[WITHDRAWN] Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

[Quadrimmina]

As per moderator ruling, my proposal "International Marriage Accords" is illegal until such time as Freedom of Marriage Act is repealed. Therefore, I am proposing a repeal of this Act, with the intent of insta-replacing it with my new proposal.

Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

APPLAUDING the progress represented in marriage rights guaranteed by GAR#15 ("Freedom of Marriage Act").

PLEASED that in this World Assembly, marriage rights have been granted such that same-sex couples have the same marriage rights as opposite-sex couples.

HOWEVER, BELIEVING that this affordance of freedom does not go far enough in ensuring the rights of other prospective families.

NOTING that member nations can still refuse marriage to individuals on the basis of race and species, amongst other unnecessarily reductive classifications.

LAMENTING that the only way to achieve equality for these individuals as well is to reverse the progress we have made thus far.

HOPING that a further resolution on marriage will address the inequities still present in member nations.

HEREBY REPEALS GAR#15 ("Freedom of Marriage Act") and considers its provisions null and void.

[Sionis Prioratus]

With all due respect to the very much esteemed ambassador from Quadriminna, we have been, we are and we shall forever be AGAINST any repeal attempt against FOMA, no matter how well-meaning and articulate it might be, if only because Your Excellency has no means of guaranteeing that the following will not happen:

1) Christian fascists and associates help strike down FOMA.
2) Christian fascists and associates help vote down any so-called "perfected FOMA". Gays and lesbians are thrown into the abyss once more.

Mind you, FOMA was passed at far more liberal times, at only 56%.

There is too much at stake. This is a no-go, as far as we are concerned, and we gently and friendly advise that the Quadrimminian delegation would serenely drop the matter altogether.

Yours,

[Sanctaria]

I'm not entirely convinced that a repeal of FoMA is really necessary and I'm concerned that, if successful, passing a replacement resolution would not be a particularly easy thing to do.

Of course I understand the reasoning expressed in the repeal, and I broadly agree, however if faced with the situation of having FoMA on the books or having no marriage rights at all legislated for, I'd opt for the former.

[Quadrimmina]

I'm not entirely convinced that a repeal of FoMA is really necessary and I'm concerned that, if successful, passing a replacement resolution would not be a particularly easy thing to do.

Of course I understand the reasoning expressed in the repeal, and I broadly agree, however if faced with the situation of having FoMA on the books or having no marriage rights at all legislated for, I'd opt for the former.

I'm not entirely convinced of this as well. However, the Secretariat would beg to differ.

[Sanctaria]

I'm not entirely convinced that a repeal of FoMA is really necessary and I'm concerned that, if successful, passing a replacement resolution would not be a particularly easy thing to do.

Of course I understand the reasoning expressed in the repeal, and I broadly agree, however if faced with the situation of having FoMA on the books or having no marriage rights at all legislated for, I'd opt for the former.

I'm not entirely convinced of this as well. However, the Secretariat would beg to differ.

I'm aware of the Secretariat ruling and I'm not sure why you felt that was a suitable response.

[Quadrimmina]

With all due respect to the very much esteemed ambassador from Quadriminna, we have been, we are and we shall forever be AGAINST any repeal attempt against FOMA, no matter how well-meaning and articulate it might be, if only because Your Excellency has no means of guaranteeing that the following will not happen:

1) Christian fascists and associates help strike down FOMA.
2) Christian fascists and associates help vote down any so-called "perfected FOMA". Gays and lesbians are thrown into the abyss once more.

Mind you, FOMA was passed at far more liberal times, at only 56%.

There is too much at stake. This is a no-go, as far as we are concerned, and we gently and friendly advise that the Quadrimminian delegation would serenely drop the matter altogether.

Yours,

Not acting also puts too much at stake though, honored and esteemed delegate and friend from Sionis Prioratus. It is important to note that this humble Assembly has at times acted in the public good, especially in resolutions such as GAR#15. However, the incompleteness of this resolution must be taken into account, and the freedoms of all individuals should be protected with equal vigor as the freedoms of same-sex couples. Not to downplay the importance of protecting same-sex couples, but to note that this Assembly can and should do better.

I'm not entirely convinced of this as well. However, the Secretariat would beg to differ.

I'm aware of the Secretariat ruling and I'm not sure why you felt that was a suitable response.

I did not. I in no way endorse, agree with, or accept that as a viable legal argument. However, until such time that this matter has been put to bed, we must exhaust all possible avenues. We are getting a jumpstart on this while we mull a further legal challenge.

[Sanctaria]

I'm aware of the Secretariat ruling and I'm not sure why you felt that was a suitable response.

I did not. I in no way endorse, agree with, or accept that as a viable legal argument. However, until such time that this matter has been put to bed, we must exhaust all possible avenues. We are getting a jumpstart on this while we mull a further legal challenge.

No, again you misunderstand me, I'm not sure why you felt that directing me to the Secretariat's ruling was an appropriate response to my statement.

[Sionis Prioratus]

the incompleteness of this resolution

Where is it incomplete? I am hopeful that Your Excellency has an exhaustive list to back that breathtaking claim.

Yours,

[Quadrimmina]

the incompleteness of this resolution

Where is it incomplete? I am hopeful that Your Excellency has an exhaustive list to back that breathtaking claim.

Yours,

I did not. I in no way endorse, agree with, or accept that as a viable legal argument. However, until such time that this matter has been put to bed, we must exhaust all possible avenues. We are getting a jumpstart on this while we mull a further legal challenge.

No, again you misunderstand me, I'm not sure why you felt that directing me to the Secretariat's ruling was an appropriate response to my statement.

Ah, yes. I misunderstood your argument, I am sorry. The issue herein is best explained in the following way: CoCR prevents individuals from being discriminated against. However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations. As I said in the debate on IMA very recently, you can't let one race marry and not another, but you can regulate that only certain races marry other certain races. It becomes much more practically necessary when procreation is considered (for instance, that could be considered a compelling practical purpose to deny interspecies marriages). Interracial, interspecies, and interfaith marriages, exogamous and endogamous marriages, so many different kinds of marriages would be legal by this standard that would not necessarily be under FoMA. It also establishes consent standards for marriage and marriage rights portability.

[Christian Democrats]

1) Christian fascists and associates help strike down FOMA.
2) Christian fascists and associates help vote down any so-called "perfected FOMA". Gays and lesbians are thrown into the abyss once more.

Christians who favor traditional marriage are fascists?

Yours in disappointment,

Ambassador of Christian Democrats

[Sanctaria]

Where is it incomplete? I am hopeful that Your Excellency has an exhaustive list to back that breathtaking claim.

Yours,

No, again you misunderstand me, I'm not sure why you felt that directing me to the Secretariat's ruling was an appropriate response to my statement.

Ah, yes. I misunderstood your argument, I am sorry. The issue herein is best explained in the following way: CoCR prevents individuals from being discriminated against. However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations. As I said in the debate on IMA very recently, you can't let one race marry and not another, but you can regulate that only certain races marry other certain races. It becomes much more practically necessary when procreation is considered (for instance, that could be considered a compelling practical purpose to deny interspecies marriages). Interracial, interspecies, and interfaith marriages, exogamous and endogamous marriages, so many different kinds of marriages would be legal by this standard that would not necessarily be under FoMA. It also establishes consent standards for marriage and marriage rights portability.

I think the Ambassador is forgetting the doctrines of both good faith and that of the reasonable nation; why would a reasonable nation give equal rights to different species but at the same time forbid them from marrying each other. It doesn't make sense.

[Sionis Prioratus]

However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations.

That argument is illogical, therefore false, and quite frankly beneath Your Excellency's intelligence.

A is a black male.
B is a white female.
A cannot marry B, because A is black and B is white.
However, A could marry B if only B was black.

How in Gods' name is that NOT race discrimination?

Yours not believing,

[Sionis Prioratus]

Christians who favor traditional marriage are fascists?

Do you think fascists might be offended?

Yours wondering,

[Auralia]

However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations.

That argument is illogical, therefore false, and quite frankly beneath Your Excellency's intelligence.

A is a black male.
B is a white female.
A cannot marry B, because A is black and B is white.
However, A could marry B if only B was white.

How in Gods' name is that NOT race discrimination?

Yours not believing,

Please dispense with the font size increases. It's hard on the eyes.

[Quadrimmina]

Ah, yes. I misunderstood your argument, I am sorry. The issue herein is best explained in the following way: CoCR prevents individuals from being discriminated against. However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations. As I said in the debate on IMA very recently, you can't let one race marry and not another, but you can regulate that only certain races marry other certain races. It becomes much more practically necessary when procreation is considered (for instance, that could be considered a compelling practical purpose to deny interspecies marriages). Interracial, interspecies, and interfaith marriages, exogamous and endogamous marriages, so many different kinds of marriages would be legal by this standard that would not necessarily be under FoMA. It also establishes consent standards for marriage and marriage rights portability.

I think the Ambassador is forgetting the doctrines of both good faith and that of the reasonable nation; why would a reasonable nation give equal rights to different species but at the same time forbid them from marrying each other. It doesn't make sense.

There are many nations, some of whom voiced objections in the former IMA thread, that oppose the legalization of interspecies marriage. It makes sense to them (i.e. the nations for whom these standards are written).

However, it in no way prohibits discrimination of combinations.

That argument is illogical, therefore false, and quite frankly beneath Your Excellency's intelligence.

A is a black male.
B is a white female.
A cannot marry B, because A is black and B is white.
However, A could marry B if only B was white.

How in Gods' name is that NOT race discrimination?

Yours not believing,

Logically speaking, a nation could pass a law in compliance with CoCR that says the following: "Individuals of the same race have an equal right to marry individuals of their race, however, they cannot marry individuals of different races." Since the law is applied equitably amongst all races, it isn't discrimination. It's the 'separate, but equal' doctrine.

[Sanctaria]

t's the 'separate, but equal' doctrine.

Where, Ambassador, in WA law was this "separate, but equal" doctrine created?

[Quadrimmina]

t's the 'separate, but equal' doctrine.

Where, Ambassador, in WA law was this "separate, but equal" doctrine created?

It was not. But it is a way to comply with CoCR.

[Sanctaria]

Where, Ambassador, in WA law was this "separate, but equal" doctrine created?

It was not. But it is a way to comply with CoCR.

So you just made up your own doctrine for the argument?

As opposed to the reasonable nation doctrine or the doctrine of good faith which are codified in the rules.

[Sionis Prioratus]

That argument is illogical, therefore false, and quite frankly beneath Your Excellency's intelligence.

A is a black male.
B is a white female.
A cannot marry B, because A is black and B is white.
However, A could marry B if only B was white.

How in Gods' name is that NOT race discrimination?

Yours not believing,

Logically speaking, a nation could pass a law in compliance with CoCR that says the following: "Individuals of the same race have an equal right to marry individuals of their race, however, they cannot marry individuals of different races." Since the law is applied equitably amongst all races, it isn't discrimination. It's the 'separate, but equal' doctrine.

No, that is not logical. Not at all. If Your Excellency wishes to pursue this vain endeavor, let me give Your Excellency fair notice and announce that there shall be a GHR waiting for Your Excellency when it should be ripe to do so.

What a shame.

[Quadrimmina]

I must note that I have heard the concerns of my fellow ambassadors in this matter. While it pains me to say this, it would appear that in the pursuit of protection of the “Freedom of Marriage Act”, my fellow ambassadors have to many degrees lost sight of what makes this Assembly so great. It is our ability to draw consensus that makes this such an august body. Sure, it’s a festering snakepit, sure there’s disagreement and politics, sure there are times when issues come about that really make you want to die. However, when it counts, we have gotten together and affected real change. We have protected the rights of individuals, we have worked for the collective good, and we have tirelessly sought justice for the citizens of all of our nations. Every proposal is a nation’s take on how to do this. Our delegation and our nation saw many inequities in the way that some governments work with respect to marriage. We still see those inequities to this day. However, we share the concerns of many that the “Freedom of Marriage Act” does offer protections to a much-needed group of individuals (even though the argument that a FoMA repeal would prevent such protections goes staunchly against any argument that CoCR provides sufficient protections). I am sorry to have kicked up so much dirt in this Assembly, but know that it was in pursuit of a noble cause. I hope to continue fighting for this cause, and in the event that this is possible we will surely and dogmatically pursue this fight. However, it would appear that now is not the time or the place. If this situation shall ever arise, our delegation stands at the ready to work with those of other nations. However, as it stands, it appears that current law will hold. Our delegation refuses to waste the time of the Assembly further with this matter, and will therefore be withdrawing our resolutions related to marriage from consideration indefinitely. Thank you to all nations, supporters and detractors, for making your positions known. We look forward to working with you further in this Assembly, to make the world a better place to live in and to ensure a more vibrant tomorrow. We will be continuing this fight, one resolution at a time, in accordance with our agenda and national and international law. However, we do note that this is not the avenue with which to go forward, and concede that these resolutions shall be considered withdrawn in favor of pursuing other items on our international agenda. Thank you.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I thank Your Excellency.

Yours relieved,

[Sanctaria]

I thank the Ambassador for her sensibility and wish her luck in her future endeavours.

[Athfhotla]

We will be continuing this fight, one resolution at a time, in accordance with our agenda and national and international law. However, we do note that this is not the avenue with which to go forward, and concede that these resolutions shall be considered withdrawn in favor of pursuing other items on our international agenda. Thank you.

That's unfortunate. The Kingdom would have supported this repeal, although not its replacement. In any event, we wish the Quadrimminan delegation the best of luck in its future endeavors and we understand the reluctance to pursue this repeal. Many ambassadors have made quite clear their intention to destroy the careers of any ambassadors who rock their status quo boat, which is one of several reasons that our delegation has become less involved in the Assembly. We prefer not to worship at the altar of senior ambassadors who think themselves legislative gods.