NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal:

That when a couple gets married according to the laws of one UN member nation, then that marriage must be legally respected in all the UN member nations.


So, what is the opinion of my fellow UN members on my proposal?

That would mean: if one country abolishs Gay marriage, people could travel to other countries which allow it, marry there and are after that legally married in their homeland? That does not sound bad.

For those who are bothered by the above statement made by Rejistania (i'm not), you should note that the proposal says nothing about whether you have to allow "undesireables" into your nation or not.

Although we in Gurthark appreciate the spirit behind this proposal, we are afraid we cannot support it as currently written.

Our worries are not related to gay marriage, but rather to marriages where one partner does not or cannot consent.

The most obvious case of this is marriage to children, which is bad enough. But consider the following nightmare scenario:

Country X allows some or all people to marry individuals without their consent, or even requiring their presence. This would allow someone in Country X to marry someone who currently resides on Gurtharkian soil, possibly even a Gurtharkian citizen, without their consent or knowledge. If this resolution were to pass, we in Gurthark would be obligated to recognize the union. Due to laws that make immigration nearly automatic for the spouses of Gurtharkian citizens, we would be obligated to admit them into the country. Even if their spouses divorced them under Gurthark's liberal divorce laws, they could go back to Country X and effectively undo the divorce.

We in Gurthark already allow for a legal marriage between any two--or more, for that matter--consenting adults (in our nation, this has tax consequences and creates a prima facie [but overridable] power of attorney). But we are not willing to be forced to accept marriages not between adults or where one of the partners does not consent.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Support "Reduce Antibiotic Resistance" (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80559) for a healthier world!

As a marriage is a consensual agreement between two or more individuals, it is not the concern of the state. Therefore, Ithuania accords no legal status to marriage and will not accept any proposal that can be construed as forcing it to do so.

The good people of Godisrightistan consider Marriage sacred, but feel that we must vote against this proposal for the following reasons:

1) As already pointed out by an esteemed colleague, it is impossible for Godisrightistan to approve of marriages made without the clear consent of both the bride and the groom, or their representatives. Furthermore, we strongly disapprove marriage between or involving underaged persons, especially of those below the country's age of consent (15). Because some other countries might have marriage laws more lax than ours, or might not disapprove nonconsentual marriages, we feel that we must reserve the right to void a marriage considered unlawful or improper by our standards.

2) The mentioned same-sex marriage issue is unfit for discussion. Such marriages are not, and will not be approved within the borders of Godisrightistan. "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " (Leviticus 20:13)

3) Furthermore, Godisrightistan will not allow any other nation to grant a divorce for a couple married by our laws. Such a marriage is good in the eyes of God, and let no man part such a couple, unless they themselves feel they are unfit for eachother. In such cases, the marriage laws given to us by God, as stated in the Leviticus, will be applied if the situation so requires.

Thus, we must regretfully vote against this proposal.

As marriage is a consensual agreement between two or more individuals, it is not the concern of the state. Therefore, Ithuania does not accord any legal status to marriage and cannot accept any proposal that either explicitly or implicitly forces it to do so.

We voted "yes" in your poll. However, we hope that the scope of the resolution will be limited to marriages involving human beings. Gay marriages are fine, but we're not quite ready to recognise "marriages" between people and their housepets.

We voted "yes" in your poll. However, we hope that the scope of the resolution will be limited to marriages involving human beings. Gay marriages are fine, but we're not quite ready to recognise "marriages" between people and their housepets.

Vinush agrees with this sentiment.

Marriage to animals is a disgrace.

Gurthark has an excellent point. In most jurisdictions marriage has legal consequences in property ownership, insurance, death or injury claims, duty of support and otherwise. How we regard marriage affects all these legal relationships, so it is a serious and consequential matter.
Then if marriage is permitted which contravenes basic human rights (and UN resolutions concerning same) the legal and social system is undermined.

2) The mentioned same-sex marriage issue is unfit for discussion. Such marriages are not, and will not be approved within the borders of Godisrightistan. "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " (Leviticus 20:13)



My go
If you're in the UN...

WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays. We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Gay marriage is legal in your country...

And while we're playing with my favourite book of the bible...


Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


Check your jeans and shirt...


'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

How's your hair cut

I could go on...

Loadsalove
Kelly
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

Okay, if you think that you are all smart, then how would you word the proposal?

My go
If you're in the UN...

WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays. We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Gay marriage is legal in your country...


We have yet to ratify that resolution, and very likely never will.

(OOC: Do UN resolutions go over the nation's own laws in Nationstates?)

And while we're playing with my favourite book of the bible...


Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


Check your jeans and shirt...


'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

How's your hair cut

I could go on...

You could go on, but you don't have to, since there is an abundance of the Good Book in Godisrightistan. We may read it ourselves.

As to the above quotes: So it is written, so it shall be done. The Law needs not be understood, only obedience is required. Visit our beutiful country someday and you might yet understand.

In any event, may God grant you a productive day.
---
Innocentius I, Psychopomp of The Holy Empire of Godisrightistan

(OOC: Do UN resolutions go over the nation's own laws in Nationstates?)


[OOC: Yes, they do. If you are a U.N. member, you are *automatically* bound by U.N. resolutions. (As the FAQ states, this is obviously very different from the real-world U.N., which member nations ignore all the time.)]

As supporters of home rule, the people of my Most Serene Republic vote against this proposal (that is, as their president and international envoy, I cast the vote on their behalf).

If this resolution were to pass, its effects would unavoidably be felt in Automastan, as NationStates coding dictates; but the text of the resolution would not be enforced. This is also our reaction to the aforementioned Gay Rights Resolution; because, as a nation with Jews and Christians of various denominations as its vast majority (some analysts have estimated the Judeo-Christian population at 89% of the total, but I digress), we consider homosexuality immoral according to the Word of God (specifically, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:22-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; and Revelation 21:8).

Concerning Nebbyland's arguments about Leviticus, I will not, unless asked, add my two autos to create a theological discussion.

His Serenity the President has finished.

2) The mentioned same-sex marriage issue is unfit for discussion. Such marriages are not, and will not be approved within the borders of Godisrightistan. "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " (Leviticus 20:13)



My go
If you're in the UN...

WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays. We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Gay marriage is legal in your country...

And while we're playing with my favourite book of the bible...


Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


Check your jeans and shirt...


'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

How's your hair cut

I could go on...

Loadsalove
Kelly
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

But what is orderred as the consequences for these? Those who commit homosexual acts are supposed to be put to death, but no specific penalties are associated with violations of these. A reasonable course of action would be to defer to the broader punishments orderred in Leviticus 26:14-17. Shorthand version is, if one does not obey God, He withholds His protection. You will be made ill . . . your crops will not yield well . . . your enemies will defeat you. Surely you can appreciate the hierarchy of sins that is implied by the severity of punishments.

All that said, I personally am more into the "justice belongs to God" type sentiments in the New Testament. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is of no consequence to me - it's not something I'd engage in either way, and if God objects to it, He'll do what he wants about it. It's nothing for me to concern myself with. But this "Leviticus says you can't have that haircut also" type argument ignores context.

As far as this resolution goes, if recognition of gay marriage is already mandated by the UN, then the issues of being forced by this resolution to recognize incestuous marriages or those which lack mutual consent seem particularly relevant, as they would be the type of situations that are not already protected by UN mandate.

But what is orderred as the consequences for these? Those who commit homosexual acts are supposed to be put to death, but no specific penalties are associated with violations of these. A reasonable course of action would be to defer to the broader punishments orderred in Leviticus 26:14-17. Shorthand version is, if one does not obey God, He withholds His protection. You will be made ill . . . your crops will not yield well . . . your enemies will defeat you. Surely you can appreciate the hierarchy of sins that is implied by the severity of punishments.

OOC: I'm actually a leftist liberal hippie, so I can't say for sure how a nation trying to literally enforce the laws of the Old Testament (i.e. my very own Godisrightistan) should interpret that. Because of the differences in tone of the "original" Bible texts and the modern version, I as Godisrightistan shall go with the Finnish translation of the Bible, just for the reason that Finnish is my mother tongue. In the Finnish version of Leviticus it clearly states that men who sleep with men must be killed. Thus I will use that as Godisrightistan's position.


IC: Godisrightistan seconds Vinush. Marriage to animals (and any other perverse objects of desire) is a disgrace.

The final Finnish solution?

While the resolution is interesting....marriage is more than just a simple religious or civil act. A good portion of our own tax laws for instance, deal with the entire business of married couples and shared incomes.

If this proposal were to be implemented, what guarantee would New Clarkhall have that two people from Godisrightistan or Nebbyland or wherever who say they were married there, are actually married? Would we need to check households to make sure they weren't getting illegal tax cuts and ARE in fact actually married? The people of New Clarkhall would not take well to such intrustion into their lives.

Finally, we find it doubly interesting that this resolution in being proposed. We were under the impression that currently, most marriages are internationally recognized. The only exceptions that spring to mind, are cases where the couple is homosexual, or exceedingly young (getting married at 16 might not be acceptable in many countries). Is this just a way to legalize homosexual marriages? If so it has already been done in a previous UN resolution. Otherwise, this is just a way to legalize child marriages...in which case, the people of New Clarkhall would cordially like to invite the proponents for a good round of fisticuffs to show what we think of the concept.

-New Clarkhall

We in Mintar feel that this proposal isn't really worth suggesting. There are other wrongs to right in thiw world.

The final Finnish solution?

OOC: Completely Finnished, it seems.