Advertisement
by Quadrimmina » Wed May 09, 2012 12:47 am
by Dagguerro » Wed May 09, 2012 4:50 am
by Christian Democrats » Wed May 09, 2012 11:19 am
Quadrimmina wrote: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.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Leschnikoff » Wed May 09, 2012 11:55 am
by Damanucus » Wed May 09, 2012 5:34 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:[box]c. The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;
by Quadrimmina » Wed May 09, 2012 5:37 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Quadrimmina wrote: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.
by Christian Democrats » Wed May 09, 2012 6:21 pm
Damanucus wrote:I have pledged my initial support for this proposal, however there is one clause that worries me somewhat:Christian Democrats wrote: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
Christian Democrats wrote: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.
Quadrimmina wrote:Christian Democrats wrote: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"?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by New Edom » Wed May 09, 2012 8:06 pm
by Quadrimmina » Wed May 09, 2012 10:48 pm
Christian Democrats wrote: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?
by Quelesh » Thu May 10, 2012 1:18 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Quadrimmina wrote: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.
by Damanucus » Thu May 10, 2012 6:27 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Damanucus wrote: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:Christian Democrats wrote: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)
by Christian Democrats » Thu May 10, 2012 5:13 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Damanucus » Thu May 10, 2012 6:20 pm
by Christian Democrats » Thu May 10, 2012 6:33 pm
Damanucus wrote: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
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Damanucus » Thu May 10, 2012 6:53 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Damanucus wrote: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.
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri May 11, 2012 9:58 am
Damanucus wrote:I would like a guarantee from the delegation of Christian Democrats that resolutions allowing same-sex marriage and recognition thereof will not be repealed.
by Christian Democrats » Fri May 11, 2012 3:36 pm
Sionis Prioratus wrote:If only because the passage of this text - most ironically, given its proponents
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri May 11, 2012 3:49 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Sionis Prioratus wrote: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.
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri May 11, 2012 3:54 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:To anyone:
Feel free to write a piece of replacement legislation that we could enact immediately after a repeal of FOMA (if such could be achieved).
Also, realize that the LGBT community already has extensive protection from other resolutions (i.e., those protecting sexual privacy and preventing discrimination).
I believe a more broadly acceptable resolution recognizing domestic partnerships would be better than FOMA and also would respect national sovereignty.
I will not debate this issue any further, at least for the meantime, while I focus on the "Beginning of Life Act" for which a ruling just was made.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Christian Democrats wrote: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).
by Christian Democrats » Fri May 11, 2012 4:04 pm
Sionis Prioratus wrote:But if fascism becomes fashionable once more...
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri May 11, 2012 4:09 pm
by Damanucus » Sat May 12, 2012 1:06 am
by Christian Democrats » Sat May 12, 2012 11:00 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Damanucus » Sat May 12, 2012 6:16 pm
Christian Democrats wrote: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).
by Embolalia » Sun May 13, 2012 12:35 pm
Christian Democrats wrote: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.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement