NATION

PASSWORD

Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should WA member states be required to recognize gay marriages?

Yes
68
69%
No
30
31%
 
Total votes : 98

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:08 pm

Just that the parameters it introduces are imprecise to the point of meaninglessness. It applies to "civil contracts" and lists the duties of "the State" in granting them to couples, while excluding religious conditions for participating in "rites." "Civil contracts" is not defined. Are they necessarily afforded by the State, or can nations outsource the recognition of marriage to churches and safely escape this resolution's mandate? What if the churches are state churches? As agents of the State, is it their responsibility to abide by the conventions set for the State? What if the State recognizes the church as the official religion, but retains no control over its governance? The resolution is just far too vague and/or silent on all these points, which is why it was so hard to determine whether B+N's actions at the time were legal.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
EvilGirnia
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Dec 22, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby EvilGirnia » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:35 pm

Okay, valid points. But do you think that there is a way to fix those problems? I mean, from what I understand, it forces governments to recognize that gay couples are just as valid as straight couples. In the case that the church is a government body, wouldn't the church be held to the same rules as the government? It would just be another department. They can let the churches define what they want, but in all legal matters, gay couples and straight couples must be treated the same.

EDIT: Oops, wrong nation.. This is Rawrgirnia
Last edited by EvilGirnia on Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:49 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Oh, is that how we set legislative policy in the WA now? By nonbinding forum polls? Awesome, I guess half the things I introduced before may now be repealed, seeing how most of them failed at forum vote. :roll:

Try not to be deliberately disingenuous. Christian Democrats (who is against the Act) seemed to think the poll numbers were significant. To the extent they show a trend toward increased support for the Freedom of Marriage Act, I think that is great but it is completely unscientific AND NO ONE IS SAYING IT IS BINDING OR SETS WA POLICY.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Rawrgirnia wrote:For good reason, too! It was a hard battle to attain those rights. If you attempt to remove them, your nation will be seen as an enemy of equality and human rights.

Really? You were around in the summer of '08 when this passed? You can speak with authority about how easy or hard it was to pass it? It was a single vote, swiftly adopted because it had a popular title. Moreover, I am sick and tired of the continuing assumption that because this resolution has a fluffy title, it automatically makes it a good resolution.
Freedom of Marriage Act is a horrid resolution, plagued by legalese and ambiguous mandates; it was hard to tell if any nation was in compliance with it at all. Note that Brutland and Norden sought to get around this resolution by discontinuing all state-sponsored marriages...to this day I sill don't know if that was a legit response.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Just that the parameters it introduces are imprecise to the point of meaninglessness. It applies to "civil contracts" and lists the duties of "the State" in granting them to couples, while excluding religious conditions for participating in "rites." "Civil contracts" is not defined. Are they necessarily afforded by the State, or can nations outsource the recognition of marriage to churches and safely escape this resolution's mandate? What if the churches are state churches? As agents of the State, is it their responsibility to abide by the conventions set for the State? What if the State recognizes the church as the official religion, but retains no control over its governance? The resolution is just far too vague and/or silent on all these points, which is why it was so hard to determine whether B+N's actions at the time were legal.

Freedom of Marriage Act wrote:(emphasis added)
Freedom of Marriage Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Mendosia

Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,

DETERMINED to further the rights of persons that have been oppressed and discriminated against for ages,

RESOLVED to provide a legal framework that enhances the social recognition of these minorities,

RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,

ADOPT the following resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

(b) The protection referred to in the previous section does not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.

(c) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence.

Article 3 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections
.

Votes For: 5,506
Votes Against: 4,393

Implemented Wed Sep 3 2008

[WAR15 on NS] [WAR15 on NSwiki] [Official Debate Topic]


All passed resolutions can be nit-picked and hypothesized to death, but your objections fall flat when compared to the actual language of the resolution above. (By the way, complaining that a resolution is too imprecise and vague and at the same time "plagued by legalese" is a tad incongruous from the beginning.) Regardless, your supposed "silent" issues are clearly answered in the resolution. For example,

1. "Civil contracts" is not such a bizarre and foreign concept that it needs to be defined -- especially in the context of the resolution which makes clear it refers to the union of two persons in a relationship.

2. Any nation that had marriage and then abolishes it after the Act was passed is clearly in violation in the Act -- at least Article 2 (c) (which would then trigger other parts of the Act.

3. Article 2 (a) is crystal clear as to what the state must provide: " the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." No "outsourcing" or other shenanigans can escape this requirement. Similarly, if a state (by whatever means) recognizes any form of marriage or civil union it must recognize same-sex marriages. (Article 3).

4. The "loophole" regarding religious marriage (to the extent their is one) is limited to "the celebration of rites within religious communities." Not the actual trappings or existences of marital status but the RITES of marrige ceremonies.

If you don't like the resolution's wording, suggest a better one and we'll consider it. But your jumping in on something CD said and treating it like it was THE reason the Act should exist is being silly AND your objections are simply untrue or ill-conceived.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:59 pm

Also, Kenny's objections don't seem to have anything to do with the homophobia of CD's repeal... so I'd recommend that he repeal it himself if wants it replaced, instead of having others confuse his position with this junk. Of course, my recommendations don't mean squat to Kenny, yet I digress.
Last edited by Unibot on Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:21 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Try not to be deliberately disingenuous. Christian Democrats (who is against the Act) seemed to think the poll numbers were significant. To the extent they show a trend toward increased support for the Freedom of Marriage Act, I think that is great but it is completely unscientific AND NO ONE IS SAYING IT IS BINDING OR SETS WA POLICY.

Sarcasm eludes you.

1. "Civil contracts" is not such a bizarre and foreign concept that it needs to be defined -- especially in the context of the resolution which makes clear it refers to the union of two persons in a relationship.

We apparently define "civil contracts" differently, as I always understood the term to mean those recognized by a civil government.

2. Any nation that had marriage and then abolishes it after the Act was passed is clearly in violation in the Act -- at least Article 2 (c) (which would then trigger other parts of the Act.

Which directly flies in the face of the rule that resolutions apply equally to all members. If Flibbleites, a marriage-free society, can outlaw marriage and remain in compliance, then Brutland and Norden must also be able to do so. If you're suggesting under 2(c) that B+N must grandfather in all existing unions, fine, but you can't force one nation to keep civil marriage while allowing another to continue to ignore it. If Freedom of Marriage Act contained a clause forcing Flibbleites to institute civil marriage, that would be a different story, but it doesn't.

3. Article 2 (a) is crystal clear as to what the state must provide: " the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." No "outsourcing" or other shenanigans can escape this requirement. Similarly, if a state (by whatever means) recognizes any form of marriage or civil union it must recognize same-sex marriages. (Article 3).

Or, conversely, it could recognize no form of marriage and leave it up to the church. Do you see where I'm going here? (Or, more accurately, where B+N was going?)

4. The "loophole" regarding religious marriage (to the extent their is one) is limited to "the celebration of rites within religious communities." Not the actual trappings or existences of marital status but the RITES of marrige ceremonies.

Rites, exactly. If a church performs a rite for only some and the state refuses to recognize it for anyone, there's not much this resolution can do to force the churches to institute same-sex marriage. Probate courts will be under no obligation to respect the terms of privately afforded marriages, and will probably be directed to ignore them altogether, so in these cases I dearly hope the deceased thought to make out a will.

If you don't like the resolution's wording, suggest a better one and we'll consider it. But your jumping in on something CD said and treating it like it was THE reason the Act should exist is being silly AND your objections are simply untrue or ill-conceived.

Like I said, sarcasm eludes you. I couldn't care less if this act exists or not; I was simply stating for the record that the act is shit.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:29 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Try not to be deliberately disingenuous. Christian Democrats (who is against the Act) seemed to think the poll numbers were significant. To the extent they show a trend toward increased support for the Freedom of Marriage Act, I think that is great but it is completely unscientific AND NO ONE IS SAYING IT IS BINDING OR SETS WA POLICY.

Sarcasm eludes you.

1. "Civil contracts" is not such a bizarre and foreign concept that it needs to be defined -- especially in the context of the resolution which makes clear it refers to the union of two persons in a relationship.

We apparently define "civil contracts" differently, as I always understood the term to mean those recognized by a civil government.
2. Any nation that had marriage and then abolishes it after the Act was passed is clearly in violation in the Act -- at least Article 2 (c) (which would then trigger other parts of the Act.

Which directly flies in the face of the rule that resolutions apply equally to all members. If Flibbleites, a marriage-free society, can outlaw marriage and remain in compliance, then Brutland and Norden must also be able to do so. If you're suggesting under 2(c) that B+N must grandfather in all existing unions, fine, but you can't force one nation to keep civil marriage while allowing another to continue to ignore it. If Freedom of Marriage Act contained a clause forcing Flibbleites to institute civil marriage, that would be a different story, but it doesn't.
3. Article 2 (a) is crystal clear as to what the state must provide: "the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." No "outsourcing" or other shenanigans can escape this requirement. Similarly, if a state (by whatever means) recognizes any form of marriage or civil union it must recognize same-sex marriages. (Article 3).

Or, conversely, it could recognize no form of marriage and leave it up to the church. Do you see where I'm going here? (Or, more accurately, where B+N was going?)
4. The "loophole" regarding religious marriage (to the extent their is one) is limited to "the celebration of rites within religious communities." Not the actual trappings or existences of marital status but the RITES of marrige ceremonies.

Rites, exactly. If a church performs a rite for only some and the state refuses to recognize it for anyone, there's not much this resolution can do to force the churches to institute same-sex marriage. Probate courts will be under no obligation to respect the terms of privately afforded marriages, and will probably be directed to ignore them altogether, so in these cases I dearly hope the deceased thought to make out a will.

If you don't like the resolution's wording, suggest a better one and we'll consider it. But your jumping in on something CD said and treating it like it was THE reason the Act should exist is being silly AND your objections are simply untrue or ill-conceived.

Like I said, sarcasm eludes you. I couldn't care less if this act exists or not; I was simply stating for the record that the act is shit.

Sarcasm may elude me, but plain English eludes you. With all due respect to B+N, Article 2(a) requires the State to provide "the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." You can call that "marriage," "civil unions," or "hula hoops," but the State must provide it. You cannot escape the effects of the Act by "recognizing no form of marriage."

Moreover, even if that were possible (and it isn't), it is absurd. It is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. What purpose does a "religious rite" of marriage serve if it has no civil consequences whatsoever? How are all the usually hundreds to thousands of rights and privileges associated with marriage going to be handled without either (a) denying them altogher to everyone -- no visitation in hospital rights, no inheritance, no community property, etc; (b) violating some part of Article 3 of the Act; or (c) recognizing same-sex marriage rights?

Meaningless objections to meaningful, well-written progressive legislation are what "is shit."
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Just Guy
Envoy
 
Posts: 309
Founded: Sep 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Just Guy » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:43 am

CD, regardless of my position on this, please don't abandon it. If you make good, sound arguments, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with you. Listen to suggestions and you could write a great repeal.
Elindra doing the Defenders' propaganda for the day:
Kshrlmnt wrote:
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Defenders are naturally disadvantaged in NationStates

One thing I like about raiding.

User avatar
New Azura
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5304
Founded: Jun 22, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby New Azura » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:16 am

Just Guy wrote:CD, regardless of my position on this, please don't abandon it. If you make good, sound arguments, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with you. Listen to suggestions and you could write a great repeal.


I agree 100%. The "threat of force" demonstrated to get you to abandon legislation is pretty bush league, IMO, and should be ignored. Spruce it up a bit and resubmit. A repeal really needs to be based on the sovereignty of the nations, for I think that's the real problem with the resolution. It should be the sovereign decision of each individual state to recognize gay marriage within their borders. However, a new resolution should also call upon all WA nations to recognize the legality of gay marriages in other WA-nations that choose to legalize such unions, and to not interfere with said processes. If you want to get a little further out, add a section where WA-nations will recognize gay marriages performed in other WA-nations that permit those unions if you wish.
THEEVENGUARDOFAZURA
UNEFLEURPOURLECOLOSSE

— A PROUD MEMBER OF GREATER DIENSTAD

THEDOMINIONOFTHERITHOS
CAPITAL:ISAURA (TSYION)DEMONYM:AZURGOVERNMENT:IMPERIAL THEOCRACYLANGUAGE:CIRAZUR

Her Graceful Excellence the Phaedra
CALIXTEIMARAUDER
By the Grace of the Lord God, the Daughter of Tsyion, Spirited Maiden, First Matron of House Vardanyan
Imperatrix of the Evenguard of Azura and Sovereign Over Her Dependencies, the Governess of Isaura
and the Defender of the Children of Azura


— Current Roleplays —
Congress of Ishikawa|Summit Tsyion 2016

— Multilateral Agreements —
CAPINTERN|Global Aerospace Trade Association|The Western Pact

— Controlled Nations —
Azura, Lexmark, New Azura

— Other Supported Regions —
Astyria (PT | MT), Teremara (P/MT | FT), The Local Cluster (FT)

— Roleplay Tech Levels —
[PT][MT][PMT][FT][FanT]

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:02 am

We should point out that even if the FoMA is repealed this will not mean that member states may return to the bad old days of discriminating against homosexual couples in only recognising the civil unions or marriages of heterosexual persons.

The CoCR would make it absolutely and completely illegal to recognise couples who happen to be heterosexual in rights which were denied to homosexual couples.


We remain thoroughly opposed to this repeal however, and have always opposed passed attempts to repeal it.


Yours,
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:07 am

Just Guy wrote:CD, regardless of my position on this, please don't abandon it. If you make good, sound arguments, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with you. Listen to suggestions and you could write a great repeal.


New Azura wrote:
Just Guy wrote:CD, regardless of my position on this, please don't abandon it. If you make good, sound arguments, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would agree with you. Listen to suggestions and you could write a great repeal.


I agree 100%. The "threat of force" demonstrated to get you to abandon legislation is pretty bush league, IMO, and should be ignored. Spruce it up a bit and resubmit. A repeal really needs to be based on the sovereignty of the nations, for I think that's the real problem with the resolution. It should be the sovereign decision of each individual state to recognize gay marriage within their borders. However, a new resolution should also call upon all WA nations to recognize the legality of gay marriages in other WA-nations that choose to legalize such unions, and to not interfere with said processes. If you want to get a little further out, add a section where WA-nations will recognize gay marriages performed in other WA-nations that permit those unions if you wish.


I missed the "threat[s] of force" and would denounce any that occurred.

However, I clearly disagree that you should waste more time pounding sand down this rathole. It will not succeed. And it demeans you.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
New Azura
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5304
Founded: Jun 22, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby New Azura » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:10 am

Urgench wrote:We should point out that even if the FoMA is repealed this will not mean that member states may return to the bad old days of discriminating against homosexual couples in only recognising the civil unions or marriages of heterosexual persons.

The CoCR would make it absolutely and completely illegal to recognise couples who happen to be heterosexual in rights which were denied to homosexual couples.


We remain thoroughly opposed to this repeal however, and have always opposed passed attempts to repeal it.


Yours,


Is there precedent for a repeal & reform tandem resolution? A resolution which repeals while reforming the bill to be more concise and clear-cut? You can still preserve the integrity of FoMA while ensuring the sovereignty of the WA nations, though FoMA advocates would probably (maybe rightly so) view it as a step backwards, not forwards. This is a tough road to climb, I'm afraid.

@ the Cat-Tribe: The threat entails the nations who threatened to raid CD's region for even attempting this repeal. And good sir, if you can't see the threat in that, it is you who demeans this thread.
THEEVENGUARDOFAZURA
UNEFLEURPOURLECOLOSSE

— A PROUD MEMBER OF GREATER DIENSTAD

THEDOMINIONOFTHERITHOS
CAPITAL:ISAURA (TSYION)DEMONYM:AZURGOVERNMENT:IMPERIAL THEOCRACYLANGUAGE:CIRAZUR

Her Graceful Excellence the Phaedra
CALIXTEIMARAUDER
By the Grace of the Lord God, the Daughter of Tsyion, Spirited Maiden, First Matron of House Vardanyan
Imperatrix of the Evenguard of Azura and Sovereign Over Her Dependencies, the Governess of Isaura
and the Defender of the Children of Azura


— Current Roleplays —
Congress of Ishikawa|Summit Tsyion 2016

— Multilateral Agreements —
CAPINTERN|Global Aerospace Trade Association|The Western Pact

— Controlled Nations —
Azura, Lexmark, New Azura

— Other Supported Regions —
Astyria (PT | MT), Teremara (P/MT | FT), The Local Cluster (FT)

— Roleplay Tech Levels —
[PT][MT][PMT][FT][FanT]

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:12 am

New Azura wrote:@ the Cat-Tribe: The threat entails the nations who threatened to raid CD's region for even attempting this repeal. And good sir, if you can't see the threat in that, it is you who demeans this thread.


I merely meant I had not read that part of the thread. Clearly that is a threat and unworthy of the WA. I join in your disgust.

Otherwise, calm down, good sir. Aim your cannons in the right direction.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:22 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Sarcasm may elude me, but plain English eludes you. With all due respect to B+N, Article 2(a) requires the State to provide "the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." You can call that "marriage," "civil unions," or "hula hoops," but the State must provide it. You cannot escape the effects of the Act by "recognizing no form of marriage."

Nope, it mustn't provide "unions"; it must provide "minimum conditions to protect" such unions. And if the unions don't exist, there's not much it can protect.

Is there precedent for a repeal & reform tandem resolution? A resolution which repeals while reforming the bill to be more concise and clear-cut?

Illegal. Repeals can only repeal.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:30 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Sarcasm may elude me, but plain English eludes you. With all due respect to B+N, Article 2(a) requires the State to provide "the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union." You can call that "marriage," "civil unions," or "hula hoops," but the State must provide it. You cannot escape the effects of the Act by "recognizing no form of marriage."

Nope, it mustn't provide "unions"; it must provide "minimum conditions to protect" such unions. And if the unions don't exist, there's not much it can protect.


Even disregarding the context of the rest of the Act and the preliminary statements, that is an incredibly disingenuous and downright dishonest reading of a clear mandate. You are assuming "the union of two persons" means some specific legal ceremony or ritual or status. The language does not say that. (If it did, you'd be screwed that way as well, but that is not relevant.)

The State must provide at least "minimum conditions" to protect two person in a relationship including "the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights" of said couple.

These semantic games are beneath you.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:05 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Even disregarding the context of the rest of the Act and the preliminary statements, that is an incredibly disingenuous and downright dishonest reading of a clear mandate. You are assuming "the union of two persons" means some specific legal ceremony or ritual or status.

Only because that is what the resolution limits itself to: "civil contracts."

The State must provide at least "minimum conditions" to protect two person in a relationship including "the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights" of said couple.

These semantic games are beneath you.

:rofl:

Have we met?

At any rate, you are the one playing silly semantic games, if you can honestly read the very first clause, containing the proviso "civil contracts", and assume it to mean that the state must protect any union, formal or informal, that could conceivably exist within a nation, including high-school sweethearts or couples just shacking up. Those relationships would carry no more legal weight in (to pick on Flib again) Flibbleites than couples who have made an informal life commitment to each other. If the state will not extend civil contracts to these couples, so long as they regard all couples equally (i.e., no civil contracts for any of them), what is there for you or the WA to do about it? Nothing.
Last edited by Omigodtheykilledkenny on Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:11 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
1. "Civil contracts" is not such a bizarre and foreign concept that it needs to be defined -- especially in the context of the resolution which makes clear it refers to the union of two persons in a relationship.

We apparently define "civil contracts" differently, as I always understood the term to mean those recognized by a civil government.


1. Per Article 2(a) these contracts must be recognized by the civil government. Thus your argument vanishes.

2. Moreover, "civil contracts" as a phrase refers simply to contracts "relating to the state or its citizenry" OR "relating to private rights and remedies [to be] sought by civil actions as contrasted with criminal proceedings." "civil" Black's Law Dictionary 222 (5th Ed. 1979); see also "civil" Black's Law Dictionary 279 (9th Ed. 2009) ("1. Of or relating to the state or its citizenry. 2. Of or relating to private rights and remedies that are sought by action or suit, as distinct from criminal proceedings. ..." A contract is "[a]n agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing." "contract" Black's Law Dictionary 293 (5th Ed. 1979). More specifically, a contract is "[a]n agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law. ... Loosely, an enforceable agreement between two or more parties to do or not to do a thing or set of things; a compact." "contract" Black's Law Dictionary 365-366 (9th Ed. 2009). Even more specifically, a marriage contract is simply "[a] form of mutual consent required for a matrimonial relationship to exist according to the law of the place where the consent takes place." "marriage contract" Black's Law Dictionary 371 (9th Ed. 2009). Cf. How to write a civil contract.

Unless a nation bans the concept of contracts altogher, never has recognized marriage, and does not recognize or give any form of benefits, privileges, or recognition to unions or contracts between two individuals regarding common estates, inheritance, etc., a nation cannot escape the requirement that they recognize contractual unions between same-sex couples.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:14 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Even disregarding the context of the rest of the Act and the preliminary statements, that is an incredibly disingenuous and downright dishonest reading of a clear mandate. You are assuming "the union of two persons" means some specific legal ceremony or ritual or status.

Only because that is what the resolution limits itself to: "civil contracts."

The State must provide at least "minimum conditions" to protect two person in a relationship including "the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights" of said couple.

These semantic games are beneath you.

:rofl:

Have we met?

At any rate, you are the one playing silly semantic games, if you can honestly read the very first clause, containing the proviso "civil contracts", and assume it to mean that the state must protect any union, formal or informal, that could conceivably exist within a nation, including high-school sweethearts or couples just shacking up. Those relationships would carry no more legal weight in (to pick on Flib again) Flibbleites than couples who have made an informal life commitment to each other. If the state will not extend civil contracts to these couples, so long as they regard all couples equally (i.e., no civil contracts for any of them), what is there for you or the WA to do about it? Nothing.


See my next post. It anticipates and shreds this argument.

Note: A contract is not a big ceremony or something requiring the blessing of the state to begin with. It is merely a mutual agreement between the parties. Here it must include provisions related to a common estate and inheritence.

EDIT2: So, in your mind, the "must provide ..." provision has no meaning whatsover -- even though it doesn't use the terms marriage, civil contracts, unions, or any of the other phrases you are claiming as escape clauses?
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:15 am

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 39

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,

RECOGNIZING that legal unions of marriage vary among member nations and include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including nationally recognized effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the parties,

[...]

6) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.



Kryozerkia wrote:
Sionis Prioratus wrote:
Besides being A SHIPMENT OF FAIL, it's illegal:

Red parts: FALSE. Mod Ruling.


Blue parts: Repeal based on NatSov.

Thank you. That saves me time, and best of all, that's my ruling. Now to enforce it. ;)

EDIT - While reading over res #15, while it does specifically say "two persons", however, it doesn't say that the government is to limit marriages to just two persons.
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:43 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Rawrgirnia wrote:For good reason, too! It was a hard battle to attain those rights. If you attempt to remove them, your nation will be seen as an enemy of equality and human rights.

Really? You were around in the summer of '08 when this passed? You can speak with authority about how easy or hard it was to pass it? It was a single vote, swiftly adopted because it had a popular title. Moreover, I am sick and tired of the continuing assumption that because this resolution has a fluffy title, it automatically makes it a good resolution. Freedom of Marriage Act is a horrid resolution, plagued by legalese and ambiguous mandates; it was hard to tell if any nation was in compliance with it at all. Note that Brutland and Norden sought to get around this resolution by discontinuing all state-sponsored marriages...to this day I sill don't know if that was a legit response.

^ i.e., marriage privatization
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:49 am

EvilGirnia wrote:Okay, valid points. But do you think that there is a way to fix those problems? I mean, from what I understand, it forces governments to recognize that gay couples are just as valid as straight couples. In the case that the church is a government body, wouldn't the church be held to the same rules as the government? It would just be another department. They can let the churches define what they want, but in all legal matters, gay couples and straight couples must be treated the same.

EDIT: Oops, wrong nation.. This is Rawrgirnia

I my country, the government is a department of the Church.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:54 am

Unibot wrote:Also, Kenny's objections don't seem to have anything to do with the homophobia of CD's repeal... so I'd recommend that he repeal it himself if wants it replaced, instead of having others confuse his position with this junk. Of course, my recommendations don't mean squat to Kenny, yet I digress.

Homophobia? I pointed out that there was a legitimate state interest in promoting only heterosexual relationships because such relationships are the only kind that can produce children. (Granting benefits to gay and lesbian couples draws away resources that could be used to help heterosexual married couples raise their children.)
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:59 am

New Azura wrote:A repeal really needs to be based on the sovereignty of the nations

Hence, my wording of the poll question.

Under current rules ( :palm: ), a purely NatSov argument can't be used.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:02 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Unibot wrote:Also, Kenny's objections don't seem to have anything to do with the homophobia of CD's repeal... so I'd recommend that he repeal it himself if wants it replaced, instead of having others confuse his position with this junk. Of course, my recommendations don't mean squat to Kenny, yet I digress.

Homophobia? I pointed out that there was a legitimate state interest in promoting only heterosexual relationships because such relationships are the only kind that can produce children. (Granting benefits to gay and lesbian couples draws away resources that could be used to help heterosexual married couples raise their children.)


Has not Your Excellency ever heard that sperm and ova can be created from stem cells, or about ectogenesis (gestation outside a womb)? How does Your Excellency think that my Father, The Late King, brought into the world some of my siblings, fruits from the Holy Union with some of his husbands?

Yours in fostering comprehension,
Last edited by Sionis Prioratus on Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:09 am

As was done in the Security Council concerning NAZI EUROPE, should we attempt a repeal of FOMA and simultaneously create replacement legislation requiring nations, at minimum, to recognize civil contracts between two people (i.e., domestic partnerships)?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Rawrgirnia
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Aug 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Rawrgirnia » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:11 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
EvilGirnia wrote:Okay, valid points. But do you think that there is a way to fix those problems? I mean, from what I understand, it forces governments to recognize that gay couples are just as valid as straight couples. In the case that the church is a government body, wouldn't the church be held to the same rules as the government? It would just be another department. They can let the churches define what they want, but in all legal matters, gay couples and straight couples must be treated the same.

EDIT: Oops, wrong nation.. This is Rawrgirnia

I my country, the government is a department of the Church.



It is the ruling body, and therefore must follow the rules. Your church didn't have to join the WA.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lexusa

Advertisement

Remove ads