Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)

[Zeltros WA Mission]

Not all refusals to recognise marriage are about homophobia. Some of us have non-monogamous cultures. And would rather those cultures not be treated as inferior. Not to mention, some of us prefer not to tell our people two is the maximum number for a relationship...

[The Rich Port]

Not all refusals to recognise marriage are about homophobia. Some of us have non-monogamous cultures. And would rather those cultures not be treated as inferior. Not to mention, some of us prefer not to tell our people two is the maximum number for a relationship...

That's all nice and good... But some people work better in a relationship designated permanent. I'd rather open up more options than close others just to give the existing ones more glitz.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Not all refusals to recognise marriage are about homophobia. Some of us have non-monogamous cultures. And would rather those cultures not be treated as inferior. Not to mention, some of us prefer not to tell our people two is the maximum number for a relationship...

Pray tell what about FOMA prevents a nation or culture from recognizing non-monogomous relationships or recognizing relationships beyond two people?

A minimum requirement is, by definition, not a maximum. One would think such open-minded cultures as you suggest would as The Rich Port suggests want to increase opportunities for people's happiness rather than forbid them.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Not all refusals to recognise marriage are about homophobia. Some of us have non-monogamous cultures. And would rather those cultures not be treated as inferior. Not to mention, some of us prefer not to tell our people two is the maximum number for a relationship...

Pray tell what about FOMA prevents a nation or culture from recognizing non-monogomous relationships or recognizing relationships beyond two people?

A minimum requirement is, by definition, not a maximum. One would think such open-minded cultures as you suggest would as The Rich Port suggests want to increase opportunities for people's happiness rather than forbid them.

And better, the Secretariat has already ruled FoMA + RtaLD do not prohibit nations from recognising plural marriages:

Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#15

Proposed by: Sepioloida

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The institution of marriage is a cultural bond between consenting people. As such, it is not appropriate for the state to explicitly support specific flavours of marriage.

The existing resolution should be repealed for the following reasons:

1) Article 1(a) unreasonably restricts marriage to the union of two persons, thereby rejecting other constellations of consenting adults who may wish to be married according to the local culture.

2) Article 2(a) similarly restricts marriage as the union of two persons, rejecting other constellations of consenting adults who may wish to be married according to the local culture.

3) Article 2(b) has the same unreasonable restrictions as noted above.

4) Article 3(b) is an unfair imposition by a world body on what should be a local affair.

By repealing this resolution, marriage can return to being a social contract, devoid of governmental interference. Matters of inheritance and support can be freely settled by individual nations according to the will of their population.

Ideally, each state would choose to get out of the business of supporting specific marriages, but even that should be a national choice, not forced by a world body.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support

Besides being A SHIPMENT OF FAIL, it's illegal:

Red parts: FALSE. Mod Ruling.

Resolution #39, The Right to a Lawful Divorce has been brought to the Moderator's attention. A reading of the resolution showed it to be in conflict with the proposal. In particular, one of the details, a small but important one stands out.

RECOGNIZING that legal unions of marriage vary among member nations and include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including nationally recognized effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the parties,


Given this resolution is still on the books, it is reasonable extrapolate that this recognition covers polygamy. It would mean that the proposal put forth by Walden Estates would contradict this as the W.A. currently acknowledges that unions have two or more persons in them.

Another instance alluding to polygamous marriages can be found here:

2) Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with promptitude.


If it was truly limited to a union of two people, the phrasing would read: "Either of the parties to marriage..." as either implies one or the other, which is two. The use of "any" implies there could be two, there could be more. This is consistent with the phrase quoted above. This and the other clause imply that the number of persons to a union is left to the member state, which could be two or more, or none if marriage is non-existent.

For this reason, the proposal cannot legally go forward.

Blue parts: Repeal based on NatSov.

Thank you. That saves me time, and best of all, that's my ruling. Now to enforce it.

EDIT - While reading over res #15, while it does specifically say "two persons", however, it doesn't say that the government is to limit marriages to just two persons.

[Zeltros WA Mission]

And better, the Secretariat has already ruled FoMA + RtaLD do not prohibit nations from recognising plural marriages:

It does however seem to provide an obstacle for those with no marriages and no concept of marriages...
Not everybody finds their happiness in a human way.
It's all very well to say 'oh, but this is how to safeguard happiness.' This does not apply to all species or cultural psyches. Would you ask, say, a species that reproduced asexually and did not undergo sexual relationships at all to provide protection for nonexistent marriages?

[The Cat-Tribe]

And better, the Secretariat has already ruled FoMA + RtaLD do not prohibit nations from recognising plural marriages:

It does however seem to provide an obstacle for those with no marriages and no concept of marriages...
Not everybody finds their happiness in a human way.
It's all very well to say 'oh, but this is how to safeguard happiness.' This does not apply to all species or cultural psyches. Would you ask, say, a species that reproduced asexually and did not undergo sexual relationships at all to provide protection for nonexistent marriages?

Read FOMA carefully.

Then read it again.

Then see if what you are saying makes sense.