[PASSED] Repeal "Marriage Equality"

[Imperium Anglorum]

The current at-vote resolution has a quite good chance of passing, even under the weight of a 2000 vote stomp within 20 minutes of entering the floor. The following repeal is provided for preemptive purposes.

This august World Assembly,

Reminding itself that (i) legislation passed by the World Assembly cannot be amended or changed, only repealed, and that any correction of the problems noted in the target resolution would first require passage of a repeal, and (ii) there are no real good reasons to keep redundant legislation around,

Observing that the target resolution creates no practical protections beyond those already established in article 1, section 3 of 35 GA 'The Charter of Civil Rights', which prohibits discrimination in any 'reductive categorisation' except in cases of 'compelling practical purposes',

Astonished by the World Assembly's foresight in passing 35 GA 'The Charter of Civil Rights' to prohibit discrimination in marriage not only on reasons of sex but on other reasons, including gender, race, faith, and all other reductive categorisations, something which this resolution, ostensibly creating 'marriage equality', does not account for,

Troubled by the target resolution's imposition of a statist conception of marriage in section 1 of the target resolution upon nations in which no conception of marriage has existed in the first place, thereby imposing an oppressive institution with preferential rights upon nations in which no such oppression previously occurred,

Recalling similar legislation in the form of 15 GA 'Freedom of Marriage Act' that was already repealed on practically these exact grounds by 313 GA, which this Assembly passed and supported overwhelmingly at supermajority levels,

Concluding that repeal of this resolution will not eliminate the already-existing protections against discrimination in marriage that both predate this resolution in and are subsumed by 35 GA 'The Charter of Civil Rights', and

Calling for replacement of this legislation and its numerous spelling errors (e.g. recognising misspelt as 'regognizing', replacing the 'c' in the word with a 'g') with a well-drafted reasonably coherent replacement,

Hereby repeals 410 GA 'Marriage Equality'.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Whereas legislation passed by the World Assembly cannot be amended or changed, only repealed, and that any correction of the problems noted in the target resolution would first require passage of a repeal:

And whereas this resolution creates no real protections beyond those already established in article 1, section 3 of GA c. 35 'The Charter of Civil Rights' which prohibits discrimination except in 'compelling practical purposes', into which a discriminatory definition of marriage does not fall, making the protections provided for in this resolution mostly meaningless:

And whereas section 1 of this resolution would force member nations to institute a state-centred conception of marriage, where its administration is both recognised and regulated by the state, rather than by civil society at large:

And whereas this resolution's preamble contains a number of spelling errors (e.g. recognising misspelt as 'regognizing'), which baffles any holistic interpretation of the text, especially when those provisions are not severable from the other provisions of the resolution:

And whereas both the aforementioned errors could easily have been corrected with any amount of drafting, something which this resolution never received, and replacement of this legislation could easily be effected with minimal effort:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, that the resolution entitled 'Marriage Equality' be repealed.

Why this format instead of Whereas?
I think this is more clear in a repeal. Clarity is what is important here. My use of the format primarily used by Commonwealth Parliaments is primarily for reasons having to do with the need for clarity in primary legislation.

What is this about Freedom of Marriage Act and 313 GA?
15 GA 'Freedom of Marriage Act' is an early resolution of the World Assembly that imposed practically the same requirements as 410 GA. It was repealed by 313 GA for similar reasons.

[Willania Imperium]

"I quite agree with much of your proposal's clauses, Ambassador for IA. I gladly will support it in the case the disgusting proposal at-vote..." The Emperor shudders "...passes."

[Separatist Peoples]

"As usual, I oppose anything with overly pompous language. If the author wished to simplify this into standard form, I would change my mind."

[Serrus]

The current at-vote resolution has a quite good chance of passing, even under the weight of a 2000 vote stomp within 20 minutes of entering the floor. The following repeal is provided for preemptive purposes.

Whereas legislation passed by the World Assembly cannot be amended or changed, only repealed, and that any correction of the problems noted in the target resolution would first require passage of a repeal:

And whereas this resolution's operative clauses create no protections beyond those already established in article 1, section 3 of GA c. 35 'The Charter of Civil Rights' in those nations where there exists an institution of marriage, making the protections provided for in this resolution meaningless:

And whereas section 1 of this resolution would force member nations to institute a state-centred conception of marriage, where its administration is both recognised and regulated by the state, rather than by civil society at large:

And whereas this resolution's preamble contains a number of spelling errors (e.g. recognising misspelt as 'regognizing'), baffling any holistic interpretation of the text, especially when those provisions are not severable from the other provisions of the resolution:

And whereas it is the opinion of this Assembly that replacement of this resolution is unnecessary, since article 1, section 3 of GA c. 35 'The Charter of Civil Rights' already provides for the relevant protections:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, that the resolution entitled 'Enabling The Disabled in Academia' be repealed.

Ah, think you missed something there.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

I'm all for any draft to repeal this disgusting and inconsiderate policy
You cant just ignore the customs of a whole culture to satisfy a few people who aren't being forced to live there.
That should be major focus of this draft

[Imperial Siber]

Really? It's not even finished voting yet and your scared of people being able to marry who they want if the other person consents? Wow, homophobic much?

[Kenmoria]

Full support, though currently the resolution looks set to fail with more people voting against than for. I would suggest putting in something about freedom of religion as well.

[Haggeliania]

Really? It's not even finished voting yet and your scared of people being able to marry who they want if the other person consents? Wow, homophobic much?

No, just common logic and good moral.

Might as well tag him as a rapist, a serial killer and a pedophile.

[Imperial Siber]

Really? It's not even finished voting yet and your scared of people being able to marry who they want if the other person consents? Wow, homophobic much?

No, just common logic and good moral.

Might as well tag him as a rapist, a serial killer and a pedophile.

Who? Also by the way homosexuality is natural. Morals don't enter into it. And logic? There not trying to impregnate each other if they do stuff that shouldn't be said in NS threads.

Full support, though currently the resolution looks set to fail with more people voting against than for. I would suggest putting in something about freedom of religion as well.

And how does freedom of religion enter into this?

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

No, just common logic and good moral.

Might as well tag him as a rapist, a serial killer and a pedophile.

Who? Also by the way homosexuality is natural. Morals don't enter into it. And logic? There not trying to impregnate each other if they do stuff that shouldn't be said in NS threads.

Full support, though currently the resolution looks set to fail with more people voting against than for. I would suggest putting in something about freedom of religion as well.

And how does freedom of religion enter into this?

Our religion says no...therefore no laws can make us go against it.
I don't see how it doesnt go with it.

[Imperial Siber]

Who? Also by the way homosexuality is natural. Morals don't enter into it. And logic? There not trying to impregnate each other if they do stuff that shouldn't be said in NS threads.



And how does freedom of religion enter into this?

Our religion says no...therefore no laws can make us go against it.
I don't see how it doesnt go with it.

As in religion forced on everybody? Or do you mean
"My religion says you can't, so it infringes on my rights for you to do it?"

http://atlantisevents.com/San-Diego-to-Mexico-Cruise?gclid=CNWipt2g5NYCFdCFswod7u8J6w. This was the add at the bottom of the page

[Laeral]

Really? It's not even finished voting yet and your scared of people being able to marry who they want if the other person consents? Wow, homophobic much?

OOC: Many of us are voting against "Marriage Equality" not because we oppose the ideals it stands for but rather because of the poor quality of the draft and the lack of consultation before submitting it.

[Kenmoria]

No, just common logic and good moral.

Might as well tag him as a rapist, a serial killer and a pedophile.

Who? Also by the way homosexuality is natural. Morals don't enter into it. And logic? There not trying to impregnate each other if they do stuff that shouldn't be said in NS threads.

Cats naturally eat raw birds, does that mean that eating raw birds is acceptable?

Full support, though currently the resolution looks set to fail with more people voting against than for. I would suggest putting in something about freedom of religion as well.

And how does freedom of religion enter into this?

Nations have a freedom to enact their laws to uphold their religious principles and their religious practices.

May I point out, I am actually in favour of LGBTA rights, but this proposal is not the correct way to do it.

[Imperial Siber]

Really? It's not even finished voting yet and your scared of people being able to marry who they want if the other person consents? Wow, homophobic much?

OOC: Many of us are voting against "Marriage Equality" not because we oppose the ideals it stands for but rather because of the poor quality of the draft and the lack of consultation before submitting it.

Understandable, and anyone volunteering to be an éditer? Yeah. Ok. My freind could edit it. Or my regions founder. Both grammar lovers.

Also, people are going to be using that as an excuse to go against it, while not every one, homophobic beings will just use it as an excuse.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

Our religion says no...therefore no laws can make us go against it.
I don't see how it doesnt go with it.

As in religion forced on everybody? Or do you mean
"My religion says you can't, so it infringes on my rights for you to do it?"

http://atlantisevents.com/San-Diego-to-Mexico-Cruise?gclid=CNWipt2g5NYCFdCFswod7u8J6w. This was the add at the bottom of the page

What about the third option ...... "IF YOU DONT LIKE THE COUNTRY LEAVE!??!"

That is always the best option.
Why force your twisted views on a populace that doesn't want it ...when you could just leave?

[Imperial Siber]

Who? Also by the way homosexuality is natural. Morals don't enter into it. And logic? There not trying to impregnate each other if they do stuff that shouldn't be said in NS threads.

Cats naturally eat raw birds, does that mean that eating raw birds is acceptable?

And how does freedom of religion enter into this?

Nations have a freedom to enact their laws to uphold their religious principles and their religious practices.

May I point out, I am actually in favour of LGBTA rights, but this proposal is not the correct way to do it.

Yeah. Cats it raw birds. It acceptable for a cat.
Yeah. All animals can be homosexual naturally.

Enact laws to force relegion on people? And call it freedom of relegion?

Ok the. We can edit it.

[Laeral]

OOC: Many of us are voting against "Marriage Equality" not because we oppose the ideals it stands for but rather because of the poor quality of the draft and the lack of consultation before submitting it.

Understandable, and anyone volunteering to be an éditer? Yeah. Ok. My freind could edit it. Or my regions founder. Both grammar lovers.

Also, people are going to be using that as an excuse to go against it, while not every one, homophobic beings will just use it as an excuse.

New Gren Artle, the co-author of the proposal, is a newcomer to my home region of the International Democratic Union (we are also home to Sciongrad, Separatist Peoples, and Bears Armed, lest you think badly of our region's GA writing).

Legislation is needed on this issue, but this proposal is too badly flawed to vote for.

[Deropia]

I would suggest putting in something about freedom of religion as well.

"Well, no. I wouldn't, since nothing in the target resolution actually stops you from practicing your religion. Which freedom of religion is usually refers to your ability to practice your personal religion, not a guarantee that you can then tell others they can or can't do something because of your religion. But that's beside the point. Marriage Equality should be repealed, if by some miracle it passes, because its a poorly written train wreck that in reality, is already sufficiently covered by extant resolutions. In my opinion anyways."

[Imperial Siber]

As in religion forced on everybody? Or do you mean
"My religion says you can't, so it infringes on my rights for you to do it?"

http://atlantisevents.com/San-Diego-to-Mexico-Cruise?gclid=CNWipt2g5NYCFdCFswod7u8J6w. This was the add at the bottom of the page

What about the third option ...... "IF YOU DONT LIKE THE COUNTRY LEAVE!??!"

That is always the best option.
Why force your twisted views on a populace that doesn't want it ...when you could just leave?

Twisted? Because I believe that natural wants shouldn't be suppressed do to age-old religious texts from 2000 years ago that were written by people who knew little-to nothing about the universe and stuff?
"And sure, you don't like our rules here? Well then move away from your home, friends, job, social life, familiar culture, and family? What? You don't want to lose everything you know and care about except for a few belongings? We'll then you can't complain about our rules from a relegion not everybody in the country follows."

[Ferret Civilization]

Really? It's not even finished voting yet and your scared of people being able to marry who they want if the other person consents? Wow, homophobic much?

Did you read the arguments presented in the repeal draft, as in the previous resolution The Charter of Civil Rights. Specifically article 1. c.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

On a national level there can not be discrimination against sexual orientation. So the argument in Marriage Equality, "That many member state prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits and legal recognition of marriage." is rather unfounded. As well as most the other points made redundant.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

What about the third option ...... "IF YOU DONT LIKE THE COUNTRY LEAVE!??!"

That is always the best option.
Why force your twisted views on a populace that doesn't want it ...when you could just leave?

Twisted? Because I believe that natural wants shouldn't be suppressed do to age-old religious texts from 2000 years ago that were written by people who knew little-to nothing about the universe and stuff?
"And sure, you don't like our rules here? Well then move away from your home, friends, job, social life, familiar culture, and family? What? You don't want to lose everything you know and care about except for a few belongings? We'll then you can't complain about our rules from a relegion not everybody in the country follows."

1) in order to be considered a citizen you have to be part of our religion
2) don't like it ...yes leave
3)We don't care if you don't like it....follow rule 2
4)Your friends and family probably will shun you if you aren't part of the religion so why stay?
5) you cant get a job here if you don't conform
So.....

[Deropia]

Twisted? Because I believe that natural wants shouldn't be suppressed do to age-old religious texts from 2000 years ago that were written by people who knew little-to nothing about the universe and stuff?
"And sure, you don't like our rules here? Well then move away from your home, friends, job, social life, familiar culture, and family? What? You don't want to lose everything you know and care about except for a few belongings? We'll then you can't complain about our rules from a relegion not everybody in the country follows."

Ambassador MacAlister applauds at that statement. "This, my fellow ambassadors, is why I believe in the separation of church and state."

[Haggeliania]

Who? Also by the way homosexuality is natural. Morals don't enter into it. And logic? There not trying to impregnate each other if they do stuff that shouldn't be said in NS threads.

Cats naturally eat raw birds, does that mean that eating raw birds is acceptable?

And how does freedom of religion enter into this?

Nations have a freedom to enact their laws to uphold their religious principles and their religious practices.

May I point out, I am actually in favour of LGBTA rights, but this proposal is not the correct way to do it.

Couldn't have said it better myself, becareful with that flaming material though.

[Imperial Siber]

I would suggest putting in something about freedom of religion as well.

"Well, no. I wouldn't, since nothing in the target resolution actually stops you from practicing your religion. Which freedom of religion is usually refers to your ability to practice your personal religion, not a guarantee that you can then tell others they can or can't do something because of your religion. But that's beside the point. Marriage Equality should be repealed, if by some miracle it passes, because its a poorly written train wreck that in reality, is already sufficiently covered by extant resolutions. In my opinion anyways."

I was about to post amazing way to say it then realized you just said that on mine as well

Twisted? Because I believe that natural wants shouldn't be suppressed do to age-old religious texts from 2000 years ago that were written by people who knew little-to nothing about the universe and stuff?
"And sure, you don't like our rules here? Well then move away from your home, friends, job, social life, familiar culture, and family? What? You don't want to lose everything you know and care about except for a few belongings? We'll then you can't complain about our rules from a relegion not everybody in the country follows."

1) in order to be considered a citizen you have to be part of our religion
2) don't like it ...yes leave
3)We don't care if you don't like it....follow rule 2
4)Your friends and family probably will shun you if you aren't part of the religion so why stay?
5) you cant get a job here if you don't conform
So.....

Well maybe there's a problem with forcing people to be part of your relegion. That guy who made the anti-lgbtqa argument with religious freedom(totally redundant argument by the way), what do you have to say to those reasons?