[DRAFT] Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

[Punk Reloaded]

However well intentioned this resolution is, this resolution is basically forcing all World Assembly nations to establish that marriage is defined as any contract between two people. That is all well and good for nations that wish to define marriage as such, but nations not desiring to do so are being forced into following this.

Religious states certainly should have the right to establish the criteria of marriage as they so define. Secular states should also be able to do this as well without being infringed upon by the World Assembly.

Put it this way, in Punk Reloaded we have a long tradition of mother's marrying their eldest son if their husband passes away. I see no reason to put forth a resolution that requires the same for all fellow World Assembly nations. Instead, I respect the customs and traditions of my fellow members and think this resolution should be repealed as it unilaterally forces a particular morality on ALL member nations.

Respectfully,
King Maximus Punk IV
Punk Reloaded

[Grays Harbor]

Is this a draft repeal or a blog? We are leaning towards the latter.

[Morlago]

Illegal due to branding.

[Nullarni]

How many times are we going to see proposed repeals of the "Freedom of Marriage Act" that have no chance of going anywhere? I have half a mind to draft up my own version just to give them something legal.

[Freeoplis]

How many times are we going to see proposed repeals of the "Freedom of Marriage Act" that have no chance of going anywhere? I have half a mind to draft up my own version just to give them something legal.

We agree with the esteemed delegation, we have lost count of how many proposals have been put forward with regards to this issue.

[Urgench]

However well intentioned this resolution is, this resolution is basically forcing all World Assembly nations to establish that marriage is defined as any contract between two people. That is all well and good for nations that wish to define marriage as such, but nations not desiring to do so are being forced into following this.

Religious states certainly should have the right to establish the criteria of marriage as they so define. Secular states should also be able to do this as well without being infringed upon by the World Assembly.

Put it this way, in Punk Reloaded we have a long tradition of mother's marrying their eldest son if their husband passes away. I see no reason to put forth a resolution that requires the same for all fellow World Assembly nations. Instead, I respect the customs and traditions of my fellow members and think this resolution should be repealed as it unilaterally forces a particular morality on ALL member nations.

Respectfully,
King Maximus Punk IV
Punk Reloaded

Your Majesty's logic is faulty. Why should religious states be allowed to practice a form of rank discrimination which other states should not be expected to? There is nothing logically specific to them which makes them exempt is there?

Would your Majesty wish for these mothers of Punk Reloaded married to their sons to continue to be recognised as married when they travelled abroad? In order that the rights they enjoy in their home nation were not summarily removed from them the minute the left your Majesty's jusridiction?

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

Yours,

[Punk Reloaded]

[ooc]{snip}

Apparently I missed a section when I was reviewing the proposal guidelines before calling for the repeal.

I'll rework this and resubmit.
[/ooc]

[Grays Harbor]

To see what is invalid, one need only read through the replies right here in front of you. Also, it is customary to submit a draft here for debate and suggestion Prior to it being submitted for approval. There are a very many folk here who are quite good at crafting these things, and it would behoove anybody to listen and pay attention to their comments and suggestions.

[Punk Reloaded]

Working on a draft now. Again OOC, and disrespect meant to some, I've read enough resolutions in my day to not have much faith in many of their authors honestly. However, from a technical valid/invalid standpoint I welcome all input. Harsh? Yes. But my opinion nonetheless.

[Urgench]

Working on a draft now. Again OOC, and disrespect meant to some, I've read enough resolutions in my day to not have much faith in many of their authors honestly. However, from a technical valid/invalid standpoint I welcome all input. Harsh? Yes. But my opinion nonetheless.

OOC how charming, well you work away on that then. I notice you've failed completely to make an argument for your repeal, but whatever, you know best I'm sure.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina offers the following proposal drafted by a special interest group called "Quadrimminans for National Sovereignty".

Title: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
Type: General Assembly Proposal for Repeal

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING the good intentions of the "Freedom of Marriage Act" in ensuring that the rights of marriage are granted to all those who seek to become married,

UNDERSTANDING the civil rights granted to parties as a result of this resolution,

REALIZES that this resolution is a breach of national sovereignty and forces an international standard for what is a national issue,

NOTES that numerous nations, especially theocracies and other nations that have absolutist beliefs about marriage, cannot express their political views due to the constrictions of this resolution,

IN AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE that national sovereignty is maintained in the World Assembly,

HEREBY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #15, the "Freedom of Marriage Act".

[Urgench]

OOC deleted in light of the fact that the repeal author in fact claims to support the FoMA and is proposing a repeal for other reasons than the repeal of the FoMA.

[Embolalia]

The Republic of Quadrimmina offers the following proposal drafted by a special interest group called "Quadrimminans for National Sovereignty".

Title: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
Type: General Assembly Proposal for Repeal

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING the good intentions of the "Freedom of Marriage Act" in ensuring that the rights of marriage are granted to all those who seek to become married,

UNDERSTANDING the civil rights granted to parties as a result of this resolution,

REALIZES that this resolution is a breach of national sovereignty and forces an international standard for what is a national issue,

NOTES that numerous nations, especially theocracies and other nations that have absolutist beliefs about marriage, cannot express their political views due to the constrictions of this resolution,

IN AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE that national sovereignty is maintained in the World Assembly,

HEREBY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #15, the "Freedom of Marriage Act".

I don't agree with what this proposal says. However, I say we bring this to a vote, just to vote it down. Then, when someone brings up a poorly written repeal, we can point to this and say, "see? This is what a repeal of this should look like! And people don't like it anyway, so don't bother."

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina offers the following proposal drafted by a special interest group called "Quadrimminans for National Sovereignty".

Title: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
Type: General Assembly Proposal for Repeal

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING the good intentions of the "Freedom of Marriage Act" in ensuring that the rights of marriage are granted to all those who seek to become married,

UNDERSTANDING the civil rights granted to parties as a result of this resolution,

REALIZES that this resolution is a breach of national sovereignty and forces an international standard for what is a national issue,

NOTES that numerous nations, especially theocracies and other nations that have absolutist beliefs about marriage, cannot express their political views due to the constrictions of this resolution,

IN AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE that national sovereignty is maintained in the World Assembly,

HEREBY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #15, the "Freedom of Marriage Act".

I don't agree with what this proposal says. However, I say we bring this to a vote, just to vote it down. Then, when someone brings up a poorly written repeal, we can point to this and say, "see? This is what a repeal of this should look like! And people don't like it anyway, so don't bother."

The Forge administration of the Quadrimminan government is deeply for the resolution whose repeal is requested in this debate. However, my office was presented with this resolution, and we presented it for the purpose Your Excellency has designated. Thank you for your understanding of our diplomatic motives behind this resolution.

[Mousebumples]

Nat Sov is not a valid argument for repeal.

[Urgench]

The Republic of Quadrimmina offers the following proposal drafted by a special interest group called "Quadrimminans for National Sovereignty".

Title: Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
Type: General Assembly Proposal for Repeal

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING the good intentions of the "Freedom of Marriage Act" in ensuring that the rights of marriage are granted to all those who seek to become married,

UNDERSTANDING the civil rights granted to parties as a result of this resolution,

REALIZES that this resolution is a breach of national sovereignty and forces an international standard for what is a national issue,

NOTES that numerous nations, especially theocracies and other nations that have absolutist beliefs about marriage, cannot express their political views due to the constrictions of this resolution,

IN AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE that national sovereignty is maintained in the World Assembly,

HEREBY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #15, the "Freedom of Marriage Act".

I don't agree with what this proposal says. However, I say we bring this to a vote, just to vote it down. Then, when someone brings up a poorly written repeal, we can point to this and say, "see? This is what a repeal of this should look like! And people don't like it anyway, so don't bother."

The Forge administration of the Quadrimminan government is deeply for the resolution whose repeal is requested in this debate. However, my office was presented with this resolution, and we presented it for the purpose Your Excellency has designated. Thank you for your understanding of our diplomatic motives behind this resolution.

Actually might we ask why such a pointless endeavour should be undertaken? If your Excellency's government is in fact a supporter of the proposal in question why would it jeopardise the continued protections of it by presenting an even relatively credible repeal of it to this organisation?

Laws are not tested by being threatened with constant repeal (credible or not) they are strengthened by being unchallenged and accepted, a good law needs no challenge after all. Indeed it seems perverse for any nation which supports this statute to provoke a crisis in confidence in it based on the pretence of seemingly credible (though nonetheless spurious) challenge to it.


Yours,

[Punk Reloaded]

Ok, here's a draft:

The Nations of the World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the spirit of the resolution to allow all citizens to select their own partner regardless of gender;

CONCERNED that the resolution redefines the word “marriage” as merely a contract between two persons for the sole purposes of protecting the “common estate and inheritance rites”;

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

VERY CONCERNED that the resolution makes no mention of “minors”;

REALIZING that such ambiguity may unintentionally open the door for children to be exploited by this resolution;

SEEKING an opportunity establish a more expansive resolution that closes the loophole to protect the rights of minors and expand the terms of the contractual unions,

The World Assembly hereby repeals the “Freedom of Marriage” resolution.

[Grays Harbor]

You have made it pretty clear you will submit regardless, and don't give a flip about what anybody says or what suggestions are made, so why should anybody bother to comment? Myself, I plan on not giving my delegates approval to this however it is worded as I believe the resolution targeted requires no repeal. good day to you.

[Punk Reloaded]

If I didn't give a - your words - flip about what anyone says about the proposal why would I post it here before proposing it. Sometimes when someone asks for input....they really would like some input.

Would anyone like to offer their thoughts on this. Is it "technically valid", suggestions, don't care?

[Nullarni]

*Retracted*

[Grays Harbor]

If I didn't give a - your words - flip about what anyone says about the proposal why would I post it here before proposing it. Sometimes when someone asks for input....they really would like some input.

Would anyone like to offer their thoughts on this. Is it "technically valid", suggestions, don't care?

Working on a draft now. Again OOC, and disrespect meant to some, I've read enough resolutions in my day to not have much faith in many of their authors honestly. However, from a technical valid/invalid standpoint I welcome all input. Harsh? Yes. But my opinion nonetheless.

"technical" is not the only thing you need ask about. Valid content, which your draft is still quite short on, is just as important. So, I stand by my earlier statement of wondering why you ask, when you have made it quite clear you have no intention of listening to anybody but yourself.

[Hirota]

The Nations of the World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the spirit of the resolution to allow all citizens to select their own partner regardless of gender;

CONCERNED that the resolution redefines the word “marriage” as merely a contract between two persons for the sole purposes of protecting the “common estate and inheritance rites”;

No, it doesn't. It applies to unions between two people and enforcing a minimum standard for protection of common estate and inheritance. It does not actually redefine what a marriage is. In fact, the title of the resolution is a slight misnomer, as the body of the resolution does not mention marriage at all.

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

I'd argue that "(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex." covers this.

VERY CONCERNED that the resolution makes no mention of “minors”;

REALIZING that such ambiguity may unintentionally open the door for children to be exploited by this resolution;

Huh. So this is complete rhetoric then?

SEEKING an opportunity establish a more expansive resolution that closes the loophole to protect the rights of minors and expand the terms of the contractual unions,

The World Assembly hereby repeals the “Freedom of Marriage” resolution.

[Punk Reloaded]

How is this not technically valid? I've read the rules and think this fits within the rules.

No mention of national sovereignty. Other repeal resolutions have referenced loop holes and/or unintentional consequences of resolutions they sought to repeal. What am I missing from a technical standpoint? In essence why would the mods delete this?

And, again...i've answered the question of why I'd like input, please read a few lines up. If you have no desire to provide input, that's your choice.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I'd use "ACKNOWLEDGE" instead of "ACKNOWLEDGES" but other than that I'm having difficulty finding a problem with it myself.

[Nullarni]

*Retracted as invalid*