Advertisement
by Urgench » Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:16 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Well, at least you're not screaming "homophobe!!" every other post anymore; that's a start.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:At the time, I was more concerned with a lack of a sexual privacy act, meaning couples could show up to get married, than be thrown in the clink for sodomy, but to Mendosia's credit he wrote a sexual privacy resolution soon after that. I just found it frustrating that I couldn't figure out from a simple reading of FOMA whether or not the loophole B+N tried to exploit even existed. TCT's reading seems to suggest that it doesn't, but I don't think players should have to consult Black's Law Dictionary just to find out if their nation is in compliance with a resolution or not.
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:21 pm
Urgench wrote:I can see a good argument for why many players should have to read Black's Law Dictionary before they even start playing the WA but that's beside the point
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:12 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Kenny is correct - if you want to discuss a replacement of FOMA, you should do so in a new thread.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:32 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Urgench wrote:OOC (my god I've been driven to OOC a lot recently) I was around at the time, and was privy to the private views of Mendosia whom I gave some degree of assistance in passing this resolution. Mendosia was relatively un-concerned (by which I mean he was less outraged and furious) that member states like B&N simply refuse to recognise all marriages, I was less convinced that the wording of his resolution allowed that to be the case and would probably agree with TCT's reading of it.
In any case I can see your point about some of its ambiguities, and if I was convinced anyone in the WA currently writing resolutions (SP being on hiatus, among others, and Mousey probably wouldn't be interested in it) is up to the task of writing something better I would proobably support a repeal, but there isn't anyone currently writing resolutions who is up to the task of drafting a better replacement for the FoMA, so I'm both personally, and from an IC perspective opposed to a repeal.
Well, at least you're not screaming "homophobe!!" every other post anymore; that's a start.
At the time, I was more concerned with a lack of a sexual privacy act, meaning couples could show up to get married, than be thrown in the clink for sodomy, but to Mendosia's credit he wrote a sexual privacy resolution soon after that. I just found it frustrating that I couldn't figure out from a simple reading of FOMA whether or not the loophole B+N tried to exploit even existed. TCT's reading seems to suggest that it doesn't, but I don't think players should have to consult Black's Law Dictionary just to find out if their nation is in compliance with a resolution or not.
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:36 pm
Urgench wrote:I agree the FoMA could be written in more every day language, and could be clearer.
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:39 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:To anyone:
Feel free to write a piece of replacement legislation that we could enact immediately after a repeal of FOMA (if such could be achieved).
Also, realize that the LGBT community already has extensive protection from other resolutions (i.e., those protecting sexual privacy and preventing discrimination).
I believe a more broadly acceptable resolution recognizing domestic partnerships would be better than FOMA and also would respect national sovereignty.
I will not debate this issue any further, at least for the meantime, while I focus on the "Beginning of Life Act" for which a ruling just was made.
MERRY CHRISTMAS---------------------------
Waiting for the moderators to make a ruling on one of my proposals, the Beginning of Life Act, an act that would ban elective third trimester abortions; recognizing that the predecessor to the World Assembly was able to repeal gay marriage by a vote of 8,776 to 5,767 in HR #173 (8/30/2006); recognizing that HR #182, the Marriage Protection Act (authored by Witchcliff), passed 11,301 to 3,260 (10/20/2006); and noting that today's assembly (and, in fact, most of the real world) is more socially progressive than its predecessor assembly, I want to try to repeal and believe it is quite possible to repeal GAR #15, the Freedom of Marriage Act.
DRAFTBELIEVING that individual governments should have a right to define marriage as they see fit or to privatize marriage,
BELIEVING that the imposition of an international definition of marriage, applied to all member nations, is extremely difficult due to wide ranging differences and that doing so causes serious problems for those nations with unusual marriage laws and customs,
RECOGNIZING that some World Assembly member states are theocracies, wherein the Church is the State and that, in effect, the State is a religious community, and that some state religions view homosexual acts as immoral,
RECOGNIZING that, in some World Assembly member states, marriage is always a religious rite,
RECOGNIZING that the Freedom of Marriage Act (FOMA) shows little respect for a sovereign nation's societal structure,
RECOGNIZING that there can be a compelling state interest to recognize only heterosexual marriages in order to promote procreation, a continuance of the population, or an expansion of the population,
NOTING that conjugal acts are a common, if not integral, part of a marriage and that, currently, children cannot be begotten of homosexual acts,
BELIEVING that the recognition of homosexual marriages can lead to violence against the LGBT community in certain nations hostile to homosexuality and wanting to prevent such violence,
RECOGNIZING that the bequeathal of property is not integrally connected with marriage and that such bequeathal can occur through legal wills,
COMMENDING the former nation of Mendosia, the author of FOMA, for standing by its ideology and attempting to advance LGBT rights,
AFFIRMING that some nations may choose to recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or similar contracts after the enactment of this repeal,
BELIEVING that marriage is not a significant human right, as stated by FOMA,
WELCOMING religious nations or nations otherwise opposed to the recognition of homosexual marriages who are not members of the World Assembly because of FOMA to join the World Assembly because of this repeal,
AFFIRMING that, under a grandfather clause, member states must continue to recognize the marriages of those homosexual couples that are already married, and
ENCOURAGING the General Assembly to enact legislation after this repeal to provide benefits to gay and lesbian couples in committed, lifelong relationships,
The General Assembly hereby repeals Resolution #15, the Freedom of Marriage Act.
by Ardchoille » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:46 pm
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:49 pm
Ardchoille wrote:Okay, o-KAY. Cool it, gentlebeings. No need to shout. Calm down. Take your ambassadors off to the Strangers Bar for a while and let them get a bit mellow.
by Darenjo » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:51 pm
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:53 pm
by Urgench » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:54 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Urgench wrote:I agree the FoMA could be written in more every day language, and could be clearer.
I honestly don't understand how "contracts" (which is the word Kenny had problems with) is NOT everyday language.
EDIT: If anything, the author of FOMA appears to have gone out of his/her way not to use everyday language -- and Kenny and others have tried to exploit that.
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:59 pm
by Meekinos » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:01 pm
by Warzone Codger » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:06 pm
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:10 pm
Warzone Codger wrote:COCR is that sort of resolution [...] it's better if it's gone
by Urgench » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:17 pm
Warzone Codger wrote:I swear every 3rdd proposal seems to run into COCR for some reason...
I'm going to lean towards Bears Armed (though leaning on bears is dangerous!), COCR is that sort of resolution that "might" affect a tonne of proposals, but it's better if it's gone so we can just decide on those proposals clearly on a case by case basis.
by Mahaj WA Seat » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:27 pm
Urgench wrote:Warzone Codger wrote:I swear every 3rdd proposal seems to run into COCR for some reason...
I'm going to lean towards Bears Armed (though leaning on bears is dangerous!), COCR is that sort of resolution that "might" affect a tonne of proposals, but it's better if it's gone so we can just decide on those proposals clearly on a case by case basis.
The CoCR only effects unfairly discriminatory proposals, are you in favour of unfair discrimination?
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Urgench » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:35 pm
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Urgench wrote:
The CoCR only effects unfairly discriminatory proposals, are you in favour of unfair discrimination?
well, doesn't it also serve the purpose of making sure other proposals DON'T become unfairly discriminatory?
so in a way it effects NON unfairly discriminatory proposals.
by Ebana » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:30 pm
by GeneralHaNor » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:59 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote: 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."
Victorious Decepticons wrote:If they said "this is what you enjoy so do this" and handed me a stack of my favorite video games, then it'd be far different. But governments don't work that way. They'd hand me a dishrag...
And I'd hand them an insurgency.
Trotskylvania wrote:Don't kid yourself. The state is a violent, destructive institution of class dictatorship. The fact that the proles have bargained themselves the drippings from their master's plates doesn't legitimize the state.
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:33 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote: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."
GeneralHaNor wrote:In the answer to your hypothetical,
A. Whoever you say can visit you in the hospital, none of this hospital not allowing your domestic partner entry because you don't have a civil contract nonsense. Whoever you say inherits your stuff, none of this it must go to the person the state recognizes as your next of kin. Whoever wants to, by buying property together, or buying into existing property, like a shareholder arrangement.
B. you got me there, if your interpretation is correct, not recognize civil unions that never existed is a crime according to the WA
C. by not recognizing any marriage at all, if the state decided, and the people decided, that marriage, or it's equivalent deviations are not the business of the state, well that's just to bad for the WA......oh wait, the damm compliance gnomes
The WA ruling supreme yet again, and creating an institution of marriage where either none existed beforehand, or was abolished afterwards is the all the reason one needs to oppose this overreaching legislation.
And yeah, I realize this is a national sovereignty argument, but then again the WA is a democracy, and we are allowed to point out when it's being tyrannical and oppressive
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:13 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:08 pm
Sionis Prioratus wrote:
by Mousebumples » Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:32 pm
Urgench wrote:In any case I can see your point about some of its ambiguities, and if I was convinced anyone in the WA currently writing resolutions (SP being on hiatus, among others, and Mousey probably wouldn't be interested in it) is up to the task of writing something better I would proobably support a repeal, but there isn't anyone currently writing resolutions who is up to the task of drafting a better replacement for the FoMA, so I'm both personally, and from an IC perspective opposed to a repeal.
Advertisement
Advertisement