[PASSED] Forced Marriages Ban Act

by **Christian Democrats** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:21 am

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 160
Forced Marriages Ban Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Realizing the importance of marriage in many societies,

Respecting the various cultural and religious customs surrounding marriage,

Recognizing that many, if not most, marriages are intended to be lifelong unions,

Believing therefore that no person should be coerced to marry,

1. Defines forced marriage, for the purposes of this resolution, as the contractual or covenantal union of persons without the informed consent of every person being joined or a similar nonconsensual or coerced union of persons;

2. Prohibits forced marriage;

3. Forbids member states and their political subdivisions from enforcing or providing legal recognition to forced marriages performed in other countries;

4. Requires each member state to offer to annul all forced marriages of people in its jurisdiction; and

5. Recommends that member states establish special law enforcement divisions to investigate claims of forced marriage and communities that supposedly countenance such unions.

REACHED QUORUM ON AUGUST 12, 2011

PASSED 8,695 TO 2,363 ON AUGUST 16, 2011

Votes For: 8695: Markanite (581), Punk Reloaded (263), Alsted (248), Atlantigria (231), Daynor (181), Skyrim Diplomacy (114), Sedgistan (83), South Titania (68), Mikeswill (58), New Bazlantis (46), Wapakalypse (38), NewTexas (37), Hydroponic Nation (36), Quinquex (34), BearNation (34), Eggy216 (31), United Solidarity (28), The LoUnited Nations (24), AsterCat (24), The Voltarum (24), Aequitas-Veritas (22), MythEightNine (22), Men Are Inferior (21), Small Green Plants (21), Yavin 1221 (21), Quelesh (20), Albert the Fourth (20), Chalakudy (19), Hirota (18), Red Ulster (18), Warzone Codger (18), Civil Citizenry (17), Tacobendria (16), The Burya Natsiya (16), Aldonin (16), Usual People In Life (15), CrazyKittens (15), Boriem (15), Strawberrry Fields (15), Greater Moletopia (14), Esperius (14), Furystania (14), West-Flanders (14), Devoted Decons (14), Yuktova (13), Aridiya (13), Ibeiria (13), Bears Armed Mission (13), Trektopolis (13), Ballotonia (13), Dave Nation (13), Lordieth (13), Tinis (13), Cyristan (13), The Western Reaches (13), Alkenstar (12), Weegee and Rick Steves (12), Sunny Marionette (12), Greater Western Europe (11), Zeniz (11), Genoveia (10), Avorez (10), Vasinoia (10), Capisaria (10), Macroscopics (10), Frenequesta (10), Samuraikoku (9), Dian (9), Falcania (9), Libertarian Washington (9), Kryptornia (9), Infinis (9), Marxwellia (9), Almunecar (8), Tolololo (8), Armodica (8), Ghanzania (8), The Island of ZAM (8), Cartley (8), Wagafraga (8), Susurro (8), Shanix (8), Crime Solving Cats (8), Paagenta (7), The United Earth Alliance (7), Junkyland (7), Nouvelle Essex (7), TheRainKing777 (7), Xanthal (7), Central Nation (7), A S E A N (7), North Mack (7), Lurika (7), Scotland or Alba (7), Umbra Ac Silentium (7), Young Wolves (7), Kylarnatia (7), Sudaustria (6), Untspah (6), A-W cream soda (6), Lauralestria (6), Koridina (6), Daukulis Country (6), Gaiah (6), Nayrbja (6), Skin Nation (6), The Potomac Basin (6), The Starfish Empire Comet (6), Western Leslie (6), Nevennkebla (6), Amerimexicubiraq (6), Anagonia (6), LAZOR EATER (6), Unified Vigil (5), Averio (5), Northheim (5), Three Weasels (5), Trentstanbul (5), Cranmark (5), Pelhafor (5), Lobmic (5), Centriland (5), New Ederick (5), Intangelon (5), Kaynaydia (5), Genesly (5), Anashi Deh Argethi (5), Thespinia (5), Ameriaustraenglandia (5), Brandington (5), Seazyr (5), Effimination (5), Isura (5), Aringosa (5), Conservalandem (5), Eva Zeisel (5), Princess Luna (5), Marsadus (5), Missing Cosmonauts (5), Thraakia (5), Aequabila (5), LSFR (5), Dragon Corporation (5), Opressed Moderators (4), Thaldora (4), General Hammond (4), Rjia (4), Terriermon (4), Labyrnna (4), Cancioncilla (4), Adamtopiah (4), Bellepi (4), Separatist Peoples (4), Inralia (4), Parallaxium (4), Aeonnatio (4), New Covia (4), Qorath (4), The Golden Suns (4), Dagnia (4), The Daughters of Semiramis (4), Ashwakayana (4), Anti-toshiba (4), Buffett and Colbert (4), The Holy Holland Region (4), Bobby Jindal (4), Neonius Cactinian XIV (4), Brunio (4), Prima Planites (4), Senorak Valley (4), JigiMosh (4), Rebelliocity (4), Calbia (4), Altho (4), Smashastan (4), Kommandoria (4), Earlll (4), Nappa Gisburn (4), Nuova Zelanda (4), Charles of Burgundy (4), Bade-Wurttenburg (4), Suddenblue (4), Estonian Satanists (4), Dolores Ibarruri (4), -Hellkite- (3), Arathi Basin (3), Shaoyuan (3), Dragonocracy (3), Sas-Pomorski (3), Al Qaran (3), Lago Maggiore (3), Rangel11 (3), Voguesphere (3), Wolves75 (3), Esteline Athelas (3), Holy Lazica (3), Pollensia (3), Langorwine (3), Queen Righty (3), SooYoung (3), Rehbran (3), Lyncanthropia (3), Brunelian BG advocates (3), Glorious Equality (3), Reltubiboc (3), Bodhi Svaha (3), Morriah Coast (3), Rowlinson (3), Luxtizeria (3), Obzenia (3), Fedorovistanigrad (3), Rooski (3), Denfrunt (3), Gropagna (3), IL Ruffino (3), Winegums (3), World Freedom and Liberty (3), IIIIIDaoistsIIIII (3), Yuanda Zhu (3), Nova-Licentia (3), The One and Only Captain Jack Sparrow (3), The ms delta WA nation (3), The Child of the Jago (3), Jamesburgh (3), Ligiea (3), Lawrencewatsonia (3), Bretal (3), Robertanica (3), Humanistopia (3), Niksgrova (3), Cassedra (3), Ascendas (3), Nhortergo (3), Zameel (3), FreeWillToAll (3), Hoffmaniia (3), Anti-Goatsack (3), Scorpions Army (3), Philosophotechnocracy (3), Jomastian (3), North Autonomy (3), Auldland (3), Dibzannia (3), Kkwy (3), Vergenskia (3), Bongara (3), Vanium (3), PopPunkistan (3), Adeiatic (3), Grevatchi (3), Bizantinea (3), Ovlov United (3), Novascotialand (3), Tannea (3), Wesstonia (3), Genyria (3), Fal shia (2), Anima Invicta (2), Napaleo (2), EverGhent (2), Naristor (2), Our New Worlds (2), Happy Vale (2), New EuropeanFederation (2), Kindjal (2), Chocolateawesomesauce (2), Tamzaria (2), Szade (2), The dead lamp (2), Ovisterra (2), Craig Wessels (2), Enlightened Physicists (2), Floreria (2), Jamriak (2), Birkinghamia (2), Tillow (2), Rollany (2), Helghan Minoris (2), Delhanara (2), Elleri (2), Robustial (2), Pandora L115 (2), Libenya (2), Sorceror Nobody (2), Mesarian (2), Valdier (2), Taikcstan (2), Equulus Nitens (2), Secession I (2), Hatgirls (2), Nothim (2), Smt_101 (2), Bijayistan (2), Shpilkustan (2), Vanhirian (2), Fox 25 Boston (2), Brynnar (2), Rangers inc (2), Ludovicus Tacitus (2), Syllom (2), Dranzixia (2), Krontopic (2), Southern Moony (2), Merlandica (2), Dathun (2), Taomunnism (2), Wilkshire (2), Kaimore (2), Weitzel (2), Darkest Achenbach (2), Wazkyraque (2), Euskirribakondara (2), Paradise Shores (2), Apollans (2), Worldia555 (2), Velociraptia (2), Pheralius (2), Laugter (2), ALL COMMUNIST CHINA (2), Kemelom (2), The Anean Tribes (2), Nixsland (2), Shackelbolt (2), New Howzania (2), NewBriton (2), Cinque Spada (2), Ameskis (2), Polish Nomads (2), TheJ0ke (2), Libaries (2), Zombiedolphins (2), Makano (2), Extrasolar Colonies (2), Smiley Bob (2), Brodskopolis (2), Ezkurra (2), Port Fionnachtain (2), Erkilland (2), Xiantai (2), Nefeshe (2), Skillt (2), Endolantron (2), Vici Minerva (2), Ostrichshire (2), LeVILenin (2), Zeldoon (2), Aknahsu (2), The Salvadorian (2), Grand Terra Solis (2), Identa (2), The Corellian Antilles (2), The Frost Core (2), Caffeinistan (2), Doctor Insano (2), Babistan (2), Starhigh (2), Paradoxically Independent Nations (2), Nova Brasilla (2), Dirty Commie Land (2), Vaelkhar (2), Presul (2), Saint Pacifica (2), Tzakaroz (2), Sentis (2), Almanna (2), Mixolidian (2), The Feral Young Bucks (2), Makinsanity (2), Khaelysia (2), Greater Gravesend (2), Balapoo (2), Demiglace (2), PI is awesome (2), KomoDrad (2), Chrestman (2), ElfToadette (2), Overlord Brice (2), Erisian Collectives (2), Jedi Soccer Players (2), Dai Coon Ree (2), Phaenon (2), Loonceland (2), Othileon (2), DeFreitas (2), Cyrod (2), The WLC (2), Bollockhistan (2), Mahaj WA Seat (6), Marqueses States (5), Der Kierische Thron (5), Bonebraska (2), Thompas_forces (2), The Bloody Mental (2), Argentum Ora (2), Misplaced States (2), Earlgreynia (3), Ephemyra (3), Blackshear41 (238), Connor L (6), Molson Iceland (2), The people of Zeus (3), Volgogrado (20), Theodas (2), West Williamston (2), May Isles (2), and (4,400) individual WA member nations.

Votes Against: 2363: Todd McCloud (265), Drop Your Pants (214), Krulltopia (138), Revert (121), Indian Gangs (76), Parkplace (73), Purifination (68), Ad Vitam Adsum (58), Anduz (41), Architeuthis (24), The Greater German Reich (14), The Viking Warlords (12), Filthy Bastard Monkies (11), Wyvern-Haron (11), Vazdania (10), Khoresm (10), Algrend (10), Radkicks (10), Kaeiri (10), Grays Harbor (9), KonataLand (9), Funj (9), Pepsiopolis (8), Kosei (7), Mousebumples (7), Manity (6), Vitius (5), Neue Sansoucci (5), The Followers of Karn (5), Greater Unified Welsh States (5), Carmabarnan (4), Royalsoldiers (4), The NAA (4), The Fircone (4), Nickatopian Land (4), Drigginar (4), Suint (4), YOREFACE (4), Kleinekatzen (4), Huszt (3), Floydian Britannia (3), The Darling (3), Blzarland (3), Knootoss (3), GHAUNADAUR (3), East Hylia (3), Mad Reason (3), Militant Labour (3), Ragaskan (3), Barretonia (3), Like minded serial killers (3), Krankor (3), Manash Ka (3), WaffenBrightonburg (3), Mcdonalds Corp (3), TTTA (3), Ishikawa-shi (3), Mormon Isles (2), Monikian WA Mission (2), Cold Archivia (2), Flibbleites (2), Krecart (2), South Dorchester (2), Tyranism (2), Navillus (2), Redrake (2), 1-502nd Airborne Inf (2), The Fighting Mongii (2), Transcendonia (2), Anatidae_Phobia (2), Parino (2), New Jovenia (2), Comenya (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Achterdeur (2), Viassane (2), Ghanara (2), Philippinarum (2), Mewsland (2), The Irridiated Wastelands (2), Moral Arbitration (2), Great Famine (2), Scotumbria (2), Comalotia (2), Sasafrax (2), Northern Koreans of Texas (2), Maylou (2), Monywa (2), Odinslund (2), Nuveria (2), Jaymac1987 (2), The Gelkish Union (2), The Old Imperial Order (2), Portlos (2), Hainaku-Ateh (2), Flossia (2), Survaek (2), Eldritch Corporeality (2), Roystonington (2), Navetra (2), Rusikstan (11), Cygsonia (2), Baptovia (2), and (921) individual WA member nations.

by **Connopolis** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:26 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
(Image)

(Image)(Image)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Forced Marriages Ban Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: (Image) Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Realizing the importance of marriage in many societies,

Respecting the various cultural and religious customs surrounding marriage,

Recognizing that many, if not most, marriages are intended to be lifelong unions,

Believing therefore that no person should be coerced to marry,

1. Defines forced marriage, for the purposes of this resolution, as the contractual or covenantal union of persons without the informed consent of at least one of the persons being joined or a similar nonconsensual union of persons;

2. Prohibits forced marriage;

3. Forbids member states and their political subdivisions from enforcing or providing legal recognition to forced marriages performed in other countries;

4. Requires each member state to nullify all forced marriages in its jurisdiction;

5. Allows each member state to recognize or not to recognize and to determine the legality of arranged marriage, polygamy, and bigamy in its jurisdiction;

6. Allows member states to privatize marriage so long as they abide by the provisions of this resolution; and

7. Allows member states that recognize marriages to establish marriageable ages that do not discriminate on the basis of sex.

This is something I could support. As of now, I don't necessarily have a problem with the resolution, but I'll see where the debate goes.

by **Monikian WA Mission** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:52 am

"Opposed. Marriage laws are a national issue."

by **Mahaj** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:24 am

Support.

by **Southern Patriots** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:43 am

I believe the proposal should define or set a minimum standard for "informed consent."

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:14 pm

I think this is a good idea. What about encouraging member countries to take measures to protect those facing forced marriages?

by **Morlago** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:19 pm

We are surprised that in all the resolutions that the WA has passed this has not been dealt with yet. We SUPPORT.

by **Tweegee** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:05 pm

I hate forced marriages! SUPPORT!!!!!

by **Syvorji** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:09 pm

While it has good point, it is the same guy who wants to ban abortion. Opposed.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

by **-St George** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:10 pm

Southern Patriots wrote:I believe the proposal should define or set a minimum standard for "informed consent."

This.^

by **Yuktova** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:16 pm

I have one question? What is privatized marriage?
Other than that, I support this bill!

by **Morlago** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:16 pm

Syvorji wrote:While it has good point, it is the same guy who wants to ban abortion. Opposed.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

Is that really necessary? Would you have supported it if Flib proposed it? It seems unfair for CD that simply because he proposed something that you did not agree with (and neither did I) you have tagged and labeled him and all his work as rubbish. We find that very unprofessional.

by **Mallorea and Riva** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:24 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:6. Allows member states to privatize marriage so long as they abide by the provisions of this resolution;

This. What does it mean?

by **Augustus Este** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:16 pm

Apart from a couple vague clauses that need clarification,which have already been pointed out, We support this proposal

~Basilo Ferrero

by **Christian Democrats** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:35 pm

Southern Patriots wrote:I believe the proposal should define or set a minimum standard for "informed consent."

Informed consent is an extremely vague concept that would be difficult to define. Because the phrase "informed consent," though vague, is widely understood, I do not see a reason to define it. Do you have any suggestions for a possible definition?

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I think this is a good idea. What about encouraging member countries to take measures to protect those facing forced marriages?

Like an anti-forced marriage education program? Or member states setting up special divisions in their justice departments or ministries to investigate possible forced marriages?

(I thought of this proposal idea after watching a CNN report on the Warren Jeffs' trial here in the U.S.)

Yuktova wrote:What is privatized marriage?

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:6. Allows member states to privatize marriage so long as they abide by the provisions of this resolution;

This. What does it mean?

Marriage privatization, which is supported by many libertarians and almost all anarchists, is the political position that governments should not recognize marriages. In other words, supporters of marriage privatization do not believe governments should define personal relationships and, therefore, oppose all kinds of civil marriage and government recognition of religious marriages.

(I wonder if marriage privatization is legal considering GAR 15, art. 2. I know we've had this discussion before, but it was left unresolved, and the moderators never made a definitive statement about whether or not states are required to recognize any marriages. In other words, would it be legal for a state to ban or not to recognize both heterosexual and homosexual marriages?)

by **Mallorea and Riva** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:50 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:This. What does it mean?

Marriage privatization, which is supported by many libertarians and almost all anarchists, is the political position that governments should not recognize marriages. In other words, supporters of marriage privatization do not believe governments should define personal relationships and, therefore, oppose all kinds of civil marriage and government recognition of religious marriages.

(I wonder if marriage privatization is legal considering GAR 15, art. 2. I know we've had this discussion before, but it was left unresolved, and the moderators never made a definitive statement about whether or not states are required to recognize any marriages. In other words, would it be legal for a state to ban or not to recognize both heterosexual and homosexual marriages?)

Ah I see. That is an interesting question...

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.

I think that the underlined text means that if the State does not recognize marriage, then the rest of the resolution is moot. So essentially, FoMA does not outlaw marriage privatization.

by **Nuevo Cadiz** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:56 pm

Personaly I agree, but some nations have different traditions so why should we force other nations to do follow this upcoming law? So as a nation I will disagree. Sorry.

by **Quelesh** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:57 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:1. Defines forced marriage, for the purposes of this resolution, as the contractual or covenantal union of persons without the informed consent of at least one of the persons being joined or a similar nonconsensual union of persons;

This clause needs to be reworded. It could be interpreted to mean that a marriage with the informed consent of only one of the participants, but not the other(s), is not a forced marriage, as it has the informed consent of "at least one of the persons" involved.

Christian Democrats wrote:(I wonder if marriage privatization is legal considering GAR 15, art. 2. I know we've had this discussion before, but it was left unresolved, and the moderators never made a definitive statement about whether or not states are required to recognize any marriages. In other words, would it be legal for a state to ban or not to recognize both heterosexual and homosexual marriages?)

That's essentially what Quelesh does. People are free to have public ceremonies of commitment, but these carry no legal consequences. This doesn't violate that resolution. The "union of two persons" that the clause in question protects is not necessarily marriage. Inheritance rights, etc., can be established by a contract, and such contracts can be treated like any other contract.

by **Phing Phong** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:04 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
(Image)

(Image)(Image)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Forced Marriages Ban Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: (Image) Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Realizing the importance of marriage in many societies,

Respecting the various cultural and religious customs surrounding marriage,

Recognizing that many, if not most, marriages are intended to be lifelong unions,

Believing therefore that no person should be coerced to marry,

1. Defines forced marriage, for the purposes of this resolution, as the contractual or covenantal union of persons without the informed consent of at least one of the persons being joined or a similar nonconsensual union of persons;

2. Prohibits forced marriage;

3. Forbids member states and their political subdivisions from enforcing or providing legal recognition to forced marriages performed in other countries;

4. Requires each member state to nullify all forced marriages in its jurisdiction;

5. Allows each member state to recognize or not to recognize and to determine the legality of arranged marriage, polygamy, and bigamy in its jurisdiction;

6. Allows member states to privatize marriage so long as they abide by the provisions of this resolution; and

7. Allows member states that recognize marriages to establish marriageable ages that do not discriminate on the basis of sex.

We agree, and you have our support on this issue.

by **Southern Patriots** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:13 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Southern Patriots wrote:I believe the proposal should define or set a minimum standard for "informed consent."

Informed consent is an extremely vague concept that would be difficult to define. Because the phrase "informed consent," though vague, is widely understood, I do not see a reason to define it. Do you have any suggestions for a possible definition?

I am wracking my mind for a suitable definition. The lack of a sufficient minimum for implied consent at this time leaves this proposal open to massive abuse, since it basically leaves consent up to national standards which vary widely.

by **Eternal Yerushalayim** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:31 pm

Full support.

For informed consent, my standards would be:

Mutual consent
Mutual knowledge
Mutual recognition of rights under the law

by **Dizyntk** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:17 pm

In prinipal my nation will fully support this Act. We believe that the act of marriage should be a loving affair and not something that one is coerced into.

by **Speculine** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:19 am

Christian Democrats wrote:4. Requires each member state to nullify all forced marriages in its jurisdiction;

I support this draft fully except for your fourth point. Nations should allow members of a previous forced marriage the opportunity to nullify their arrangement. Even in a previously forced marriage, say thirty years later, the couple may have grown to love each other and have a full extended family. This draft as it is written could destroy happy homes, forcing them to re-marry which some lower income families may not be able to afford or may not meet requirements to engage in.

Yeah, do something about number four and you've got my vote.

by **Linux and the X** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:05 am

1. Defines forced marriage, for the purposes of this resolution, as the contractual or covenantal union of persons without the informed consent of at least one of the persons being joined or a similar nonconsensual union of persons;

Wait, so theoretically I could marry everyone in the world without even telling the? There would be informed consent of at least one person (me).

by **Darenjo** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:13 am

You need to fix the definition, and you need to fix Article 4.

Something like this should work:

Requires member-states to offer divorce and/or annulment to all forcibly married individuals;

On the other hand, the Right to a Lawful Divorce (GA#39) may already cover divorce, so we may only need to address the religious aspect here.

- Dr. Park

[PASSED] Forced Marriages Ban Act

[PASSED] Forced Marriages Ban Act

Who is online