by Punk Reloaded » Thu May 27, 2010 4:46 am
by Grays Harbor » Thu May 27, 2010 5:11 am
by Morlago » Thu May 27, 2010 5:37 am
by Nullarni » Thu May 27, 2010 6:29 am
by Freeoplis » Thu May 27, 2010 8:54 am
Nullarni wrote: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.
by Urgench » Thu May 27, 2010 9:30 am
Punk Reloaded wrote: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 Instead, I respect the customs and traditions of my fellow members and think this resolution should be repealed as it unilaterally forces a particular morality on ALL member nations.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
by Punk Reloaded » Thu May 27, 2010 2:01 pm
by Grays Harbor » Thu May 27, 2010 2:11 pm
by Punk Reloaded » Thu May 27, 2010 2:14 pm
by Urgench » Thu May 27, 2010 2:30 pm
Punk Reloaded wrote: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.
by Quadrimmina » Thu May 27, 2010 3:08 pm
by Urgench » Thu May 27, 2010 3:27 pm
by Embolalia » Thu May 27, 2010 3:29 pm
Quadrimmina wrote: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".
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Quadrimmina » Thu May 27, 2010 4:16 pm
Embolalia wrote:Quadrimmina wrote: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."
by Mousebumples » Thu May 27, 2010 4:25 pm
by Urgench » Thu May 27, 2010 4:30 pm
Quadrimmina wrote:Embolalia wrote:Quadrimmina wrote: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.
by Punk Reloaded » Fri May 28, 2010 5:16 am
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.
by Grays Harbor » Fri May 28, 2010 5:41 am
by Punk Reloaded » Fri May 28, 2010 7:02 am
by Nullarni » Fri May 28, 2010 7:07 am
by Grays Harbor » Fri May 28, 2010 7:16 am
Punk Reloaded wrote: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?
Punk Reloaded wrote: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.
by Hirota » Fri May 28, 2010 7:31 am
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.Punk Reloaded wrote: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”;
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.CONCERNED that the resolution does not specifically mention partner’s rites in emergency medical situations or general health care at all;
Huh. So this is complete rhetoric then?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.
by Punk Reloaded » Fri May 28, 2010 7:37 am
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Fri May 28, 2010 7:46 am
by Nullarni » Fri May 28, 2010 7:50 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Grena Posperum
Advertisement