We would not be able to support any repeal of FoMA, if only because some people talking bears would endlessly wan.. ...il about any replacement for FoMA being already covered by CoCR, then wail against CoCR, then annoy the hell out of us (for the 934th time) as to why CoCR should be repealed.

Yours in solidarity with zoo parks,

[Meekinos]

Marriage as a government institution is profitable. All elements yield government income. The license costs money, registering costs money and the money spent on the preparations is subject to sales tax. The more that marry the better it is for business. Any good capitalist ought to retain their support of this. Studies show married couples have greater incomes and therefore greater spending power. We of course support FOMA in full.

[Warzone Codger]

I swear every 3rdd proposal seems to run into COCR for some reason...

I'm going to lean towards Bears Armed (though leaning on bears is dangerous!), COCR is that sort of resolution that "might" affect a tonne of proposals, but it's better if it's gone so we can just decide on those proposals clearly on a case by case basis.

[Sionis Prioratus]

COCR is that sort of resolution [...] it's better if it's gone

[Urgench]

I swear every 3rdd proposal seems to run into COCR for some reason...

I'm going to lean towards Bears Armed (though leaning on bears is dangerous!), COCR is that sort of resolution that "might" affect a tonne of proposals, but it's better if it's gone so we can just decide on those proposals clearly on a case by case basis.

The CoCR only effects unfairly discriminatory proposals, are you in favour of unfair discrimination?

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I swear every 3rdd proposal seems to run into COCR for some reason...

I'm going to lean towards Bears Armed (though leaning on bears is dangerous!), COCR is that sort of resolution that "might" affect a tonne of proposals, but it's better if it's gone so we can just decide on those proposals clearly on a case by case basis.

The CoCR only effects unfairly discriminatory proposals, are you in favour of unfair discrimination?

well, doesn't it also serve the purpose of making sure other proposals DON'T become unfairly discriminatory?
so in a way it effects NON unfairly discriminatory proposals.

[Urgench]

The CoCR only effects unfairly discriminatory proposals, are you in favour of unfair discrimination?

well, doesn't it also serve the purpose of making sure other proposals DON'T become unfairly discriminatory?
so in a way it effects NON unfairly discriminatory proposals.

Well lets just say it preempts and prevents unfair discrimination then.

[Ebana]

Ebana cannot support such a preposterous repeal. Equal rights is, beyond all else, a top priority amongst the Ebanan people and the elimination of an organization that supports such rights will not be supported by the government, nor any other sane government that prioritizes it's people over barbaric rightest morals.

[GeneralHaNor]

How are all the usually hundreds to thousands of rights and privileges associated with marriage going to be handled without either (a) denying them altogher to everyone -- no visitation in hospital rights, no inheritance, no community property, etc; (b) violating some part of Article 3 of the Act; or (c) recognizing same-sex marriage rights?

Meaningless objections to meaningful, well-written progressive legislation are what "is shit."

In the answer to your hypothetical,

A. Whoever you say can visit you in the hospital, none of this hospital not allowing your domestic partner entry because you don't have a civil contract nonsense. Whoever you say inherits your stuff, none of this it must go to the person the state recognizes as your next of kin. Whoever wants to, by buying property together, or buying into existing property, like a shareholder arrangement.

B. you got me there, if your interpretation is correct, not recognize civil unions that never existed is a crime according to the WA

C. by not recognizing any marriage at all, if the state decided, and the people decided, that marriage, or it's equivalent deviations are not the business of the state, well that's just to bad for the WA......oh wait, the damm compliance gnomes


The WA ruling supreme yet again, and creating an institution of marriage where either none existed beforehand, or was abolished afterwards is the all the reason one needs to oppose this overreaching legislation.

And yeah, I realize this is a national sovereignty argument, but then again the WA is a democracy, and we are allowed to point out when it's being tyrannical and oppressive

[The Cat-Tribe]

I post the following because it gives context to the snippet quoted by GeneralHaNor:

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."

Moreover, even if that were possible (and it isn't), it is absurd. It is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. What purpose does a "religious rite" of marriage serve if it has no civil consequences whatsoever? How are all the usually hundreds to thousands of rights and privileges associated with marriage going to be handled without either (a) denying them altogher to everyone -- no visitation in hospital rights, no inheritance, no community property, etc; (b) violating some part of Article 3 of the Act; or (c) recognizing same-sex marriage rights?

Meaningless objections to meaningful, well-written progressive legislation are what "is shit."

In the answer to your hypothetical,

A. Whoever you say can visit you in the hospital, none of this hospital not allowing your domestic partner entry because you don't have a civil contract nonsense. Whoever you say inherits your stuff, none of this it must go to the person the state recognizes as your next of kin. Whoever wants to, by buying property together, or buying into existing property, like a shareholder arrangement.

B. you got me there, if your interpretation is correct, not recognize civil unions that never existed is a crime according to the WA

C. by not recognizing any marriage at all, if the state decided, and the people decided, that marriage, or it's equivalent deviations are not the business of the state, well that's just to bad for the WA......oh wait, the damm compliance gnomes

The WA ruling supreme yet again, and creating an institution of marriage where either none existed beforehand, or was abolished afterwards is the all the reason one needs to oppose this overreaching legislation.

And yeah, I realize this is a national sovereignty argument, but then again the WA is a democracy, and we are allowed to point out when it's being tyrannical and oppressive

1. You ignore the fact that Kenny was talking about a society that has only religious "rites" of marriage that exclude same-sex couples. As I illustrated, that requires (a) that such "rites" be meaningless and no one have any of the legal benefits and privileges of marriage, (b) violation of Article 3, or (c) change to recognize same-sex marriage. (I didn't add that under Article 2(c) and Article 3 the society must have never recognized civil marriage or marital rights -- or they must do so for same sex couples.)

2. I recognize that different nations may treat marriage differently. A nation where marriage never existed would have no particular rights, benefits, or responsibilities associated with marriage (same-sex or otherwise). Thus, the burden of having "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" should be minimal. A state cannot simply abolish marriage to avoid compliance with FOMA. Article 2(a) would still require the nation to "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."

3. Now, to respond to your "response to my hypothetical":

A. First, you are assuming a nation would prefer to set up a whole host of laws and/or have its citizens enter into copious different contracts rather than simply recognize marriage (or at least same-sex marriage). You are also assuming that (unlike in many nations) there are no benefits or privileges associated with marriage that cannot be provided for by private contract. This is all rather silly -- especially if a nation is still going to have religious "rites" of marriage (but they are legally meaningless). Why not simply comply with FOMA?

B. I'm not sure you understand my point or that I understand yours. Mine is best explained in points #1 & #2 above. If you've had marriage, you can't abolish it just to keep out "teh gays." You can't have marriage for some and not for same-sex couples per Article 3. And, regardless, you must comply with Article 2(a).

C. You don't have to belong to the WA. Nations join voluntarily. By doing so they agree to abide by its resolutions. The resolutions are passed democratically. No amount of doublethink can turn this into a form of tyrrany.

4. Yes, you can bitch and moan. But otherwise, see point #3(C) above. You aren't being oppressed. Nor is preventing you from discriminating against same-sex couples a particularly hideous form of tyrrany in the first place.

[Bergnovinaia]

Just a thought that is already thrown out there probably, but FOMA will be extremely hard to repeal, if even possible.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Did you uncover LAE's old card stash on the UNOG boards or something?

P.S. And isn't the saying "Fat chance"?

[Mousebumples]

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.

OOC: Your confidence is my authoring abilities is much appreciated, for starters. Second, I'm heading out for a week's vacation tomorrow (yaaaay!) and will likely have minimal - if any - internet access.

I'm not opposed to writing a FOMA-like proposal ... It's definitely something that I feel strongly about, certainly. However, I'm not positive that (a) a replacement is needed, or (b) that even if I could be persuaded of such, that the Fluffies will agree.

(Case in point: I think many of us forum-goers will agree that Stem Cells for Greater Health ... or whatever the hell it's called ... is a terrible resolution, but that can't be repealed, no matter what we do. I don't know that something entitled the Freedom of Marriage Act will be repealed any time soon either.)

Anywho - I'll let you guys battle it out here and we'll see where things stand when I get back.