Advertisement
by Starkindler » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:01 am
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:04 am
Tomiislav wrote:The representative of Tomiislav stands up, looking confused.
"To me, it appears the aim of this bill is to support segregation anurld racism. For example, if a country or leadership wants to keep out a race it finds inferior, this bill can be used to filter out, or discourage legal immigration to their nation. This could cause possible problems and wars. For example, if the leadership of a member nation wants to keep the Jewish faith out of there nation without breaking WA laws, they could just make a law saying that Jews can not marry, therefore, no Jewish people would be able to live in that nation as a couple. Clearly taking away the Civil Rights the WA wants to preserve. Our stance will be against until someone can disprove or relieve me of these worries."
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Cowardly Pacifists » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:06 am
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:11 am
Starkindler wrote:Even after reading GAR #15, I found that same-sex marriages could enjoy the necessary privileges, however, they are bound to the concept of person-hood not declared under any of the following laws. And unfortunately far too often, the liberal definition of person-hood causes the bases for discrimination, being the first to be withdrawn from the sentient individuals segregated against.
If such laws exist, to define person as a sentient individual able to give independent and free consent, regardless of ethnicity, religion, race, species or physical form, please mention it before the Assembly or propose such laws to be created.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Starkindler » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:15 am
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:56 am
Starkindler wrote:I found that GAR # 35 Clause 1/c sufficiently protects the rights of individuals.
However I found that Clause #4 creates a loophole and automatically voids the entire law.
"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."
The text in bold defeating the purpose of the entire resolution, rendering it null and void, despite the best intents of the Editor, who probably thought that it shall not force the Churches of the member States to accept other marriages, or the Member States to accept Church marriages.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:06 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Malicuria » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:09 am
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:11 am
Malicuria wrote:While this proposal guarantees the transfer of acknowledgement/recognition of marriage, it does not guarantee set rights associated with marriage causing further issues in areas of adoption, next of kin in case of emergency and will entitlements. I see this a grossly unfair and a negative aspect of this resolution.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by The Jahistic Unified Republic » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:17 am
The Emerald Dawn wrote:"Considering Officer Krupke was patently idiotic to charge these young men in the first place, we're dropping the charges in the interest of not wasting any more of the Judiciary's time with farcical charges brought by officers who require more training on basic legal principles."
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:46 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Free South Califas » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:38 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Starkindler wrote:I found that GAR # 35 Clause 1/c sufficiently protects the rights of individuals.
However I found that Clause #4 creates a loophole and automatically voids the entire law.
"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."
The text in bold defeating the purpose of the entire resolution, rendering it null and void, despite the best intents of the Editor, who probably thought that it shall not force the Churches of the member States to accept other marriages, or the Member States to accept Church marriages.
That clause would not void the law; rather, it would allow anarchist and libertarian member states to have privatized marriages.
by Astrolinium » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:40 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:08 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:08 pm
Astrolinium wrote:Clause 1C reeks of nefarious intent.
The Sublime Island Kingdom stands in opposition.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by New Corda » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:14 pm
by Firstaria » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:15 pm
New Corda wrote:As it stands, we only allow marriage between Consenting Human Adults, and if this would force us to recognize arranged marriages, marriages between minors and adults, or marriages between humans and non-humans, we would stand firmly in opposition.
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:
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;
The marriage does not violate World Assembly law; and
The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:20 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Four hours into voting:
Overall vote: 1,489 to 2,013 (43% support)
Non-delegate vote: 674 to 289 (70% support)
Delegate vote: 815 to 1724 (32% support)
Difference: 38 points
Undemocratic?
REGION | VOTES OF REGION MEMBERS |
10000 Islands (789 votes) | 55 to 19 (74% support) |
Europeia (328 votes) | 29 to 15 (66% support) |
Europe (204 votes) | 15 to 7 (68% support) |
The Pacific (147 votes) | 10 to 11 (48% support) |
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by New Corda » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:20 pm
The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;
by Firstaria » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:23 pm
Cerberion wrote:I have voted against as i feel this situation is somewhat manufactured and is far from being a significant international problem.
by Firstaria » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:26 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Four hours into voting:
Overall vote: 1,489 to 2,013 (43% support)
Non-delegate vote: 674 to 289 (70% support)
Delegate vote: 815 to 1724 (32% support)
Difference: 38 points
Undemocratic?
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:27 pm
Firstaria wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:Four hours into voting:
Overall vote: 1,489 to 2,013 (43% support)
Non-delegate vote: 674 to 289 (70% support)
Delegate vote: 815 to 1724 (32% support)
Difference: 38 points
Undemocratic?
Have to ask, have you counted the delegate votes in the NON-delegate votes? Even if we didn't use the delegate rule, their vote would still count as 1. If you didn't count it, then you can cover those 38 points easily.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement