[Draft] Marriage Equality Act Redux

by **The Great Boom** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:52 pm

In the event that Impirum Anglorum is successful in repealing the Marriage Equality Act currently at vote, it is imperative that this body begin preemptively drafting a new Marriage Equality Act to affirm this body's commitment to human rights and the English language. I would be happy to allow any nation contributing to this draft to officially propose the resolution or to serve as a co-author, including the original author of Marriage Equality, or its original co-author.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Act to Embrace Marriage Equality
A resolution to ensure free and equal access to the institution of marriage throughout the nations of the World Assembly

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Democratic States of The Great Boom

The World Assembly,

Encouraged by the support for 410GA Marriage Equality, and confident that this body repealed 410GA on a grammatical and sovereign basis,

Optimistic that the World Assembly would support a resolution that more acutely secured the right of marriage equality,

Disturbed that such a fundamental tenet of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was allowed to remain in place despite the passage of GAR#35 Charter of Civil Rights, and

Reminding the members of the World Assembly that love is love, and that no religious beliefs inherently need infringe on another's right to access the institution of marriage,

Hereby,

1) DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation
A: adults of consenting age as a group of sapient beings who have reached the age of consent or associated threshold in the nation in which they live,
B: marriage as a joining of a sapient beings of consenting age who have the legal ability to marry each other, the mutual consent of both parties and a contract associated with the law of their nation,

2) PROHIBITS any nation from banning same-sex marriage among adults of consenting age by law or as de facto practice,

3) REQUIRES that any benefits conferred upon married individuals in a given nation be enjoyed by all married individuals regardless of sex, gender or sexual orientation of those who are married,

4) RESOLVES that any nation which has marriage codified by law must allow adults of consenting age to be formally married in the manner recognized for those who already had access to formally legal marriage,

5) ACKNOWLEDGES that nations that do not recognize the concept of marriage for any permanent resident would not be required to provide formal recognition of a would-be marriage, nor the benefits typically associated, regardless of the sexual orientation of the married individuals,

6) MANDATES that nations which recognize any tier of relationships between adults of consenting age other than marriage, must extend any benefit, including formal recognition and any conferred benefits to all such relationships.

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

:

The original Marriage Equality Act regrettably did not go through the drafting process at all. As a result, it contained spelling errors and grammatical errors. It was also politically and civilly flawed, which is why the repeal effort has been so popular and thorough. To that extent, I will accept constructive criticism with sincere and exceptional consideration. This resolution governs the civil rights of a marginalized group of people across the globe. It is beyond imperative that its wording and mandate are acutely tailored to embrace marriage equality.

However, I will not be seriously considering any change to this resolution which would result in a failure to deliver marriage equality to the nations of the World Assembly. In recent days, I have seen nations argue that theocratic nations must be able to deny marriage to same-sex couples. While most of those who objected to the Marriage Equality Act did so out of protest to the way in which the bill was passed and to the flaws in the final text, a minority actually opposed the concept of marriage equality. If your goal is to prevent codified marriage equality and continue discrimination as prohibited by the CoCR, then I am left to judge whether or not your feedback has any constructive merit. I hope that all contributors to the drafting process of this resolution will have the best intentions for the embrace of marriage equality throughout the world assembly.

Thank you for your consideration.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:09 pm

"We oppose any form of required polygamy recognition. Our concern is purely legal: polygamy makes disposition of assets much, much more complicated in the absence of a will, and complicates divorce proceedings. It makes a number of legal issues related to spousal privileges extremely complex, really. Otherwise, we are broadly in support of this."

by **Fauxia** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:12 pm

When an in-vote proposal has a repeal and a replacement bill being drafted...

by **The Great Boom** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:15 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"We oppose any form of required polygamy recognition. Our concern is purely legal: polygamy makes disposition of assets much, much more complicated in the absence of a will, and complicates divorce proceedings. It makes a number of legal issues related to spousal privileges extremely complex, really. Otherwise, we are broadly in support of this."

I debated this question before defining "married couple" the way that I did.

I personally oppose polygamy, but given the content of the CoCR, how can this body pass a law with a discriminatory definition of a married couple? Including multiple partners is a valid sexual orientation, even if it is legally complicated or unpopular. If you've got a solution that involves advancing marriage equality while excluding polygamist couples that doesn't contradict the CoCR, I'm all ears.

by **The Great Boom** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:16 pm

Fauxia wrote:When an in-vote proposal has a repeal and a replacement bill being drafted...

I know, right? I chuckled about it before hitting submit.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:20 pm

The Great Boom wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"We oppose any form of required polygamy recognition. Our concern is purely legal: polygamy makes disposition of assets much, much more complicated in the absence of a will, and complicates divorce proceedings. It makes a number of legal issues related to spousal privileges extremely complex, really. Otherwise, we are broadly in support of this."

I debated this question before defining "married couple" the way that I did.

I personally oppose polygamy, but given the content of the CoCR, how can this body pass a law with a discriminatory definition of a married couple? Including multiple partners is a valid sexual orientation, even if it is legally complicated or unpopular. If you've got a solution that involves advancing marriage equality while excluding polygamist couples that doesn't contradict the CoCR, I'm all ears.

"GAR#35 prevents discrimination but provides exceptions for compelling practical purposes. If you simply don't define marriage with a numerical qualifier, you allow nations to handle polygamy on their own. Further, remaining silent on a topic in no way creates a violation of GAR#35. I believe you're all set."

by **The Great Boom** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:23 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
The Great Boom wrote:
I debated this question before defining "married couple" the way that I did.

I personally oppose polygamy, but given the content of the CoCR, how can this body pass a law with a discriminatory definition of a married couple? Including multiple partners is a valid sexual orientation, even if it is legally complicated or unpopular. If you've got a solution that involves advancing marriage equality while excluding polygamist couples that doesn't contradict the CoCR, I'm all ears.

"GAR#35 prevents discrimination but provides exceptions for compelling practical purposes. If you simply don't define marriage with a numerical qualifier, you allow nations to handle polygamy on their own. Further, remaining silent on a topic in no way creates a violation of GAR#35. I believe you're all set."

Interesting. If I were to do this, I suppose it would be misleading to use the term married couple, since a couple implies a union of exactly two people unless defined otherwise, which is why I added the definition. Perhaps I will reword it to avoid the need to use the word "couple."

by **Ferret Civilization** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:29 pm

With all the action and things to do with the "Marriage Equality" proposal really shaking things up in the World Assembly Furettium did not have a lack of things to observe and take part in.

"Now this right here is more professional and lacks the obvious loopholes the current one up for vote has. I would be more willing to support this better thought out piece of work. Though under section 6.

Marriage Equality Act Redux wrote:DEFINES a married couple as multiple consenting adults of age who are married, and therefore does not limit the benefits of this resolution to couples consisting of exactly two adults, as such a definition would constitute illegal discrimination per 35GA Charter of Civil Rights,

I do not think there would be much problem with the definition, though you might want to remove that reference to GAR #35, as if by some unforeseen event where it were to be repealed it could cause some problems with the definition."

OOC: Would that be a House of Cards violation or not? If not then I will withdraw that objection

by **Separatist Peoples** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:31 pm

The Great Boom wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
"GAR#35 prevents discrimination but provides exceptions for compelling practical purposes. If you simply don't define marriage with a numerical qualifier, you allow nations to handle polygamy on their own. Further, remaining silent on a topic in no way creates a violation of GAR#35. I believe you're all set."

Interesting. If I were to do this, I suppose it would be misleading to use the term married couple, since a couple implies a union of exactly two people unless defined otherwise, which is why I added the definition. Perhaps I will reword it to avoid the need to use the word "couple."

"'Marriage' or 'married individual' as needed, ambassador."

by **New Gren Artle** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:01 pm

Hello. I am one of the 2 creators of the current Marriage Equality act that is being voted on and will win. I just wanted to say I do support your proposal, as I did not create the last one. I came up with the idea, and this proposal fulfills my ideas. You have my vote.

by **Willania Imperium** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:03 pm

New Gren Artle wrote:Hello. I am one of the 2 creators of the current Marriage Equality act that is being voted on and will win. I just wanted to say I do support your proposal, as I did not create the last one. I came up with the idea, and this proposal fulfills my ideas. You have my vote.

So, technically speaking, you're not a co-author to it? You never wrote anything in it?

by **New Gren Artle** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:05 pm

Willania Imperium wrote:
New Gren Artle wrote:Hello. I am one of the 2 creators of the current Marriage Equality act that is being voted on and will win. I just wanted to say I do support your proposal, as I did not create the last one. I came up with the idea, and this proposal fulfills my ideas. You have my vote.

So, technically speaking, you're not a co-author to it? You never wrote anything in it?

No one says a Co-Author has to write anything. I came up with most of the ideas, that’s half the work. Plus, I already submitted other Same-Sex Marriage proposals and I just needed their assistance in writing it.

by **The Great Boom** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:11 pm

New Gren Artle wrote:
Willania Imperium wrote:
So, technically speaking, you're not a co-author to it? You never wrote anything in it?

No one says a Co-Author has to write anything. I came up with most of the ideas, that’s half the work. Plus, I already submitted other Same-Sex Marriage proposals and I just needed their assistance in writing it.

If you'd like to co-author or submit this resolution, you're welcome to. That would entail actually contributing significantly to the resolution.

by **Willania Imperium** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:19 pm

New Gren Artie wrote:
Willania Imperium wrote:
So, technically speaking, you're not a co-author to it? You never wrote anything in it?

No one says a Co-Author has to write anything. I came up with most of the ideas, that’s half the work. Plus, I already submitted other Same-Sex Marriage proposals and I just needed their assistance in writing it.

Well, anyway, I can safely safe this actually has a chance to be something noteworthy. Unlike those failed papers you left on the forums...

IC: "I advise you to move the "Define" clauses to be the first two, as well as quoting the terms. Other than that, I see nothing wrong at face value."

The Great Boom wrote:
New Gren Artle wrote:
No one says a Co-Author has to write anything. I came up with most of the ideas, that’s half the work. Plus, I already submitted other Same-Sex Marriage proposals and I just needed their assistance in writing it.

If you'd like to co-author or submit this resolution, you're welcome to. That would entail actually contributing significantly to the resolution.

"I advise you to reconsider the invitation. This one has very little WA experience other than creating drafts and abandoning them once criticism becomes too much for them."

by **The Great Boom** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:34 pm

Willania Imperium wrote:
New Gren Artie wrote:
No one says a Co-Author has to write anything. I came up with most of the ideas, that’s half the work. Plus, I already submitted other Same-Sex Marriage proposals and I just needed their assistance in writing it.

Well, anyway, I can safely safe this actually has a chance to be something noteworthy. Unlike those failed papers you left on the forums...

IC: "I advise you to move the "Define" clauses to be the first two, as well as quoting the terms. Other than that, I see nothing wrong at face value."

The Great Boom wrote:
If you'd like to co-author or submit this resolution, you're welcome to. That would entail actually contributing significantly to the resolution.

"I advise you to reconsider the invitation. This one has very little WA experience other than creating drafts and abandoning them once criticism becomes too much for them."

"The Great Boom is capable - nigh - obsessed with the sanctity of the draft process. Regardless of the ambassadors role in writing the resolution, the previous failure to accept critical feedback won't be repeated."

by **The Great Boom** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:37 pm

On the subject of beginning the resolution with the definition clauses, my inclination was to start with the clauses that end same-sex marriage bans in order to attract broad support. I see that starting with definitions would help make the other clauses more clear, but I think that WA nations concerned by definitions would be intelligent and patient enough to read to the end of the document. The ordering is only really relevant to those who don't read the whole thing. And clearly, based on the resolution at vote, that's a significant demographic.

What is the case to be made that the definitions are more critical to get across at the start than the more actionable clauses? I'm reluctant, but I would consider reordering them.

by **Willania Imperium** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:48 pm

The Great Boom wrote:On the subject of beginning the resolution with the definition clauses, my inclination was to start with the clauses that end same-sex marriage bans in order to attract broad support. I see that starting with definitions would help make the other clauses more clear, but I think that WA nations concerned by definitions would be intelligent and patient enough to read to the end of the document. The ordering is only really relevant to those who don't read the whole thing. And clearly, based on the resolution at the vote, that's a significant demographic.

What is the case to be made that the definitions are more critical to get across at the start than the more actionable clauses? I'm reluctant, but I would consider reordering them.

"We usually prefer to see it start off at the beginning for the reason you mentioned: to make the other clauses more clear. If you were to read something with no knowledge of some of the words, you'll feel confused on some of the passages. You'll be confused by it until you reach the end. Even then, by that point, you've probably forgotten it. The same is here in this proposal. If we don't introduce the words first, part of the proposal will be muddled in confusion by the reader, who don't know exactly what the terms mean."

by **Excidium Planetis** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:57 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"We oppose any form of required polygamy recognition. Our concern is purely legal: polygamy makes disposition of assets much, much more complicated in the absence of a will, and complicates divorce proceedings. It makes a number of legal issues related to spousal privileges extremely complex, really. Otherwise, we are broadly in support of this."

"Legal concerns are not generally considered a valid reason to discriminate against persons wishing to marry." Blackbourne replies. "The opposition to polygamy merely on the grounds that it would require extra work for lawyers and lengthen court proceedings is merely using a poor excuse to deny rights to citizens.

"That said, I must object to the resolution defining married couples as any number of persons. A couple is two, and defining it otherwise is ridiculous. I suggest the author simply use another term."

by **Separatist Peoples** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:08 am

Excidium Planetis wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"We oppose any form of required polygamy recognition. Our concern is purely legal: polygamy makes disposition of assets much, much more complicated in the absence of a will, and complicates divorce proceedings. It makes a number of legal issues related to spousal privileges extremely complex, really. Otherwise, we are broadly in support of this."

"Legal concerns are not generally considered a valid reason to discriminate against persons wishing to marry." Blackbourne replies. "The opposition to polygamy merely on the grounds that it would require extra work for lawyers and lengthen court proceedings is merely using a poor excuse to deny rights to citizens.

Ooc: are you arguing this IC but believe it OOCly, too? Because I have a mountain of caselaw that says otherwise.

Ic: "The state has a strong interest in ensuring that legal due process is not so overburdened as to create a bar to citizens seeking to enforce them. It's the same reason we don't require full trial-style evidentiary hearings for school suspensions and drivers licence issuance. Due process has a necessary aspect of efficiency and cost in it's calculation."

by **Bananaistan** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:22 am

"We offer our full support should the current resolution at vote be passed, as seems likely, and repealed. I strongly encourage the proposers not to allow themselves be filibustered with this polygamy argument as I very much doubt that there's an appetite among member states to have polygamous marriage imposed upon them by the WA. In any event, if you leave aside mention of such unions, those raising it now can always propose their own legislation on the topic."

- Ted

by **The Great Boom** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:36 am

I hear the objections to the recognition of polygamy, and i am currently of the mind to remove it. Is there anyone who would defend its inclusion?

On another note, what could be improved about the resolution assuming the polygamy clause is removed? Surely I didn't strike gold here.

by **Prydania** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:09 am

“We support the current Marriage Equality resolution at vote, and would support this one should the former be repealed. Assuming the polygamy clause is removed.”

by **Excidium Planetis** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:33 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: are you arguing this IC but believe it OOCly, too? Because I have a mountain of caselaw that says otherwise.

OOC:
If, for some reason, same sex marriages required way more legal work than heterosexual marriages, would that be a valid reason to deny the right to marry to same sex couples?

IC:

"The state has a strong interest in ensuring that legal due process is not so overburdened as to create a bar to citizens seeking to enforce them. It's the same reason we don't require full trial-style evidentiary hearings for school suspensions and drivers licence issuance. Due process has a necessary aspect of efficiency and cost in it's calculation."

"Indeed, but it comes down to the cost of civil rights." Blackbourne states. "School suspensions not having trials is a very small loss of rights compared to the time and money saved. Losing the right to marry is a great cost for the effort saved. The state undertakes many efforts which are at a great cost to itself in the interest of protecting fundamental rights. Doubtless it would be easier if the state did not prohibit discrimination, and did not have to provide trials for executions, and could obliterate civilian targets as it saw fit. But these come at the high cost of loss of rights.

"If the legal costs indeed outweigh denying citizens the right to marry, then perhaps the legal process needs to be improved."

by **Robosia** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:10 am

"You forgot to add that nations that don't legally recognize marriage don't have to recognize same-sex marriage. If you add that, then I'll support it."

by **The Great Boom** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:29 am

Robosia wrote:"You forgot to add that nations that don't legally recognize marriage don't have to recognize same-sex marriage. If you add that, then I'll support it."

The resolution does attempt to do exactly that as it's already written,

"3) RESOLVES that any nation which recognizes the concept of marriage or has codified marriage by law must allow adults of consenting age to be formally married in the manner recognized for those who already had access to formally legal marriage,

4) WHEREAS nations that do not recognize the concept of marriage for any permanent resident would not be required to provide formal recognition of a would-be marriage, nor the benefits typically associated, regardless of the sexual orientation of the married individuals,"

The implication of this statement is that nations that do not recognize the concept of marriage aren't required to make any new allowances. However, later in the resolution, it is resolved that if your nation recognizes relationships similar to marriage, like civil unions or in some other form unique to your nation, then your nation must allow all people access to those institutions regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

Was this not clear, or are you saying that even with this language, the resolution still forces nations without the institution of marriage to establish one? Because that wasn't my intent.

[Draft] Marriage Equality Act Redux

[Draft] Marriage Equality Act Redux

Who is online