NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Foreign Marriage Recognition

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

[PASSED] Foreign Marriage Recognition

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue May 01, 2012 10:14 pm

Image

ImageImage

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 200
Foreign Marriage Recognition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

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

The General Assembly,

Recognizing civil marriage as a secular institution that exists in many, if not most, member states,

Realizing that people who are married often migrate or travel to different member states,

Believing that such marriages should remain valid in foreign member states and that those people should not be burdened with having to remarry after moving to different member states,

1. Requires every member state to provide every foreign marriage that meets all of the following conditions the same legal recognition as a domestic marriage:

  1. The marriage was performed legally under the jurisdiction of a foreign member state, and that marriage remains legally valid in that same foreign member state;
  2. The marriage does not violate World Assembly law; and
  3. The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

2. Declares that marriage, as used in this resolution, refers to civil marriages (social unions of individuals provided legal recognition by governmental authorities) as well as other sorts of civil unions or civil partnerships of similar legal effect;

3. Further declares that member state, as used in this resolution, refers to member states as well as their political subdivisions; and

4. Affirms that this resolution has absolutely no effect on religious practices and that member states are not required by this resolution to recognize marriage or similar unions.

PASSED 6,045 TO 5,079 ON JUNE 5, 2012


Approvals: 141 (New Chesterfield, New Hayesalia, Dagnia, IIIIIDaoistsIIIII, Armed British Federation, Nurdia, Britandul, Ruzalka, Jamesburgh, Anthony Fridas, Aeternus Terra, Abaven, Mikeswill, Etnofaz, Collector of Souls, Turanic Lands, Lyanna Stark, West Vandengaarde, Damanucus, Ventei, Valedia, The Arenales Republic, Char Aznable Neo Zeon, ELITE GEEKS, BearNation, Erasticanius, The Black Cactus, Lower Poseidonia, Badziew, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Kingdom of Navo, Wu Wei Shan, Musgoria, Purifination, King Rankmore, Bhavva, Chin-Chillas, Zarquon Froods, Ivorii, Eco-Educa, Troasta, Ananke II, USSARC, Proloteriat, Aeronos, The Committed, Dissant Machine Empire, United Dependencies, CLU, Romanelia, Kauvara, Faranai, Samuraikoku, Splendiferousness, Trektopolis, Kellan, Guanshiyin, Robanistania, East Klent, New Conglomerate, Genoveia, Ariusgrad, New North Symphonia, Democatia, South Salmona, Human people federation, Harikulade, Dragon Corporation, Neostalsis, Jakexbox10, Seazyr, Sangrivia, Free Peoples Cheese, SomeColorMage, Zeontarg, Castiel, Grand America, Northheim, Oyly, Razakia, Starlightia, Zibzibwe, Bald Brummies, PrussianEmpire, Beerithica, Huskarian, The-_Sicarii, GSSR, Obaman WA Mission, RJ H, Terra serena, Naboompu, Aravea, Basilon, The Borderlands of the Wastelandss, Saint Gladiolus, Kingsley Bedford, Bannanahail, The Wiggle, Republic of Shanka, Tyhcoon, The Eternal City, The Communist Empire of Platypus, General Hammond, Goodclark, Kizania, Ivanoland, Tepes Imperium, Fenrisfels, Gerzam, Metallicanistan, Ambibia, Not to be known, Wilkshire, Igualland, Storm and Rage, Abisburgo, Hosbiarna, Glorious Equality, Brezevski, Paynezania, The Land of the Grand Master, Frenequesta, Citigroup, Cooliestan, VinVachia, The Derrak Quadrant, Rendiga, Denfrunt, Zeorus, Zemnaya Svoboda, United Socialist States of Redoisa, Canadian Davsland, Yoh-en-Boeit, Aysidinan, Socratic Utopia, Kramerboy, The Unmentionables, The Finlandia Peoples, Queentain, Carlos Harry)
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:54 pm, edited 8 times in total.
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%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

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

User avatar
Paper Flowers
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Paper Flowers » Tue May 01, 2012 11:08 pm

We find nothing immediately objectionable in this proposal and as such tentatively support.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders
Liam. A. Saunders - Paper Flowers Ambassador to the World Assembly.

Factbook (under construction - last update 14th November 2012)
Current Affairs - Ambassador Walkers disappearance remains a mystery, Ambassador Saunders promoted in his place.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18121
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed May 02, 2012 2:50 am

1. Requires every member state to provide every foreign marriage that meets all of the following conditions the same legal recognition as a domestic marriage:


a.The marriage was performed legally under the jurisdiction of a foreign member state, and that marriage remains legally valid in that same foreign member state;
b.The marriage does not violate World Assembly law; and
c.The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

2. Declares that marriage, as used in this resolution, refers to civil marriages as well as other sorts of civil unions or civil partnerships of similar legal effect;

3. Further declares that member state, as used in this resolution, refers to member states as well as their political subdivisions; and

4. Affirms that this resolution has absolutely no effect on religious practices and that member states are not required by this resolution to recognize marriage or similar unions.


This all sounds like "Keep doing what you are already doing, but now you'll have the benevolent hand of the WA giving you permission to keep doing what you are already doing." and as such seems a bit pointless.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5682
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Hirota » Wed May 02, 2012 3:02 am

Reads to me as a blocker to stop gay marriages in other member states being recognised....well, if Resolution #15 wasn't in place. In fact this duplicates a lot of #15.
Last edited by Hirota on Wed May 02, 2012 3:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted, pedants and koi carp.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.
Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7368
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Wed May 02, 2012 3:54 am

The Ambassador really has a thing for legislating on marriages.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Zaklen
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 443
Founded: Jun 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaklen » Wed May 02, 2012 4:57 am

I'd suggest defining Civil Marriage. I also question why people always use the term "marriage" when discussing things like this. Calling something "marriage" legally just gives conservative religious people something to complain about, as the term itself has religious roots. I think "Civil Union" would be a more effective legal term. Marriage needs to be left as a religious institution.

OOC:For once, my NS political views and IRL ones match perfectly.
Last edited by Zaklen on Wed May 02, 2012 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Peter Zyvex
Supreme Ruler of Zaklen
______________________________
Religion brings out both the best and the worst in humanity. Obviously, I strive to be an example of it bringing out the best.

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Wed May 02, 2012 6:28 am

Lord Raekevik for once had a poker face as he took the floor. "This may sound positive, but it really does not do much. It only requires recognition of marriages that would have been legal domestically, which is different from earlier proposals on marriage recognition and we could only speculate that this proposal is intended to preempt future proposals going in that direction. Furthermore, the Queendom takes issue with the language of this proposal, which seems to assume that marriages are between two people as it uses the word 'couples', whilst in some member states, such as the Queendom, marriages are legal also between three or more parties."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Embolalia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1670
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Embolalia » Wed May 02, 2012 7:35 am

I'm sure my Lieutenant Ambassador will love this, but I'm afraid I don't see the need. It's harmless, I'll grant you that. But I'm not of the opinion that "meh, it can't hurt" is enough to vote in favor.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Bible quote? No, that's just common sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia

Gafin Gower, Prime minister
E. Rory Hywel, Ambassador to the World Assembly
Gwaredd LLwyd, Lieutenant Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author: GA#95, GA#107, GA#132, GA#185
Philimbesi wrote:Repeal, resign, or relax.

Embassy Exchange
EBC News
My mostly worthless blog
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
@marcmack wrote:I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water & dirt. Also, not sure where to put it."

User avatar
Laversia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: May 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Laversia » Wed May 02, 2012 8:51 am

Zaklen wrote:I'd suggest defining Civil Marriage. I also question why people always use the term "marriage" when discussing things like this. Calling something "marriage" legally just gives conservative religious people something to complain about, as the term itself has religious roots. I think "Civil Union" would be a more effective legal term. Marriage needs to be left as a religious institution.

OOC:For once, my NS political views and IRL ones match perfectly.


We at Laversia agree with the above comments, the terminology of 'marriage' rather than 'Civil Union' troubles us. However, we would support this proposal with the recommended changes.

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Wed May 02, 2012 9:49 am

Nigel stands up.

"I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding.... if Nation A allows, say... gay marriage, you know just as an example, and a couple is in Nation B and Nation B doesn't allow gay marriage..... what would happen to the couple in Nation B, are they still married ?"
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Embolalia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1670
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Embolalia » Wed May 02, 2012 10:44 am

Philimbesi wrote:Nigel stands up.

"I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding.... if Nation A allows, say... gay marriage, you know just as an example, and a couple is in Nation B and Nation B doesn't allow gay marriage..... what would happen to the couple in Nation B, are they still married ?"

They would not be married in Nation B. Of course, if Nation B is in the World Assembly, neither would an opposite-sex couple from Nation A, because in the World Assembly, marriage is all or nothing, at least from the civil perspective.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Bible quote? No, that's just common sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia

Gafin Gower, Prime minister
E. Rory Hywel, Ambassador to the World Assembly
Gwaredd LLwyd, Lieutenant Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author: GA#95, GA#107, GA#132, GA#185
Philimbesi wrote:Repeal, resign, or relax.

Embassy Exchange
EBC News
My mostly worthless blog
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
@marcmack wrote:I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water & dirt. Also, not sure where to put it."

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Wed May 02, 2012 11:05 am

Embolalia wrote:
Philimbesi wrote:Nigel stands up.

"I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding.... if Nation A allows, say... gay marriage, you know just as an example, and a couple is in Nation B and Nation B doesn't allow gay marriage..... what would happen to the couple in Nation B, are they still married ?"

They would not be married in Nation B. Of course, if Nation B is in the World Assembly, neither would an opposite-sex couple from Nation A, because in the World Assembly, marriage is all or nothing, at least from the civil perspective.

Indeed. It is too late for CD to "protect" WA nations from recognizing gay marriage (if they recognize marriage at all).

This draft is likely a response to Quadrimmina's long-suffering International Marriage Accords. While this draft cannot prevent member nations from recognizing homosexual unions, it can prevent them from recognizing unions between a man and a man and a man. Or a man and a woman and a sentient fish. Or a man and his cousin.

(Actually, I don't see an explicit blocker in there, so the WA could still expressly pass a law requiring non-discrimination of certain unions (say, incestuous ones)... maybe I've got CD all wrong. Then again, it's pretty hard to imagine this assembly ever passing the "Incestuous Marriage Accord" so I'm sure this proposal is as good as a blocker.)

CD is a wonderfully persistent and creative advocate for his constituency. As written this bill does do something: it requires recognition of certain foreign marriages. So presumably, there would be less red tape and no possibility of having your marriage voided simply because it wasn't officiated within a particular nation. On the other hand, this is clearly a blocker in large part - meant to prevent a future bill that would require CD (and any other nation) to recognize the polygamous, incestuous, or inter-species marriages of other nations.

I stand befuddled and un-opinionated. I shall wait to see additional argument on this subject before commenting further.
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed May 02, 2012 11:20 am

Hirota wrote:Reads to me as a blocker to stop gay marriages in other member states being recognised....well, if Resolution #15 wasn't in place. In fact this duplicates a lot of #15.

In what ways?

Zaklen wrote:I think "Civil Union" would be a more effective legal term. Marriage needs to be left as a religious institution.

I agree.

Alqania wrote:Lord Raekevik for once had a poker face as he took the floor. "This may sound positive, but it really does not do much. It only requires recognition of marriages that would have been legal domestically, which is different from earlier proposals on marriage recognition and we could only speculate that this proposal is intended to preempt future proposals going in that direction. Furthermore, the Queendom takes issue with the language of this proposal, which seems to assume that marriages are between two people as it uses the word 'couples', whilst in some member states, such as the Queendom, marriages are legal also between three or more parties."

I don't see how this would preempt any future proposals. Right now, there aren't any other marriage proposals being drafted. Also, I can't remember anyone proposing this in any recent drafts for marriage laws.

References to couples are only in the preambulatory clauses (for lack of a better word). None of the active clauses contain such language.

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:As written this bill does do something: it requires recognition of certain foreign marriages. So presumably, there would be less red tape and no possibility of having your marriage voided simply because it wasn't officiated within a particular nation.

That is the only thing this proposal would do.

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:On the other hand, this is clearly a blocker in large part - meant to prevent a future bill that would require CD (and any other nation) to recognize the polygamous, incestuous, or inter-species marriages of other nations.

No, there isn't a blocker provision. The main reason for clause 1c is for some sort of situation like this:

1) Nation A has a marriageable age of 12.

2) Nation B has a marriageable age of 18.

3) Two citizens of Nation B who are 14 and 16 elope to Nation A and then later return to Nation B. Nation B is not required to recognize the marriage because it would be illegal if it had been performed domestically.

I want to add that this proposal also has the benefit of making it easier for people to have weddings at vacation spots in foreign countries; though, calling this a "free trade" proposal would be a stretch.
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%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

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

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Wed May 02, 2012 11:32 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:On the other hand, this is clearly a blocker in large part - meant to prevent a future bill that would require CD (and any other nation) to recognize the polygamous, incestuous, or inter-species marriages of other nations.

No, there isn't a blocker provision. The main reason for clause 1c is for some sort of situation like this:

1) Nation A has a marriageable age of 12.

2) Nation B has a marriageable age of 18.

3) Two citizens of Nation B who are 14 and 16 elope to Nation A and then later return to Nation B. Nation B is not required to recognize the marriage because it would be illegal if it had been performed domestically.

I want to add that this proposal also has the benefit of making it easier for people to have weddings at vacation spots in foreign countries; though, calling this a "free trade" proposal would be a stretch.

This is absolutely correct and I retract my prior statement. The proposal would not block any future action by the WA to legislate on marriage. To use CD's example above, Nation B could refuse to recognize the underage marriage entered into in Nation A unless the WA came along at some later date and forbid discrimination on the basis that a party is too young to enter into a marriage.

Indeed, the WA could presumably pass a future law prohibiting discrimination in marriage on any grounds (though obviously, that's not too likely).

Best Regards.
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
Zaklen
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 443
Founded: Jun 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaklen » Wed May 02, 2012 11:48 am

Preventing discrimination in a "Civil Union" on any grounds could actually be useful. As many nations give legal benefits to people who are married, such as joint filing of taxes, allowing a "Civil Union" between any two people could actually be useful. I think I just came up with an idea for a proposal...though I think I'd need to repeal a certain piece of legislation first so that I could make said adjustments without having a duplication violation.
Last edited by Zaklen on Wed May 02, 2012 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Peter Zyvex
Supreme Ruler of Zaklen
______________________________
Religion brings out both the best and the worst in humanity. Obviously, I strive to be an example of it bringing out the best.

User avatar
Paper Flowers
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Paper Flowers » Wed May 02, 2012 12:05 pm

Zaklen wrote:Preventing discrimination in a "Civil Union" on any grounds could actually be useful. As many nations give legal benefits to people who are married, such as joint filing of taxes, allowing a "Civil Union" between any two people could actually be useful. I think I just came up with an idea for a proposal...though I think I'd need to repeal a certain piece of legislation first so that I could make said adjustments without having a duplication violation.


Or we could just allow "marriages" and ignore religions that stamp their feet and sulk because someone else used a word?

Ambassador Walker
Liam. A. Saunders - Paper Flowers Ambassador to the World Assembly.

Factbook (under construction - last update 14th November 2012)
Current Affairs - Ambassador Walkers disappearance remains a mystery, Ambassador Saunders promoted in his place.

User avatar
Zaklen
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 443
Founded: Jun 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaklen » Wed May 02, 2012 12:23 pm

Even if I remove the religious connection, the idea I have come up with has a massive amount of potential. Why don't you wait for me to propose it before you shoot it down? Main issue I'm concerned with is that if I do this, I'll have to act quickly so that nations have as little time to abuse the removal of the Freedom of Marriage Act as possible.

As for getting this discussion back on track, Zaklen lends its support to this legislation.
Last edited by Zaklen on Wed May 02, 2012 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Peter Zyvex
Supreme Ruler of Zaklen
______________________________
Religion brings out both the best and the worst in humanity. Obviously, I strive to be an example of it bringing out the best.

User avatar
Paper Flowers
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Paper Flowers » Wed May 02, 2012 12:38 pm

Zaklen wrote:Even if I remove the religious connection, the idea I have come up with has a massive amount of potential. Why don't you wait for me to propose it before you shoot it down? Main issue I'm concerned with is that if I do this, I'll have to act quickly so that nations have as little time to abuse the removal of the Freedom of Marriage Act as possible.

As for getting this discussion back on track, Zaklen lends its support to this legislation.


Perhaps I should have quoted the ambassadors original statement rather than their most recent one, it was simply that their most recent comment made it even clearer where they stand.

With regards to this proposal, the introduction of the "civil union" phrase would simply serve to create a massive loophole for untrustworthy and criminal organisations that masquerade as religions would be easily able to abuse. As such we are opposed to it.
Liam. A. Saunders - Paper Flowers Ambassador to the World Assembly.

Factbook (under construction - last update 14th November 2012)
Current Affairs - Ambassador Walkers disappearance remains a mystery, Ambassador Saunders promoted in his place.

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Wed May 02, 2012 12:42 pm

We have a slight quibble with the following clause:

4. Affirms that this resolution has absolutely no effect on religious practices and that member states are not required by this resolution to recognize marriage or similar unions.


Clause 4 will just act as a blocker for the entire Resolution. The Resolution has the laudable aim of ensuring that nations recognise marriages undertaken in other nations. However, the fourth clause grants nations carte blanche to not recognise marriage. How, therefore can a person be married if his/her home nation does not recognise marriage? I demonstrate my point that clause 4 defeats the purpose of the resolution.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Viens
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 13
Founded: Apr 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Viens » Wed May 02, 2012 3:36 pm

The great nation of Viens must approve all marriages and thus refuses to support this act, as it would go against our great leader's ideals.

Sincerely,
Representative Abraham Weiss
Last edited by Viens on Wed May 02, 2012 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Wed May 02, 2012 4:14 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Alqania wrote:Lord Raekevik for once had a poker face as he took the floor. "This may sound positive, but it really does not do much. It only requires recognition of marriages that would have been legal domestically, which is different from earlier proposals on marriage recognition and we could only speculate that this proposal is intended to preempt future proposals going in that direction. Furthermore, the Queendom takes issue with the language of this proposal, which seems to assume that marriages are between two people as it uses the word 'couples', whilst in some member states, such as the Queendom, marriages are legal also between three or more parties."

I don't see how this would preempt any future proposals. Right now, there aren't any other marriage proposals being drafted. Also, I can't remember anyone proposing this in any recent drafts for marriage laws.

References to couples are only in the preambulatory clauses (for lack of a better word). None of the active clauses contain such language.


"Can't remember? We were debating international marriage recognition up until a month and a half ago. A proposal including recognition of foreign marriages is at the ready in case FoMA is repealed. Such a repeal is now being drafted. For someone who so often debates marriage, Your Excellency seems a bit ignorant of the current GA marriage discourse. But knowing the Christian Democrats' position against polyamory, I cannot help but wonder if Your Excellency is well aware of all this and the real reason for drafting this proposal is so that if in the future a proposal comes along that would require Christian Democrats to recognise polyamorous marriages, then that proposal would be illegal for duplicating or contradicting this one.

And still knowing the Christian Democrats' position on polyamory and reading this proposal in that light, the Queendom cannot accept any limitation of marriage to only two people within the proposal language, no matter how meaningless the clause including it may be.

And on a further, unrelated, note: why does this proposal exclude religious marriages? If two Alqanians get married in the Alqanian Evangelical Church, why should their marriage not be recognised as automatically in Christian Democrats as if they had gotten a civil marriage?"
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4949
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Wed May 02, 2012 4:24 pm

Alqania wrote:And on a further, unrelated, note: why does this proposal exclude religious marriages? If two Alqanians get married in the Alqanian Evangelical Church, why should their marriage not be recognised as automatically in Christian Democrats as if they had gotten a civil marriage?"


Most religious marriages have a civil component - that is to say, they are recognized both by the church and by the state. They would therefore be covered under this resolution. However, should a couple decide to get married solely through their church, their government would not recognize their marriage as legally valid; why, then, should other nations do so?
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Wed May 02, 2012 4:34 pm

Lord Richard took to his feet. "We believe our position here is with Lord Raekevik: This is too much of a blocker on the ability of the General Assembly to further legislate on non-discrimination in marriages or civil unions. With an elegantly inevitable consequentialness, we are opposed to the proposal at hand."
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Wed May 02, 2012 5:26 pm

Auralia wrote:
Alqania wrote:And on a further, unrelated, note: why does this proposal exclude religious marriages? If two Alqanians get married in the Alqanian Evangelical Church, why should their marriage not be recognised as automatically in Christian Democrats as if they had gotten a civil marriage?"


Most religious marriages have a civil component - that is to say, they are recognized both by the church and by the state. They would therefore be covered under this resolution. However, should a couple decide to get married solely through their church, their government would not recognize their marriage as legally valid; why, then, should other nations do so?


"All marriages performed by the Alqanian Evangelical Church are automatically recognised by Her Majesty's Government. Why would a government not recognise religious marriages as legally valid? That sounds wrong. The recognition of a religious marriage as legally valid does not make it a 'civil marriage', does it?"
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Embolalia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1670
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Embolalia » Wed May 02, 2012 5:28 pm

Yes, in fact. As with FoMA, this proposal relates to marriage as recognized by the state (though, admittedly, it does not phrase it as well). Whether or not that marriage is also recognized by a religion is completely irrelevant to the law.

Paper Flowers wrote:With regards to this proposal, the introduction of the "civil union" phrase would simply serve to create a massive loophole for untrustworthy and criminal organisations that masquerade as religions would be easily able to abuse. As such we are opposed to it.
Quite right. FoMA used the word, and there is little confusion over the fact that it is unrelated to the religious concept. Can we at least wait until people actually make the noise before we cower to it?

Merfurian wrote:Clause 4 will just act as a blocker for the entire Resolution. The Resolution has the laudable aim of ensuring that nations recognise marriages undertaken in other nations. However, the fourth clause grants nations carte blanche to not recognise marriage. How, therefore can a person be married if his/her home nation does not recognise marriage? I demonstrate my point that clause 4 defeats the purpose of the resolution.
FoMA already notes that nations have the right not to recognize marriage. The point here, as with FoMA, is that you can either recognize the type of marriage targeted (same-sex marriage in FoMA, foreign marriage here) or not recognize marriage at all. The two resolutions are really quite comparable in that respect.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Bible quote? No, that's just common sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia

Gafin Gower, Prime minister
E. Rory Hywel, Ambassador to the World Assembly
Gwaredd LLwyd, Lieutenant Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author: GA#95, GA#107, GA#132, GA#185
Philimbesi wrote:Repeal, resign, or relax.

Embassy Exchange
EBC News
My mostly worthless blog
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
@marcmack wrote:I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water & dirt. Also, not sure where to put it."

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads