[ON HOLD; READ THE OP FIRST] Against Bigamy

[Tinhampton]

Will do formatting later - am in an awful hurry right now. This was drafted with the intention of stopping On Plural Unions from potentially becoming international law.

---

Against Bigamy
Moral Decency, Mild
The General Assembly enacts as follows:

1. In this resolution, a "union" means a civil union or a marriage; and "bigamy" is the act of a person (A) entering into a union with any other person (B), where A is already a party to one union that has not been dissolved at the time of their union with B.
2. All member states must criminalise bigamy, and must not recognise any union which results in any of its parties becoming bigamous.
3. Notwithstanding Articles a and b, the power to determine the maximum number of people who can form a single union shall be reserved to member states; but nothing in this resolution shall require any member to recognise any form of union.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

This has my support.

[Separatist Peoples]

"There is truly no reason to internationally ban bigamy and not polyamory. Opposed."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"There is truly no reason to internationally ban bigamy and not polyamory. Opposed."

EMW: We concur.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Does this really justify an emergency draft, mate?

[False Dichotomy]

"How ridiculous. Opposed."

[Kenmoria]

“Why? What harm does bigamy cause if all participants are consenting and perfectly happy with the arrangement? It seems complicated and prone to relationship breakdown, but I’m sure that there are some who are capable of making it work.”

[The New Nordic Union]

'If I read the proposal correctly, no one can be in two unions at the same time, however, how many people form a union is for the member states to decide? Therefore, three or more people being married (to each other) is explicitly not forbidden, but being in two marriages is?'

[Ardiveds]

OOC: So what if three people, none of them in any union, together decide to have a threesome marriage?

[Tinhampton]

'If I read the proposal correctly, no one can be in two unions at the same time, however, how many people form a union is for the member states to decide? Therefore, three or more people being married (to each other) is explicitly not forbidden, but being in two marriages is?'

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of WA Delegate-Ambassador: You've got the correct reading there, Katie Something*.

OOC: So what if three people, none of them in any union, together decide to have a threesome marriage?

That would be allowed if a member government allowed three people to marry, a decision this resolution would empower them to make.

OOC:
Does this really justify an emergency draft, mate?

This is not technically an emergency; none of Aeravahn Reborn's proposals ever appear to have been submitted. This is, however, a blocker.

---

(*Yes, I know that the Nordic Ambassador is not actually called Katie Something; Anderson is starting to build a bit of a reputation for vaguely confusing people and is broadly bad at pronouncing "foreign-y" names )

[Maowi]

"Why the outright ban? Is there something morally disturbing to you about polygamy, ambassador? And if your only concern is the hassle that unions of several people could cause to national governments, why do you not wish even to allow individual states to decide whether they find the freedom of their citizens worth the trouble?"

[Tinhampton]

"Why the outright ban? Is there something morally disturbing to you about polygamy, ambassador? And if your only concern is the hassle that unions of several people could cause to national governments, why do you not wish even to allow individual states to decide whether they find the freedom of their citizens worth the trouble?"

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Doctor Yurilevich, my colleague Mrs Anderson's concern is with bigamy, it is not with polygamy. The matter of whether two people, three people, or more than that should be able to get married - or if they can do so at all - remains in the hands of member states. Her main concern with bigamy is infidelity and such of the like, although you should expect that from a pious woman like herself.

[Kenmoria]

"Why the outright ban? Is there something morally disturbing to you about polygamy, ambassador? And if your only concern is the hassle that unions of several people could cause to national governments, why do you not wish even to allow individual states to decide whether they find the freedom of their citizens worth the trouble?"

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Doctor Yurilevich, my colleague Mrs Anderson's concern is with bigamy, it is not with polygamy. The matter of whether two people, three people, or more than that should be able to get married - or if they can do so at all - remains in the hands of member states. Her main concern with bigamy is infidelity and such of the like, although you should expect that from a pious woman like herself.

“Infidelity does not violate any basic rights, and is not an issue with international scope. Therefore, I can’t see the need for the General Assembly to have legislation addressing this ‘issue’.”

[Maowi]

"In addition to Ambassador Lewitt's point, which is I believe the crucial one here, your proposed legislation criminalises bigamy even with the consent of all parties involved, including the other person in the prior, undissolved union. This does not align with your stated aim."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"There is truly no reason to internationally ban bigamy and not polyamory. Opposed."

EMW: We concur.

We also agree. There is no sound reason for this body to further meddle in matters that are best left to the sound discretion of member states to regulate according to the traditions and mores of their societies.

[Tinfect]

This is not technically an emergency; none of Aeravahn Reborn's proposals ever appear to have been submitted.

OOC:
You know, it's probably disadvantageous to remind you that Aeravahn Reborn is a puppet of mine, (See: it's signature,) but for the record I do intend to move forward with both of its drafts.

[WayNeacTia]

"There is truly no reason to internationally ban bigamy and not polyamory. Opposed."

"I concur as well. There is nothing here, even remotely resembling an international issue."

Wayne

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

"We concur with the general sentiment.

"If bigamy is entered into knowingly and wholly consensually by those who have reached the age of majority, we do not see the need to mandate that nations must interfere in their affairs.

"As with the opposite number to this draft, we would like to state that this draft is heavy-handed and over-reaching in the way it interferes in national customs. We would likewise suggest to the delegate of Tinhampton that the WA has nations with non-human populations, some of which are biologically polygamous (elk, lions and red deer, for example). It does not seem that that the business of the WA ought to be to force the citizens of member states to fight their very nature.

"We stand opposed."

EDIT: OOC: Cheating, if that's what this is aimed to prevent, is a terrible thing. But it's inappropriate to try and prevent it by international law. It would be like making laws to jail love-rats and banning adultery on penalty of hard-labour. People would become more furtive, yes. But it wouldn't stop anything and it wouldn't be a good use of lawmakers' time or resources. And we'd definitely say it was over-reaching.

[Tinhampton]

attn Bluestockings: This resolution is not designed to outlaw cheating, adultery, FBs (make of that what you will), open relationships, or such of the like. It is designed to prevent situations where a person is party to two or more marriage contracts at the same time.

[Maralania]

Will do formatting later - am in an awful hurry right now. This was drafted with the intention of stopping On Plural Unions from potentially becoming international law.

---

Against Bigamy
Moral Decency, Mild
The General Assembly enacts as follows:

1. In this resolution, a "union" means a civil union or a marriage; and "bigamy" is the act of a person (A) entering into a union with any other person (B), where A is already a party to one union that has not been dissolved at the time of their union with B.
2. All member states must criminalise bigamy, and must not recognise any union which results in any of its parties becoming bigamous.
3. Notwithstanding Articles a and b, the power to determine the maximum number of people who can form a single union shall be reserved to member states; but nothing in this resolution shall require any member to recognise any form of union.

Probably it will be necessary to clarify the exact extension of the word "person"´s meaning. Are we talking about a "person" as numerically individual living being or as some other thing like, for example, a juridical person which may consists of a set containing numerically plural entities?

I think it is not very clear what this draft of a resolution pretends to do, especially if in its point c) let "number of people who can form a single union" at the entire will of national legislations.

[Tinhampton]

Against Bigamy

Probably it will be necessary to clarify the exact extension of the word "person"´s meaning. Are we talking about a "person" as numerically individual living being or as some other thing like, for example, a juridical person which may consists of a set containing numerically plural entities?

I think it is not very clear what this draft of a resolution pretends to do, especially if in its point c) let "number of people who can form a single union" at the entire will of national legislations.

A legal person cannot get married; you and me, on the other hand, can tie the knot. I may change "person" to "individual" in a future draft if enough people - of what kind does not matter - complain about it. Does Article 7 of GA#443 prevent the extradition of entire companies to territories that allow capital punishment?

This is a resolution to outlaw bigamy (not cheating or polygamy - and member states can indeed choose whether or not to allow polygamy as per Article c), as you can see.

[Kenmoria]

“Even assuming that entering into two marriages ought to be prohibited, criminalisation seems over-the-top. The main difficulties with a person in two marriages appear to be administrative: division of assets in divorce, inheritance laws, and so on. Such difficulties do not appear to warrant a criminal penalty.”

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

attn Bluestockings: This resolution is not designed to outlaw cheating, adultery, FBs (make of that what you will), open relationships, or such of the like. It is designed to prevent situations where a person is party to two or more marriage contracts at the same time.

"It still seems like this falls outside the scope of international law. Entering into two marriage contracts is problematic with regards to inheritance and child custody and other such matters, but could also conceivably happen inadvertently -- for example, if one party thought their spouse had died as a result of war and subsequently remarried (only for their first spouse to later return).

"It seems to be a matter that can be legislated locally, and not to require mandated criminal legislation."

[Separatist Peoples]

“Even assuming that entering into two marriages ought to be prohibited, criminalisation seems over-the-top. The main difficulties with a person in two marriages appear to be administrative: division of assets in divorce, inheritance laws, and so on. Such difficulties do not appear to warrant a criminal penalty.”

"Indeed. Bigamy is only illegal in the C.D.S.P. when it is done fraudulently in an effort to scam or con victims. Bigamy in general legally nullifies the prior marriage but entitles that victim, for lack of a better word, to marital and child support as though they had been divorced. All the benefits of both annulment and divorce, none of the costs."

[Separatist Peoples]

attn Bluestockings: This resolution is not designed to outlaw cheating, adultery, FBs (make of that what you will), open relationships, or such of the like. It is designed to prevent situations where a person is party to two or more marriage contracts at the same time.

"It still seems like this falls outside the scope of international law. Entering into two marriage contracts is problematic with regards to inheritance and child custody and other such matters, but could also conceivably happen inadvertently -- for example, if one party thought their spouse had died as a result of war and subsequently remarried (only for their first spouse to later return).

"It seems to be a matter that can be legislated locally, and not to require mandated criminal legislation."

"We disagree. The World Assembly has an active interest in redressing wrongs not only perpetrated by states, but willfully ignored by them."