NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] Restricting Polygamy

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

[Draft] Restricting Polygamy

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:28 am

Dismayed at the many legal problems another marriage might bring on the other partner(s),

Wishing to protect people from having partners secretly being married to other partner(s),

The World Assembly mandates member states to enact the following as law:
1a.A person already married to one or more partners in marriage must inform these partners about any person they intend to marry(or have married) as soon as reasonably possible.
1b.People who were registered as missing persons at the time of intent to marry do not have to be informed until they ask their other partners about marriages they entered in whilst they were missing.
2.Before marriage, any potential partner must be informed about the other partner(s) marriages, and intents to marry.
3.Trying to get someone registered as missing person to skip the requirements in clause 1a shall be a crime.
4a.Preceding clauses 1a, 1b and 2 shall ignore purely religious marriages.
4b.A marriage recognized by this state leading to any additional legal privileges and/or duties is not a purely religious marriage.
4c.If the marriage includes enforceable contractual obligations it is not a purely religious marriage.

Moral Decency; Significant

Thoughts?
Last edited by Old Hope on Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9712
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:13 am

There are legitimate reasons for a member nation not to recognise any marriages at all. This resolution would use state power to enforce religious norms. Against.

Author: 1 SC and 36 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:28 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:There are legitimate reasons for a member nation not to recognise any marriages at all. This resolution would use state power to enforce religious norms. Against.

Legitimate reasons like... what exactly? Nothing in this resolution forces a member state to perform, allow to perform marriage, or to give married people any additional rights beyond notification of other marriages.
Last edited by Old Hope on Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6373
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:43 am

Old Hope wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:There are legitimate reasons for a member nation not to recognise any marriages at all. This resolution would use state power to enforce religious norms. Against.

Legitimate reasons like... what exactly? Nothing in this resolution forces a member state to perform, allow to perform marriage, or to give married people any additional rights beyond notification of other marriages.

(OOC: Marriage can be viewed as a purely religious ritual, without any governmental regulation or interference. With exceptions for things such as child marriage, this means that laws governing marriage don’t take account of this, very reasonable, situation.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:55 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Old Hope wrote:Legitimate reasons like... what exactly? Nothing in this resolution forces a member state to perform, allow to perform marriage, or to give married people any additional rights beyond notification of other marriages.

(OOC: Marriage can be viewed as a purely religious ritual, without any governmental regulation or interference. With exceptions for things such as child marriage, this means that laws governing marriage don’t take account of this, very reasonable, situation.)

OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?
Last edited by Old Hope on Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6373
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:59 am

Old Hope wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Marriage can be viewed as a purely religious ritual, without any governmental regulation or interference. With exceptions for things such as child marriage, this means that laws governing marriage don’t take account of this, very reasonable, situation.)

OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?

(OOC: It is all the clauses apart from clause 3 which would pose the problem. A member state under this model wouldn’t care about marriage, and would leave it entirely to the local religious bodies to decide. In which case, adding regulations would require member states to regulate marriage, compromising the secularity of marriage.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:13 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Old Hope wrote:OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?

(OOC: It is all the clauses apart from clause 3 which would pose the problem. A member state under this model wouldn’t care about marriage, and would leave it entirely to the local religious bodies to decide. In which case, adding regulations would require member states to regulate marriage, compromising the secularity of marriage.)

(OOC:Not beyond the clauses mandated by this resolution. Alternatively, I could introduce an exception for marriages with solely religious character that do not result in any additional legal duties or privileges for the married people - if needed.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 266
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:18 am

"Ambassador, just to be clear, we are talking about legal marriages here and not social or religious marriages, right?"

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1059
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Attempted Socialism » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:54 am

"We are against government in the bedroom unless there is a real, compelling reason. This shoddy draft reads as a compelling reason to get government farther away from the bedrooms of citizens. I don't think the draft is redeemable."


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:07 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:"We are against government in the bedroom unless there is a real, compelling reason. This shoddy draft reads as a compelling reason to get government farther away from the bedrooms of citizens. I don't think the draft is redeemable."

General Assembly Resolution #383 already protects that. This draft does not regulate sexual activity at all.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1059
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Attempted Socialism » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:22 am

Old Hope wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:"We are against government in the bedroom unless there is a real, compelling reason. This shoddy draft reads as a compelling reason to get government farther away from the bedrooms of citizens. I don't think the draft is redeemable."

General Assembly Resolution #383 already protects that. This draft does not regulate sexual activity at all.

"Oh sorry, we must have turned out subtext-to-text translator on by accident. Let me rephrase, then. Government has no legitimate role to play between consenting adults. Especially so if the law in question is written by the delegation from Old Hope."


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:31 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Old Hope wrote:General Assembly Resolution #383 already protects that. This draft does not regulate sexual activity at all.

"Oh sorry, we must have turned out subtext-to-text translator on by accident. Let me rephrase, then. Government has no legitimate role to play between consenting adults. Especially so if the law in question is written by the delegation from Old Hope."

I see that you are already resorting to personal attacks. The rest of your argument is bad, because in this case it greatly affects a third person, notification requirements are reasonable. Your arguments are not convincing.

User avatar
Barfleur
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 375
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Barfleur » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:38 am

Old Hope wrote:Concerned that polygamous marriages frequently become abusive,

"And how have you come to that conclusion? What evidence do you have for such a statement?"

Dismayed at the many legal problems another marriage might bring on the other partner(s),

"Coming from Barfleur, a nation in which polygamy has been prohibited, I must confess I do not exactly know how such a marriage might be arranged, but I would assume the marriage would be done as a group, rather than starting out with two partners and wantonly bringing in more."

Wishing to protect people from having partners secretly being married to other partner(s),

"I'm sure most nations that permit polygamy have some law requiring people to know who they or their spouse are married to."

The World Assembly mandates member states to enact the following as law:

1a.A person already married to one or more partners in marriage must inform these partners about any person they intend to marry(or have married) as soon as reasonably possible.

"Agreed."
1b.People who were registered as missing persons at the time of intent to marry do not have to be informed until they ask their other partners about marriages they entered in whilst they were missing.

"If a person is able to enter into marriages, which I would presume requires identification of some sort from the government, how would they still be considered missing? If a missing person walks into a courthouse and asks for a marriage license, they are no longer a missing person."
2.Before marriage, any potential partner must be informed about the other partner(s) marriages, and intents to marry.

"That sounds about right."
3.Trying to get someone registered as missing person to skip the requirements in clause 1a shall be a crime.

"Doesn't registering someone as missing actually require them to be missing?"
Barfleur, Where Blue Seas Meet Golden Sands
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18454
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:39 am

polygamous marriages frequently become abusive

According to who? I haven’t seen any evidence that it is either more or less so than a 2 person marriage. It would be helpful if you didn’t use a fallacious premise as a basis for your proposal.

(Also, not seeing this as significant strength)
Curmudgeon, Bastard, Grumpy Old Man. And those are my good qualities.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:40 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Old Hope wrote:OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?

(OOC: It is all the clauses apart from clause 3 which would pose the problem. A member state under this model wouldn’t care about marriage, and would leave it entirely to the local religious bodies to decide. In which case, adding regulations would require member states to regulate marriage, compromising the secularity of marriage.)

We have changed the text of this resolution based on your concerns. Feedback is appreciated.
Grays Harbor wrote:
polygamous marriages frequently become abusive

According to who? I haven’t seen any evidence that it is either more or less so than a 2 person marriage. It would be helpful if you didn’t use a fallacious premise as a basis for your proposal.

(Also, not seeing this as significant strength)

OOC:Are you sure? The resolution uses terms like "must", so Mild is a bit questionable, but it is not "strong" because it does not have an effect beyond notification(and criminalizing something that is probably illegal in many member states anyways).
Last edited by Old Hope on Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Great Robertia
Envoy
 
Posts: 203
Founded: Jul 17, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Great Robertia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:15 pm

"Firmly opposed. This resolution is sticking its long nose into affairs it doesn't belong in."
The Imperial State of Great Robertia

An empire formed from the unification of the Robertian Peninsula, where the monarch is revered in a cult of personality.

Our Leader: Emperor Robert Peter I | Our Capital: Saint Robertsburg | Government type: Unitary semi-constitutional parliamentary monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech | Civilization index: 13.71


User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1108
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:18 pm

"I might support a resolution that makes it so that in instances where marriage is a state-run ordeal, and polygamy is permitted for anybody, it must be permitted for everyone. The keyword is might there, and I just got out of a tiring meeting with my cousin from the other assembly, so even that possible support may be due to the headache that I've endured."

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:02 pm

Great Robertia wrote:"Firmly opposed. This resolution is sticking its long nose into affairs it doesn't belong in."

You read the draft, right? Not just the title?
Morover wrote:"I might support a resolution that makes it so that in instances where marriage is a state-run ordeal, and polygamy is permitted for anybody, it must be permitted for everyone. The keyword is might there, and I just got out of a tiring meeting with my cousin from the other assembly, so even that possible support may be due to the headache that I've endured."

What you are saying makes no sense, ambassador.
Last edited by Old Hope on Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Great Robertia
Envoy
 
Posts: 203
Founded: Jul 17, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Great Robertia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:19 pm

Old Hope wrote:
Great Robertia wrote:"Firmly opposed. This resolution is sticking its long nose into affairs it doesn't belong in."

You read the draft, right? Not just the title?


"We did, Ambassador, I find it most curious you think I didn't. Is it reflective of your own style in commenting on proposals?

No, don't answer that, as I digress. My response remains the same, no matter how many times I'll reread the current draft."
The Imperial State of Great Robertia

An empire formed from the unification of the Robertian Peninsula, where the monarch is revered in a cult of personality.

Our Leader: Emperor Robert Peter I | Our Capital: Saint Robertsburg | Government type: Unitary semi-constitutional parliamentary monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech | Civilization index: 13.71


User avatar
Godular
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11065
Founded: Sep 09, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Godular » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:00 pm

“Opposed. If you have issues with people using polygamy for the purposes of tax fraud, you can damn well fix it on your end.”
RL position
Active RP: ASCENSION
Active RP: SHENRYAX
Dormant RP: Throne of the Fallen Empire

Faction 1: The An'Kazar Control Framework of Godular-- An enormously advanced collective of formerly human bioborgs that are vastly experienced in both inter-dimensional travel and asymmetrical warfare.
A 1.08 civilization, according to this Nation Index Thingie
I don't normally use NS stats. But when I do, I prefer Dos Eckis I can STILL kill you.
Post responsibly.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15316
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:02 pm

Great Robertia wrote:
Old Hope wrote:You read the draft, right? Not just the title?


"We did, Ambassador, I find it most curious you think I didn't. Is it reflective of your own style in commenting on proposals?

No, don't answer that, as I digress. My response remains the same, no matter how many times I'll reread the current draft."

"My, my. Even ambassadors who arrived recently are sensing a pattern..." Bell mused quietly.

"We do not object in principle to the concept of notification of parties to a polygamous marriage. We have a problem with any resolution that gives broad religious exceptions to marital regulations. We also share the Godulan opinion. Opposed."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:22 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"We do not object in principle to the concept of notification of parties to a polygamous marriage. We have a problem with any resolution that gives broad religious exceptions to marital regulations. We also share the Godulan opinion. Opposed."

These exceptions are no longer broad, which was an oversight.
Tax fraud is not the only concern, Ambassador Bell. A partner should simply be notified because it is just not right to put someone into a polygamous marriage without their knowledge.

User avatar
Wealthatonia
Envoy
 
Posts: 212
Founded: Sep 19, 2016
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Wealthatonia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:02 pm

Ambassador, you're forgetting that monogomous marriages have abuse in them too.
Wealthatonian Ambassador JP Rockefeller

"Fine dining, grand buffets, and money used as napkins as far as the eye can see.

Gold-topped everything for Wealthatonia" what New Scaiva and Horshenwurst thinks the average meal is like in our nation

_[' ]_
(-_Q) If you support Capitalism put this in your Signature!

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15316
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:57 pm

Old Hope wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"We do not object in principle to the concept of notification of parties to a polygamous marriage. We have a problem with any resolution that gives broad religious exceptions to marital regulations. We also share the Godulan opinion. Opposed."

These exceptions are no longer broad, which was an oversight.
Tax fraud is not the only concern, Ambassador Bell. A partner should simply be notified because it is just not right to put someone into a polygamous marriage without their knowledge.

"This same logic would follow for a non-marital relationship. Thus it would be incumbent on a person to warn their spouse of an extra-marital relationship. I think most of us may agree that however morally bankrupt such an act may be, it is entirely outside the concern of the state to enforce the sanctity of a marital bed. Ye Old Gods, the expense of enforcement! The constant violations of privacy! The petty abuses inherent in a system that criminalizes matters best handled by private parties! No, ambassador, I cannot support such an ill conceived approach to what is hardly even a national concern. Given the right to divorce enshrined in World Assembly law, I see no further need for regulation.

"I must thank you for pointing out the concerns I did not previously see, even at the cost of my support."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Silver Commonwealth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1696
Founded: Aug 16, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Silver Commonwealth » Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:43 am

''We aren't members of WA, so no formal diplomatic messages, but just notes with our opinion.''


''As much as we in the government would dislike and restrict polygamy, and government sticking its nose in such matters is not exactly something we would oppose, in the end in reality of WA it should ultimately be a decision for each country on their own. Opposed.''

Samuel Marshall, the Commonwealth's Representative to WA, and one of the SC's ambassadors
The Ministry of Foreign and Internal affairs as a whole


(OOC: I heard that non-WA nations can post in WA threads as well, so here's my first attempt at the new waters.)
Last edited by Silver Commonwealth on Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
✥ ᴛʜᴇ ɴᴇᴡꜱ ✥
- ꜱɴɴ
- ᴀʀᴄʜɪᴠᴇ
✉ ʀᴀɴᴅᴏᴍ ✉
- ᴀᴅᴍɪɴɪꜱᴛʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴ
- ꜱᴛᴏʀɪᴇꜱ
⚒ ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴇɢɪᴏɴᴀʀʏ ᴡᴏʀʟᴅ ᴏʀᴅᴇʀ ᴏꜰ ꜱɪʟᴠᴇʀ ᴄᴏᴍᴍᴏɴᴡᴇᴀʟᴛʜ ⚒
|☐ʜᴏᴍᴇ☐|❖ꜱᴄ ɪɴ ʜᴏɪ4❖|★ꜱᴄ'ꜱ ʀᴀᴅɪᴏ&ʟᴏᴄᴀᴛɪᴏɴꜱ★|❇ᴄᴏɴꜱᴛɪᴛᴜᴛɪᴏɴ❇|✧ᴍɪʟɪᴛᴀʀʏ✧|✝ᴍᴀᴘꜱ&ɪɴꜰᴏ✝|☢ʜɪꜱᴛᴏʀʏ☢|
⚖ ᴀꜱ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴏᴅᴇʀᴀᴛᴇꜱ ᴀʀᴏᴜɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇᴍ ꜰᴇʟʟ,
ʀᴀᴅɪᴄᴀʟɪᴢᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ᴏꜰ ꜱᴄ'ꜱ ᴅᴇᴍᴏᴄʀᴀᴄʏ ꜱᴜᴘᴘᴏʀᴛᴇʀꜱ ʙᴇᴄᴀᴍᴇ ᴀ ᴍᴀᴛᴛᴇʀ ᴏꜰ ꜱᴜʀᴠɪᴠᴀʟ ☠
_[][][][][][][L'''][Σ][][~][][][]_
̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\(▀_(▀_(▀_(▀_(▀_(▀_(▀_▀)_▀)_▀)_▀)_▀)_▀)_▀)/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿

Flag is for next card season. Credit to David Plisken

''Previously we stood in sidelines when nukes flied. But this time we will be one of the Horsemen who will bring the Apocalypse''

SC's VERY DETAILED system of magic

SC ĐØɆ₴₦'₮ ⱤɆ₱ⱤɆ₴Ɇ₦₮ ₥Ɏ VłɆ₩₴

Simply Moi

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Girua

Advertisement

Remove ads