[Dropped] R Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Separatist Peoples]

In before people not understanding marginal analysis.

You're too late.

[Falcania]

In before people not understanding marginal analysis.

You're too late.

OOC: Every night I pray to heaven to free humanity of economists

[Phydios]

"If the target resolution passes, as expected, Phydios will eagerly support a legal repeal of it."

[Araraukar]

"This repeal is rooted in a deep understanding of the underlying structure of intestacy, tax, and to a lesser extent, family law. Specifically, my objections are out of a desire to prevent either a total failure of the law or unfair advantages by certain individuals over the general population."

"You have yet to explain, beyond some befuddlement of badly worded wills, what exactly the "total failure of law" would be. The resolution that is about to pass, cannot, due to existing resolutions, mandate one way or another anything to do with internal taxation of member nations. If your nation's tax law is such that you fear it could be abused by polygamous groups, wouldn't they have already taken advantage of it? If they haven't already, they most likely won't going forwards either. And nothing is stopping your nation from changing its tax law to close any such loophole."

"This is not the case in a polygamous marriage, where several people can work together to acquire benefits otherwise unavailable."

"And is divorcing and remarrying a completely foreign concept in your nation right now? Spousal support issues do not only happen in relation to multiple partners, but also serial marriages."

"This is most clear in tax law, where one could incorporate additional individuals into a marriage to reduce the overall tax burden of a household."

"Again, simply change your nation's tax laws to prevent that, if it is such a big problem in your nation. Or better yet, abolish any benefit from being or not being married in terms of paying taxes, like Araraukar has, and you won't have any problem. People still get married in Araraukar despite there being no direct financial benefits from it."

"Far worse is the risk of the law utterly failing, as I've explained using the next of kin argument for a person in a coma."

"That, my dear ambassador, is entirely a failing of your own nation's laws, not that of the resolution. If you can determine the next of kin for a non-married individual in a coma, you can determine it for a person with multiple partners as well, and if you cannot, surely your nation is capable of setting a court-mandated guardian of rights for them."

"By permitting member states to recognize, or not, polygamous marriage, one permits member states to evade those conundrums without uprooting entire fields of law, which are the basis of rational, effective policy."

"Such as?"

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Support.

[Slackertown]

While we're at it, let's ban gay couples, they're too complex on the taxes too...

[Lord Dominator]

While we're at it, let's ban gay couples, they're too complex on the taxes too...

False, they fit pretty easily in existing monogamous-designed tax structures if I'm understanding Sep right.

[Aelyria]

"To those claiming that the law, as stated, allows selective interpretation of the 'or': if this is the case, can we not also selectively interpret, say, the word 'civil' to only mean those marriages recognized by the state after their recognition by a religious authority? Why does this disjunction permit alternate interpretation, but other terms do not?"

"As it stands, the current legislation requires that all member nations which have state-recognized marriage must recognize all 'civic marriages,' after having already defined 'civic marriage' to include any number of partners. This is the plain text of the resolution. There is no room for member nations to recognize only marriages of two persons, but not three or more. Either it must recognize no marriages at all, or it must recognize absolutely all 'civic marriage,' and that term explicitly is for any number greater than one person."

"Aelyria supports the repeal, and immediate replacement with a new bill that explicitly permits member states to define the permissible number of participants in a 'civil marriage.' Then each member state may determine for itself whether the consequences of legal polygamy are an acceptable burden, or not."

[Battlion]

Must say, I’m in agreement with Araraukar that if your own law creates loopholes because of WA resolutions then that sounds like a problem with the law in your own country.

[Aelyria]

Must say, I’m in agreement with Araraukar that if your own law creates loopholes because of WA resolutions then that sounds like a problem with the law in your own country.

"In what way does the requirement that polygamy be legalized entail flaws in any given member state's laws? All that matters is that they have literally any form of state-recognized marriage, which now induces a requirement to recognize all 'civic marriages,' and thus all marriages of 'two or more' persons."

[Battlion]

Must say, I’m in agreement with Araraukar that if your own law creates loopholes because of WA resolutions then that sounds like a problem with the law in your own country.

"In what way does the requirement that polygamy be legalized entail flaws in any given member state's laws? All that matters is that they have literally any form of state-recognized marriage, which now induces a requirement to recognize all 'civic marriages,' and thus all marriages of 'two or more' persons."

I simply reject that it’s even a requirement and the GenSec agree on that in the legality challenge.

[The Marconian State]

To the Ambassador for the Separatist Peoples to the WA, while it may be fair to consider that the possibility of polygamy alongside all the problems of law, tax, and all such previously mentioned topics raise concern, it might be fair to consider the caliber of many ambassadors and nations joining you in wanting to repeal GAR#457 are not really thinking about those issues. I'm sure you, like many others, saw the level of bigotry raised in the debate against GAR#457, all of which will be allowed to be hidden behind the excuse of tax problems. Bigotry will be allowed to revel as we are found by all those people who say, "Ooh, ooh, I found a loophole, now I don't have to care about this bill I'm voting against!"

I think the better solution here would be to draft a legislation that deals with the problems you seem to have encountered in DRoSaGM, rather than, as they say, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However much ground has been gained for nonbinary peoples will have been lost for a comparatively minor problem. Have you considered working with the Ambassador from the Nation of Maowi to resolve these issues in another bill rather than repealing 457? I, and my President, believe that would be the best solution.

[Separatist Peoples]

To the Ambassador for the Separatist Peoples to the WA, while it may be fair to consider that the possibility of polygamy alongside all the problems of law, tax, and all such previously mentioned topics raise concern, it might be fair to consider the caliber of many ambassadors and nations joining you in wanting to repeal GAR#457 are not really thinking about those issues. I'm sure you, like many others, saw the level of bigotry raised in the debate against GAR#457, all of which will be allowed to be hidden behind the excuse of tax problems. Bigotry will be allowed to revel as we are found by all those people who say, "Ooh, ooh, I found a loophole, now I don't have to care about this bill I'm voting against!"

I think the better solution here would be to draft a legislation that deals with the problems you seem to have encountered in DRoSaGM, rather than, as they say, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However much ground has been gained for nonbinary peoples will have been lost for a comparatively minor problem. Have you considered working with the Ambassador from the Nation of Maowi to resolve these issues in another bill rather than repealing 457? I, and my President, believe that would be the best solution.

"Until the pending challenge is resolved fully, I will proceed as though the question of polygamy is settled.

"You cannot contradict existing resolutions. This resolution requires member states to recognize polygamous marriage. A new law cannot roll that back without a repeal. What stands to be lost is not minor. What stands to be lost is entire fields of law codifying how societies order themselves. I have absolutely no desire to convolute national laws to accommodate polygamy in later resolutions. Therefore, unless and until the pending challenge officially states that the target resolution does not mandate nations recognize polygamy, nothing short of a repeal will do."

[Muscao]

I would like to support your appeal to repeal this resolution.

[Wallenburg]

"To those claiming that the law, as stated, allows selective interpretation of the 'or': if this is the case, can we not also selectively interpret, say, the word 'civil' to only mean those marriages recognized by the state after their recognition by a religious authority? Why does this disjunction permit alternate interpretation, but other terms do not?"

"As it stands, the current legislation requires that all member nations which have state-recognized marriage must recognize all 'civic marriages,' after having already defined 'civic marriage' to include any number of partners. This is the plain text of the resolution. There is no room for member nations to recognize only marriages of two persons, but not three or more. Either it must recognize no marriages at all, or it must recognize absolutely all 'civic marriage,' and that term explicitly is for any number greater than one person."

"Aelyria supports the repeal, and immediate replacement with a new bill that explicitly permits member states to define the permissible number of participants in a 'civil marriage.' Then each member state may determine for itself whether the consequences of legal polygamy are an acceptable burden, or not."

That would violate "Freedom of Religion" by forcing individuals to adopt the practices of one or another religion in order to exercise a guaranteed right.

[Elyreia]

I have a different interpretation of the polygamous claims - rather than forcing all nations to legalize polygamous marriages, it rather states that they must recognize those marriages where they exist. If a polygamous family immigrated to Elyreia, our laws would not be allowed to revoke that marriage, even though their children will be required to be monogamous. (Sidebar: Monogamy is enforced due to keeping track of lineages, inheritance, and estates of the Princely House, the Four Lordly Houses, and all of their cadet and child branches. Much easier to address.)

I could be misinterpreting, however.

[Gudmund]

Overall I disagree with the original resolution entirely, just for a few different reasons. Considering the very first line disregards the physical differences between male and female, I already thought it was pretty stupid. My nation does not have marriage, so #1 (a, b, c, d) of the original resolution does not apply to me. However, I'm more concerned with the original resolution's explanation of #2 and #3:

2. MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

3. ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion).

This means services/businesses like Boy or Girl scouts will practically not exist due to the enforcement of these 2 rules. For example, the resolution forces nations to punish such organisations if they don't allow any gender except male from joining the boy scouts. Neither will there be separation between sports, since qualifying conditions '...may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.'

This also prevents businesses from hiring only male or female workers for specific roles. Contracting/building companies usually hire all-male since they're often better suited for heavy lifting and dangerous work. I'm not even going to get into the many issues with healthcare that this brings forth.

How this resolution even managed to pass in the first place honestly astounds me.

[Kenmoria]

Overall I disagree with the original resolution entirely, just for a few different reasons. Considering the very first line disregards the physical differences between male and female, I already thought it was pretty stupid. My nation does not have marriage, so #1 (a, b, c, d) of the original resolution does not apply to me. However, I'm more concerned with the original resolution's explanation of #2 and #3:

2. MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

3. ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion).

This means services/businesses like Boy or Girl scouts will practically not exist due to the enforcement of these 2 rules. For example, the resolution forces nations to punish such organisations if they don't allow any gender except male from joining the boy scouts. Neither will there be separation between sports, since qualifying conditions '...may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.'

This also prevents businesses from hiring only male or female workers for specific roles. Contracting/building companies usually hire all-male since they're often better suited for heavy lifting and dangerous work. I'm not even going to get into the many issues with healthcare that this brings forth.

How this resolution even managed to pass in the first place honestly astounds me.

(OOC: That is true. However, luckily, there is a loophole. Although it has to be technically illegal under the law, it only has to be punished ‘as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria’. The punishments for those conditions are grouped under CoCR, GA #35, which does have an exception for compelling practical purposes. Therefore, the fines a nation would have to impose on a business could be lessened to token amounts via this loophole, if the member state claimed a compelling practical purpose, although the actions themselves would still have to be illegal.)

[Gudmund]

(OOC: That is true. However, luckily, there is a loophole. Although it has to be technically illegal under the law, it only has to be punished ‘as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria’. The punishments for those conditions are grouped under CoCR, GA #35, which does have an exception for compelling practical purposes. Therefore, the fines a nation would have to impose on a business could be lessened to token amounts via this loophole, if the member state claimed a compelling practical purpose, although the actions themselves would still have to be illegal.)

Thank you for the explanation, I was only vaguely aware of this beforehand.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Its not a full opinion, but there is a consensus among GenSec that the target does not require polygamy, and that was really my only concern. So, my work here is done, and I can go back to enjoying the social conservative fury.