[PASSED] Foreign Marriage Recognition

[Quadrimmina]

The failure to allow for recognition of marriages that are not legally possible in the host nation creates many issues, though, when it is considered that such rights of marriage may be deemed necessary if, say, a spouse falls ill while on vacation (medical proxy). Due to this, our nation cannot support this measure.

[Dagguerro]

There's something about clause 1c that makes us mildly uncomfortable. I can't quite put my finger on it though; so until such a time as I figure that out: tentatively support.

[Christian Democrats]

The failure to allow for recognition of marriages that are not legally possible in the host nation creates many issues, though, when it is considered that such rights of marriage may be deemed necessary if, say, a spouse falls ill while on vacation (medical proxy). Due to this, our nation cannot support this measure.

Yes, this proposal would allow Quadrimmina not to recognize the child marriages performed in Backwateristan. As I believe I've mentioned earlier, there is nothing in this proposal that prevents member states from adopting more liberal foreign marriage recognition laws. If there is a certain kind of marriage that member states don't allow right now that you believe should be legal, then you can write a proposal to legalize that particular kind of marriage. There is not a blocker provision in this proposal.

[Leschnikoff]

Our representatives can't help but be confused; to whose benefit is this resolution? If a state such as Leschnikoff wishes to extend the benefits of marriage (by any name) solely to those married within our borders, why should we be forced to recognize foreign ones?

To put it another way, the resolution makes references to marriages that would be legal if performed within the nation, but what if marriages in a member state are by definition only legal when performed within the nation?

WA 15 orders members to establish basic protections to the civil union itself, and forbids discrimination based on sex and orientation in any configuration, but states retain the right to administer the unions, and establish what protections they carry.

While the language is largely acceptable, States which closely limit access to civil unions are heavily disenfranchised by this bill as it appears here. The issue which Leschnikoff finds most objectionable is the question of authority; we desire that our government maintain exclusive control over the nature and number of civil unions in our society, and are wary of anything which dilutes this control.

[Damanucus]

I have pledged my initial support for this proposal, however there is one clause that worries me somewhat:

[box]c. The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

Now, I know that marriage law differs between members states (OOC: Excuse the Captain Obvious moment), but if a marriage is legal in one state, shouldn't it be recognized as legal in another regardless?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Quadrimmina]

The failure to allow for recognition of marriages that are not legally possible in the host nation creates many issues, though, when it is considered that such rights of marriage may be deemed necessary if, say, a spouse falls ill while on vacation (medical proxy). Due to this, our nation cannot support this measure.

Yes, this proposal would allow Quadrimmina not to recognize the child marriages performed in Backwateristan. As I believe I've mentioned earlier, there is nothing in this proposal that prevents member states from adopting more liberal foreign marriage recognition laws. If there is a certain kind of marriage that member states don't allow right now that you believe should be legal, then you can write a proposal to legalize that particular kind of marriage. There is not a blocker provision in this proposal.

This is true, but why not do so in a resolution entitled "Foreign Marriage Recognition"?

[Christian Democrats]

I have pledged my initial support for this proposal, however there is one clause that worries me somewhat:

c. The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

Now, I know that marriage law differs between members states (OOC: Excuse the Captain Obvious moment), but if a marriage is legal in one state, shouldn't it be recognized as legal in another regardless?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I would rather leave that issue for individual member states to decide. There are multiple reasons for that clause. This is one that I mentioned earlier in this thread:

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.

That clause in my proposal would allow member states to prevent the evasion of certain marriage laws. It also would allow member states not to recognize certain kinds of marriage, such as child marriage, performed in foreign member states with which they disagree. (EDIT: that is, kinds of marriage with which they disagree)

Yes, this proposal would allow Quadrimmina not to recognize the child marriages performed in Backwateristan. As I believe I've mentioned earlier, there is nothing in this proposal that prevents member states from adopting more liberal foreign marriage recognition laws. If there is a certain kind of marriage that member states don't allow right now that you believe should be legal, then you can write a proposal to legalize that particular kind of marriage. There is not a blocker provision in this proposal.

This is true, but why not do so in a resolution entitled "Foreign Marriage Recognition"?

Why not expand the definition of civil marriage in international law? Or why not do something else?

If the former, that is not the purpose of this proposal. I like when proposals are kept to a single issue. The single issue in this proposal is: Should member states be required to recognize foreign marriages that comply with their domestic laws?

[New Edom]

Given the current state of affairs with concerns among trading partners vis a vis the recognition of marriage by commercial, business, diplomatic and allied military travelers in New Edom it appears to be in the best interests for the Government of the Allied States to recognize this proposal. For.

- Princess Mara Obed, Ambassador

[Quadrimmina]

If the former, that is not the purpose of this proposal. I like when proposals are kept to a single issue. The single issue in this proposal is: Should member states be required to recognize foreign marriages that comply with their domestic laws?

It's an equally single issue to ask Should member states be required to recognize foreign marriages in compliance with WA law? This would force recognition of all marriages except forced marriage.

The difference is that this makes this a more international issue. Instead of forcing recognition just because we want to, we force recognition to allow individuals the rights of their marriage to be portable. We allow citizens of other nations to exercise their marital rights in other nations when necessary: such as death rights, proxy rights, etc.

[Quelesh]

The failure to allow for recognition of marriages that are not legally possible in the host nation creates many issues, though, when it is considered that such rights of marriage may be deemed necessary if, say, a spouse falls ill while on vacation (medical proxy). Due to this, our nation cannot support this measure.

Yes, this proposal would allow Quadrimmina not to recognize the child marriages performed in Backwateristan. As I believe I've mentioned earlier, there is nothing in this proposal that prevents member states from adopting more liberal foreign marriage recognition laws. If there is a certain kind of marriage that member states don't allow right now that you believe should be legal, then you can write a proposal to legalize that particular kind of marriage. There is not a blocker provision in this proposal.

This is partially true and partially untrue.

This proposal would not block a future WA proposal requiring that all member states legalize polygamous marriage.

This proposal would block a future WA proposal requiring that all member states recognize foreign polygamous marriages even if polygamous marriage is illegal in that member state.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Damanucus]

I have pledged my initial support for this proposal, however there is one clause that worries me somewhat:



Now, I know that marriage law differs between members states (OOC: Excuse the Captain Obvious moment), but if a marriage is legal in one state, shouldn't it be recognized as legal in another regardless?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I would rather leave that issue for individual member states to decide. There are multiple reasons for that clause. This is one that I mentioned earlier in this thread:

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.

That clause in my proposal would allow member states to prevent the evasion of certain marriage laws. It also would allow member states not to recognize certain kinds of marriage, such as child marriage, performed in foreign member states with which they disagree. (EDIT: that is, kinds of marriage with which they disagree)

Okay, so member nations can write laws which dictate which marriages they will recognize. I can accept that.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal has reached quorum. Now, we just need to wait 22 days for it to come up for a vote.

[Damanucus]

Stephanie receipts a telegram from an Assembly messenger. A concerned look crosses her face as she takes to the podium.

I have just received word regarding the intentions of the delegate from Christian Democrats. While I support the intentions of this proposal, I would like a guarantee from the delegation of Christian Democrats that resolutions allowing same-sex marriage and recognition thereof will not be repealed.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Christian Democrats]

Stephanie receipts a telegram from an Assembly messenger. A concerned look crosses her face as she takes to the podium.

I have just received word regarding the intentions of the delegate from Christian Democrats. While I support the intentions of this proposal, I would like a guarantee from the delegation of Christian Democrats that resolutions allowing same-sex marriage and recognition thereof will not be repealed.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I am not planning a repeal of Resolution 15, I do not know of anyone who is planning a repeal of Resolution 15, and I do not believe that Resolution 15 could be repealed if an attempt were made.

[Damanucus]

Stephanie receipts a telegram from an Assembly messenger. A concerned look crosses her face as she takes to the podium.

I have just received word regarding the intentions of the delegate from Christian Democrats. While I support the intentions of this proposal, I would like a guarantee from the delegation of Christian Democrats that resolutions allowing same-sex marriage and recognition thereof will not be repealed.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I am not planning a repeal of Resolution 15, I do not know of anyone who is planning a repeal of Resolution 15, and I do not believe that Resolution 15 could be repealed if an attempt were made.

Thank you for your assurance.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Sionis Prioratus]

I would like a guarantee from the delegation of Christian Democrats that resolutions allowing same-sex marriage and recognition thereof will not be repealed.

Your Excellency will not need a stated guarantee to that effect. If only because the passage of this text - most ironically, given its proponents - will ensure for all time that "Freedom of Marriage" shall never be repealed. You see, were this to pass, in a further putative scenario where FoMA would also be repealed, it would mean that more theocratically-inclined nations, such as the proponents here, could immediately 1) void any and all gay marriages, 2) separate small children from their mothers and fathers and place them at the care of the Church, Mosque, or what have them, 3) dig up or remove from a grave or tomb the corpses of same-sex spouses from military cemeteries, 4) seal same-sex spouses off from hospital visitation, 5) and so on and so forth.

No minimally sane person could assent to such an astoundingly absurd scenario.

Yours in glee over unintended consequences,

[Christian Democrats]

If only because the passage of this text - most ironically, given its proponents

You really should go through the list of players supporting this proposal.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1336536124

There is no conspiracy.

[Sionis Prioratus]

If only because the passage of this text - most ironically, given its proponents

You really should go through the list of players supporting this proposal.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1336536124

There is no conspiracy.

Make it exclusively about Your Excellency, then.

Yours in never forgetting,

repeal FoMA

I agree.

[Sionis Prioratus]

To say nothing about this:

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

Because of what the poll is showing, I'm probably going to abandon this. The current WA is much more left-wing than its predecessor (see initial post).

But if fascism becomes fashionable once more...

[Christian Democrats]

But if fascism becomes fashionable once more...

Not to get off track, but I never have seen the reason for requiring religious states (especially theocracies and other nations with state religions) to use the word "marriage" for such relationships.

[Sionis Prioratus]

But if fascism becomes fashionable once more...

Not to get off track, but I never have seen the reason for requiring religious states (especially theocracies and other nations with state religions) to use the word "marriage" for such relationships.

I wonder it might be puzzling, Your Excellency. I further wonder if religious states need some external reason not to deprive LGBT people, whether they are married or not, of life or freedom.

My country has had a painful history of suffering for not having been vigilant enough, once.

Never again.

[Damanucus]

Stephanie requests a copy of the debate records quoted by the Delegate of Sionis Prioratus, and reads them for herself.

Your Excellency, noting the fact that I would like to hold you to your guarantee, I feel, though, that, in light of this new evidence, said guarantee is starting to become a little shaky. I suggest that, if there is anything else you would like to present to the Assembly regarding this proposition (including other aborted attempts to repeal FoMA), I would strongly suggest you do so now, just to present an air of transparency regarding your resolution and intentions.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Christian Democrats]

I keep a list of proposal ideas. This proposal is the only one on my list that deals with the topic of marriage. I'm not even planning another marriage resolution, much less an attempt to repeal FOMA (which I believe is unable to be repealed).

[Damanucus]

I keep a list of proposal ideas. This proposal is the only one on my list that deals with the topic of marriage. I'm not even planning another marriage resolution, much less an attempt to repeal FOMA (which I believe is unable to be repealed).

Do not fret, Ambassador. As long as you aren't planning to ban same-sex marriage (which you have convinced me you're not), I will hold you to your guarantee. (However, had you a resolution which allowed WA-wide recognition of polygamous marriage, I would have to abstain from that one, and maybe go into a lengthy debate regarding it, but that's another session.)

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Embolalia]

Not to get off track, but I never have seen the reason for requiring religious states (especially theocracies and other nations with state religions) to use the word "marriage" for such relationships.

Nor have I ever seen a resolution that requires you to do so. FoMA uses the word "marriage" exactly twice: in the title of the proposal, and in the title to Article 2. Neither of those is an active clause. There is absolutely nothing to stop you from using the terms "civil union", "domestic partnership", or even "legal fuckfest" to denote the unions therein described. FoMA is incredibly clear about the fact that it has bollocks to do with religion, spirituality, or anything other than a narrow section of nondiscrimination before the law.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia