NationStates Jolt Archive

Defense of Marriage Act
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Description: No Nation, territory, or Region,shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other Nation, territory, or Region, respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. In determining the meaning of any Resolutions, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United Nations, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Can we still having multiple spouses?

At the urging of His Eminence Jacques Cardinal Conomos, Archbishop of New Rome, the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria hereby lends its support to this proposal.

I would have to say that if you wish to make something like defining marriage, you would first have to abolish existing marriages are start from scratch.

That would ensure an universal standard that you wish to force upon people.

In the Commonwealth of Billthecat, individuals are free to marry whomever or whatever they want. A man can marry a woman, a man can merry a man, a woman can marry a sea turtle, a hermaphrodite can marry a toaster oven. The government makes no distinction between married and un married, there are only "designated beneficiaries." The institution of marriage is left to be defined by the individual or to the religion to which they subscribe. All is as it should be.

I'll vote against this one,all humans should be free to marry whoever they please...

Or WHAT-ever they please. Be careful of your unneccesarily humanistic wording there, Heian-Edo! :)

In the Commonwealth of Billthecat, individuals are free to marry whomever or whatever they want. A man can marry a woman, a man can merry a man, a woman can marry a sea turtle, a hermaphrodite can marry a toaster oven. The government makes no distinction between married and un married, there are only "designated beneficiaries." The institution of marriage is left to be defined by the individual or to the religion to which they subscribe. All is as it should be.
Might as well. Gay marrige will lead to all this.

How can a government permit and sanction a legal institution between certain types of people and not others? Would this not be on the same slippery slope as banning interracial marriages?

The only self-consistent points of view are to either allow ALL people to marry, or NONE. Anything in between is dependent on a "moral" evaluation which is impossible to truly define in a diverse society.

This isn't at all on the slippery slope to banning interracial marriages, as well the representative of Billthecat knows. The assertion that the only self-consistent point of view is to either allow all people to marry or none is a nonsense. Any sensible government forbids incestuous marriages, for example. Does the representative of Billthecat assert that a consanguous couple should be allowed to wed? If not, then surely, the argument the representative offers isn't as self-consistent as claimed.

This proposal simply defines that the UN will only regard as a marriage those unions which consist of one man, and one woman. It does allow ALL people to marry - no individual is forbidden from marrying under this proposal. It does withhold recognition from those who do not marry a person of the opposite sex, however.

The UN has absolutely no place in telling me what I can and cannot define as marriage unless the UN is offering marriage services.

Defense of Marriage Act
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Description: No Nation, territory, or Region,shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other Nation, territory, or Region, respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. In determining the meaning of any Resolutions, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United Nations, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Who's morals? Yours? Who are you to suggest that your morals are superior to all others? You support hatred! What's moral about that?

Is he claiming to be morally superior and we don't know how things should be on our own that we NEED help?

The UN has absolutely no place in telling me what I can and cannot define as marriage unless the UN is offering marriage services.

It is very important to realise that this proposal won't do that. All this proposal says is that the United Nations will not force a nation to recognise any marriage other than that between a man and a woman. "No Nation, territory, or Region, shall be required to give effect to any public act..."

I think this is a good proposal. For those people who want to allow same-sex marriages in their own nations, this proposal certainly doesn't stop them, and for those people who do not, this proposal guarantees that they will never have to do so.

This isn't at all on the slippery slope to banning interracial marriages, as well the representative of Billthecat knows. The assertion that the only self-consistent point of view is to either allow all people to marry or none is a nonsense. Any sensible government forbids incestuous marriages, for example. Does the representative of Billthecat assert that a consanguous couple should be allowed to wed? If not, then surely, the argument the representative offers isn't as self-consistent as claimed.

This proposal simply defines that the UN will only regard as a marriage those unions which consist of one man, and one woman. It does allow ALL people to marry - no individual is forbidden from marrying under this proposal. It does withhold recognition from those who do not marry a person of the opposite sex, however.

It is exactly the same slippery slope. If you feel it is immoral for men to wed men, mabye somebody else feels it is immoral for blacks to wed whites, and maybe it is immoral for catholics to marry protestants. You are free to have your set of morals and act according to them. However, to take your own morals and make them national policy is impractical, because unless you are a nation of clones, how can everybody have the same ideas of right and wrong?

You say that my argument is flawed because by allowing all marriages, you would allow blood relatives to wed, and HOW could anybody allow that? Well, what about second cousins? What about third cousins once removed? Where do you draw the line on which relative can marry which? You cannot, without being inconsistent at some point.

If you think about it, my point of view is perfectly self-consistent. You have black, and you have white, anything in betwen is a shade of gray.

We will disregard this proposal, as our laws are already completely latitudinarian.

From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Republic of Doujin
===============================================
Description: No Nation, territory, or Region,shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other Nation, territory, or Region, respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. In determining the meaning of any Resolutions, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United Nations, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The right to marriage is the right of two consenting adults to form a legal union, and acquire rights that allow them to function as a single, unified unit, and not two separate people. How is being a homosexual being immoral? We aren't given a choice - we are born that way. I don't recall waking up one day and saying "Hey, i think im going to start sucking d*ck"

The Emperor fails to see how barring same-sex couples from marrying will "defend" the institution of marraige.

Defense of Marriage Act
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Description: No Nation, territory, or Region,shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other Nation, territory, or Region, respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. In determining the meaning of any Resolutions, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United Nations, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Who's morals? Yours? Who are you to suggest that your morals are superior to all others? You support hatred! What's moral about that?

Exactly the position we take in opposition to this proposal, and as such, we'll use all political power we have to crush this proposal like the cockroach that it is. Were this actually about states' rights we may feel otherwise, but the language of the proposal and the reputation of the author make it clear that this is not the case.

I find it strange that some conservative nations whine about the UN intruding in morality and the soverignty of UN governments, but many of them would intrude in morality in ways such as this foolishly-titled "Defense of Marriage Act." Marriage, for the government, is simply a tax classification and a few legal and economic rights. Whatever marriage is for individuals or religious traditions is no concern of the UN. It is not the business of the UN to define marriage or "defend" one culturally-specific notion of it. This ridiculous proposal, should it ever see the light of quorum, will be cleanly voted down by the sensible nations of the world.

"I've always thought that being anti-homosexual is almost as pointless as being anti-rain" - Francis Maude

The UN has absolutely no place in telling me what I can and cannot define as marriage unless the UN is offering marriage services.

It is very important to realise that this proposal won't do that. All this proposal says is that the United Nations will not force a nation to recognise any marriage other than that between a man and a woman. "No Nation, territory, or Region, shall be required to give effect to any public act..."

I think this is a good proposal. For those people who want to allow same-sex marriages in their own nations, this proposal certainly doesn't stop them, and for those people who do not, this proposal guarantees that they will never have to do so.

You would be correct, were it not for the last sentence of the proposal: "In determining the meaning of any Resolutions, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United Nations, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

This sentence clearly DOES make a moral judgment for the entire UN by refusing to even talk about other definitions of marriage that currently exist in many countries, including my country of Etanistan. This second sentence means that the UN will not recognize many marriages in my country or many others.

If this proposal simply said something like "UN members need not, within their own borders, recognize any marriages from other nations" then you would be correct. As far as I know, my nation does not have to recognize any marriages from yours, be they heterosexual, homosexual, interspecies, or with toasters. This is the only fair legislation on this topic and since it's already the status quo as far as I know, there is no need even for the sort of resolution you wrongly think the "Defense of Marriage Act" is.

Hence, the Defense of Marriage Act is NOT as fair as you mistake it for and if it were, it would be useless legislation. Please vote "no" on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Thank you.
Geraldo Rawklo-Bierna, Vice Chancellor for Associate Informatics, Department of International Bureaucracy, Most Serene Republic of Etanistan

I would like to vote in opposition to this proposal. I would prefer a marriage contract satisfied in my country to be respected. We shall fight any attempt to block from citizens of Archaeus the legal rights to which they are entitled.

In Archaeus, marriage is a legal contract between two persons giving their informed consent. Thus, any two people with voting rights may request marriage under the laws of Archaeus. This resolution would force Archaeus to agree to differential rights, such that one sub-section of the population would have their rights honoured internally and externally, whilst another would have no such guarantee outside of Archaeus. This is unacceptable - if Archaeus were to refuse to honour /any/ and /all/ external marriage agreements, they would be disciplined. We request that the marriage contracts of any nation be accorded equal worth outside that nation, regardless of the restrictions placed by that nation on its own citizens.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I would like to vote in opposition to this proposal. I would prefer a marriage contract satisfied in my country to be respected. We shall fight any attempt to block from citizens of Archaeus the legal rights to which they are entitled.

In Archaeus, marriage is a legal contract between two persons giving their informed consent. Thus, any two people with voting rights may request marriage under the laws of Archaeus. This resolution would force Archaeus to agree to differential rights, such that one sub-section of the population would have their rights honoured internally and externally, whilst another would have no such guarantee outside of Archaeus. This is unacceptable - if Archaeus were to refuse to honour /any/ and /all/ external marriage agreements, they would be disciplined. We request that the marriage contracts of any nation be accorded equal worth outside that nation, regardless of the restrictions placed by that nation on its own citizens.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

The UN has absolutely no place in telling me what I can and cannot define as marriage unless the UN is offering marriage services.

It is very important to realise that this proposal won't do that. All this proposal says is that the United Nations will not force a nation to recognise any marriage other than that between a man and a woman. "No Nation, territory, or Region, shall be required to give effect to any public act..."

I think this is a good proposal. For those people who want to allow same-sex marriages in their own nations, this proposal certainly doesn't stop them, and for those people who do not, this proposal guarantees that they will never have to do so.

You would be correct, were it not for the last sentence of the proposal: "In determining the meaning of any Resolutions, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United Nations, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

This sentence clearly DOES make a moral judgment for the entire UN by refusing to even talk about other definitions of marriage that currently exist in many countries, including my country of Etanistan. This second sentence means that the UN will not recognize many marriages in my country or many others.



Indeed, what this proposal does is hide its intentions behind a veil of states' rights, then procedes to do exactly what it was claiming it was trying to prevent - it imposes a definition of marriage upon UN nations. We hope that those nations voting will be able to see through such a hypocritical ruse.

The UN has absolutely no place in telling me what I can and cannot define as marriage unless the UN is offering marriage services.

It is very important to realise that this proposal won't do that. All this proposal says is that the United Nations will not force a nation to recognise any marriage other than that between a man and a woman. "No Nation, territory, or Region, shall be required to give effect to any public act..."

I think this is a good proposal. For those people who want to allow same-sex marriages in their own nations, this proposal certainly doesn't stop them, and for those people who do not, this proposal guarantees that they will never have to do so.

You would be correct, were it not for the last sentence of the proposal: "In determining the meaning of any Resolutions, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United Nations, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

This sentence clearly DOES make a moral judgment for the entire UN by refusing to even talk about other definitions of marriage that currently exist in many countries, including my country of Etanistan. This second sentence means that the UN will not recognize many marriages in my country or many others.



Indeed, what this proposal does is hide its intentions behind a veil of states' rights, then procedes to do exactly what it was claiming it was trying to prevent - it imposes a definition of marriage upon UN nations. We hope that those nations voting will be able to see through such a hypocritical ruse.

Quite.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

You would be correct, were it not for the last sentence of the proposal: "In determining the meaning of any Resolutions, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United Nations, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

This sentence clearly DOES make a moral judgment for the entire UN by refusing to even talk about other definitions of marriage that currently exist in many countries, including my country of Etanistan. This second sentence means that the UN will not recognize many marriages in my country or many others.

If this proposal simply said something like "UN members need not, within their own borders, recognize any marriages from other nations" then you would be correct. As far as I know, my nation does not have to recognize any marriages from yours, be they heterosexual, homosexual, interspecies, or with toasters. This is the only fair legislation on this topic and since it's already the status quo as far as I know, there is no need even for the sort of resolution you wrongly think the "Defense of Marriage Act" is.

I concede that the second sentence gives a definition of what the United Nations will regard to be a marriage, but that definition is important. I've not seen any nation which allows marriages at all which disallows a marriage between a man and a woman. By defining that common denominator as the UN's broadest definition of a marriage, countries which do not wish to recognise other types of unions as marriages are not compelled to do so simply because they are UN members. If a nation seeks to extend the same protections afforded to a "UN marriage", they may do so... in their own national laws. All this second sentence does is define that which is regarded to be a marriage by the United Nations.

However, by making that definition, it is true that the United Nations lends its authority to one position over another. Since the Imperial Government agrees with that position, Pantocratoria will not withdraw its support for this proposal, however, we would support an alternative proposal such as that which you described should this one fail.

I disagree when you say that an alternative proposal such as this would be redundant since it merely articulates what is in fact the status quo. This doesn't make it redundant at all. A resolution such as the one you described would mean that the United Nations took the position that the recognition of what is and isn't a marriage was within the jurisdiction of an individual government. This resolution would therefore have to be overturned in order to allow a future proposal which went ahead and took a single side for the entire United Nations. A resolution such as that which you described would effectively act as a safeguard for nations which would prefer to define for themselves what is and is not a marriage. I encourage you to put it forward!

It is exactly the same slippery slope. If you feel it is immoral for men to wed men, mabye somebody else feels it is immoral for blacks to wed whites, and maybe it is immoral for catholics to marry protestants. You are free to have your set of morals and act according to them. However, to take your own morals and make them national policy is impractical, because unless you are a nation of clones, how can everybody have the same ideas of right and wrong?

A nation's position on marriage doesn't have to be based on a set of morals. It could be based on physical compatibility, for example. Or a moral judgment could be based on biology. There is no physical difference between a Catholic and a Protestant, and a negligible physical difference between people of two different ethnicities. There is no natural incompatibility for the purposes of mating between a Catholic and Protestant, a European and an African, or a Catholic European and a Protestant African. There is a natural incompatibility for the purposes of mating between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman. This isn't necessarily the reasoning behind Pantocratoria's definition of what is and isn't a marriage, but it might be for other people. The point is that one doesn't necessarily need a universal moral code to decide what is an isn't an appropriate pairing, one could look to nature instead, and doing so would be anything but impractical!

It is quite absurd for you to claim that it is impractical to take a personal set of morals and make them national policy because not everyone will agree on what is right and wrong. If a tiny minority of Pantocratorians think that murder is morally acceptable, should the Imperial Government take no position on murder because it would be "impractical" to enforce the majority's moral position on murder? Of course not.

You say that my argument is flawed because by allowing all marriages, you would allow blood relatives to wed, and HOW could anybody allow that? Well, what about second cousins? What about third cousins once removed? Where do you draw the line on which relative can marry which? You cannot, without being inconsistent at some point.

Nonsense! There is nothing inconsistent about saying that two people who are within a certain degree of consanguinity cannot wed! For example, the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria forbids two people within four degrees of consanguinity to wed. What is inconsistent about that? It isn't as if Imperial law forbids people within four degrees of consanguinity to wed, but allows people within three degrees of consanguinity to wed. How then is it inconsistent to "draw the line" somewhere?

If you think about it, my point of view is perfectly self-consistent. You have black, and you have white, anything in betwen is a shade of gray.

No, your point of view isn't self-consistent unless you truly wish to allow anybody to marry anything. If that is your intention, then yes, your view is self-consistent, but certainly not one with which you can reasonably expect anybody else to agree. It is in the nature of reasonable governments to draw reasonable lines for the good of society - governments have moral absolutes, and there is absolutely nothing inherently inconsistent about having them.

Perhaps I could propose an alternative?

Put simply, within the United Nations, the nature of married couples may be specified by individual member states. Furthermore, if members of a territory enter another state which does not allow such couplings as they are engaged in, that state is not under obligation to acknowledge it legally, but must (a) not treat members prejudicially on the basis of this coupling, and (b) on NO ACCOUNT interfere with privileges granted to that member under the law of their home territory, by their home territory.

Feel free to examine this law in minute detail. I plead only that any criticisms are valid, and not merely personal opinion ('I will /not/ do that because I don't want to...' and statements to that effect)

- Jordan, Ruler of Archaeus

I quite like the alternative proposed by the representative for Archaeus, but I think "b" needs to be clarified a little bit. I also think you should change "members of a territory" to "citizens of a UN member" or something along those lines - your use of the word member to mean private citizens is a little confusing and inconsistent with UN terminology. Minor quibbles.

What do you mean by clause b? Do you think you could rewrite the proposal slightly to make your meaning more explicit?

It is exactly the same slippery slope. If you feel it is immoral for men to wed men, mabye somebody else feels it is immoral for blacks to wed whites, and maybe it is immoral for catholics to marry protestants. You are free to have your set of morals and act according to them. However, to take your own morals and make them national policy is impractical, because unless you are a nation of clones, how can everybody have the same ideas of right and wrong?

A nation's position on marriage doesn't have to be based on a set of morals. It could be based on physical compatibility, for example. Or a moral judgment could be based on biology. There is no physical difference between a Catholic and a Protestant, and a negligible physical difference between people of two different ethnicities. There is no natural incompatibility for the purposes of mating between a Catholic and Protestant, a European and an African, or a Catholic European and a Protestant African. There is a natural incompatibility for the purposes of mating between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman. This isn't necessarily the reasoning behind Pantocratoria's definition of what is and isn't a marriage, but it might be for other people. The point is that one doesn't necessarily need a universal moral code to decide what is an isn't an appropriate pairing, one could look to nature instead, and doing so would be anything but impractical!

...



Sorry, I don't have time to analyse the rest of this (rather well thought out) post, but I will briefly mention something in relation to this particular contention.

The biological potential for 'mating,' I assumed, was not the purpose which marriage is safeguarding. Of course, there are specific rights which relate to children (both explicit and implicit), but I remind you that many couples do not ever have children, and use methods to prevent the production thereof.

Marriage, so I thought, was to adhere common rights binding two people who are in love, and wish their affairs to be joined legally. The reasons for such legal joining do not depend exclusively on children, and can instead be the concern that a loved one be treated as a family member, or can pool resources, or perhaps protect them if one partner is injured or made redundant, or retires with a pension.

Thus, biological compatability is not a determining factor, since the individuals in question are evidently capable of expressing their love to each other without impediment.

Besides which, biology is devoid of morals. My contention is that there is no logical reason for gay marriage to be disallowed, and if any seek to disallow it, it is on the basis of a moral judgement with no logical basis, i.e. taken as a caveat.

I make this observation because I feel it is easier if debate is not carried out on any false pretences, and from the considering approach I see you taking, I imagine you are amenable to such a rational ideal.

There is much more I would like to say, but time grows short!

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

If a dude wants to marry a dude, a chick wants to marry a chick, a dude and a chick want to get married then they should be able to do so. (By the way, not only do I support gay marriages, but I support mixed race marriages as well)

I quite like the alternative proposed by the representative for Archaeus, but I think "b" needs to be clarified a little bit. I also think you should change "members of a territory" to "citizens of a UN member" or something along those lines - your use of the word member to mean private citizens is a little confusing and inconsistent with UN terminology. Minor quibbles.

What do you mean by clause b? Do you think you could rewrite the proposal slightly to make your meaning more explicit?

Thank you for your precise and concise analysis. I shall explain briefly.

By clause (b), while any individual member state could refuse to provide services they give under condition of marriage, it could not refuse any privileges conferred directly to said citizens by organisations or government in their home territory by virtue of marriage, such as shared pension payments from said territory, or joint account services, where the bank resides in said territory.

I'm not sure if that's clear, but I assume the rough meaning is discernable despite my clumsy phrasing.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I vote that marriage be seperated from the government.
For the most part, marriage is simply a practice of affirming ones love for another... the actual bond that exists depends upon the kind of marriage (for example, a religious marriage often entails not just a bond between the new couple, but a bond between the new couple AND god)..

The government only gets involved really for the matter of money-- for example, the amount of tax paid changes, etc, and upon divorce the government decides who gets what.

This could all be simplified by the government simply butting out. People will be urged to be married in the manner they choose (In a church, with family at a park, in a graveyard, whatever floats their boat) and thus there will really be no law against marriage of any kind (who is going to stop two gay men from sticking rings on each others fingers at home?)
People should be urged to not get married still unless they are truly in love. In the event of a seperation, property should be handled just as a seperation between gf/bf... each should get the property they had going in, the money they made, and things bought jointly should be split by who wants what (equal value if both parties want more than half)
And voila.

(I may have worded stuff confusing, but let me outline the main idea again: No government involvement in actual marriage. Its stupid.)

The UN has absolutely no place in telling me what I can and cannot define as marriage unless the UN is offering marriage services.

It is very important to realise that this proposal won't do that. All this proposal says is that the United Nations will not force a nation to recognise any marriage other than that between a man and a woman. "No Nation, territory, or Region, shall be required to give effect to any public act..."

I think this is a good proposal. For those people who want to allow same-sex marriages in their own nations, this proposal certainly doesn't stop them, and for those people who do not, this proposal guarantees that they will never have to do so.

The problem lies in the second half of the proposal in which marriage is defined. There is a serious contradiction inherent in the proposal. It arises from the following:

1. The expressed purpose of the proposal (in the first half) is to give freedom of determination concerning marriage to each member nation.

2. The definition of marriage (in the second half of the proposal) specifically limits the ability of member nations to exercise said freedom of determination.

Of course, this contradiction is far from unintentional. What it does reveal is Wooly-bully's attempt to disguise discriminatory legislation in the robes of civil liberty and national sovreignty.

Sorry, I don't have time to analyse the rest of this (rather well thought out) post, but I will briefly mention something in relation to this particular contention.

The biological potential for 'mating,' I assumed, was not the purpose which marriage is safeguarding. Of course, there are specific rights which relate to children (both explicit and implicit), but I remind you that many couples do not ever have children, and use methods to prevent the production thereof.

I agree that protecting the potential for childbirth is not the sole purpose of marriage (although certainly some may see it differently). I was simply pointing out that the argument couldn't necessarily be made that banning a gay marriage was on a slippery slope to banning inter-racial marriages, that a nation might draw a line along biological grounds, or along any other grounds, and that there was no reason to suggest that not recognising same-sex marriages was a "self-inconsistent" position to take, as I believe Billthecat phrased it. If a given nation decided to take a position against these unions, there is no reason why that position should be self-inconsistent. If Pantocratoria only recognises marriages according to canon law, then I fail to see how that position is somehow self-inconsistent. Likewise, if another nation decides on some other justification (I used that biological line of reasoning as an example of this alternative justification), I don't see how that position is self-inconsistent either. The position would only be self-inconsistent if it allowed for some same-sex marriages but didn't recognise others. There are plenty of things which Billthecat or anybody could say against this positions, certainly, but you couldn't call them "self-inconsistent", and that is what I was trying to get across.

I'm sorry I didn't articulate myself better. I think Billthecat was trying to say that taking a position to forbid any type of marriage on "moral grounds" was "impractical". I was trying to point out that it was not impractical to do so, and that there may be other justifications than an individual's moral code behind such decisions.

I think mostly I was just reacting to the absurd notion that there was a slippery slope, that not recognising gay unions as marriages would lead to not recognising inter-racial marriages, and so on. Perhaps the better argument against this nonsense would be to point out that most nations in the real world started with a definition of marriage as being between one man and one women (there are many exceptions of course, especially in pre-modern history, but let us limit ourselves to the modern world). Some nations required that the man and woman be of similar religious or racial persuasion. Over time, governments have recognised first inter-religious then inter-racial marriages. Now it looks like many governments will recognise gay unions as marriages. Now, let's say that a modern government which has come this far decides to not recognise same-sex marriages. I fail to see how deciding now not to recognise same-sex marriages will result in a roll-back of over two centuries! One could only make that argument if there was a country which at first allowed every type of union, which then decided to outlaw gay marriages, and then from that, outlawed inter-racial marriages, and inter-religious ones. I can think of no such example.

That would've been a much more sensible argument than some random thoughts about there being a biological line in the sand as an alternative to moral/religious judgments.

I quite like the alternative proposed by the representative for Archaeus, but I think "b" needs to be clarified a little bit. I also think you should change "members of a territory" to "citizens of a UN member" or something along those lines - your use of the word member to mean private citizens is a little confusing and inconsistent with UN terminology. Minor quibbles.

What do you mean by clause b? Do you think you could rewrite the proposal slightly to make your meaning more explicit?

Thank you for your precise and concise analysis. I shall explain briefly.

By clause (b), while any individual member state could refuse to provide services they give under condition of marriage, it could not refuse any privileges conferred directly to said citizens by organisations or government in their home territory by virtue of marriage, such as shared pension payments from said territory, or joint account services, where the bank resides in said territory.

I'm not sure if that's clear, but I assume the rough meaning is discernable despite my clumsy phrasing.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

That is what I guessed it meant. I think you've got a good proposal there. Propose it, and I will support it.

The problem lies in the second half of the proposal in which marriage is defined. There is a serious contradiction inherent in the proposal. It arises from the following:

1. The expressed purpose of the proposal (in the first half) is to give freedom of determination concerning marriage to each member nation.

2. The definition of marriage (in the second half of the proposal) specifically limits the ability of member nations to exercise said freedom of determination.

Of course, this contradiction is far from unintentional. What it does reveal is Wooly-bully's attempt to disguise discriminatory legislation in the robes of civil liberty and national sovreignty.

You will note that while it the second half of the proposal states that the definition is that which will be employed by UN organisations. It doesn't force that definition on member nations, although I agree, the intent to make a moral judgment is obvious. I won't withdraw Pantocratoria's support for it though. I think a different proposal (such as the one King Jordan of Archaeus has proposed) might be better, but for the time being, from the Imperial Government's perspective, this is the best one available, and so it is the one which enjoys our support, and we hope, the support of others.

I vote that marriage be seperated from the government.
For the most part, marriage is simply a practice of affirming ones love for another... the actual bond that exists depends upon the kind of marriage (for example, a religious marriage often entails not just a bond between the new couple, but a bond between the new couple AND god)..

The government only gets involved really for the matter of money-- for example, the amount of tax paid changes, etc, and upon divorce the government decides who gets what.

This could all be simplified by the government simply butting out. People will be urged to be married in the manner they choose (In a church, with family at a park, in a graveyard, whatever floats their boat) and thus there will really be no law against marriage of any kind (who is going to stop two gay men from sticking rings on each others fingers at home?)
People should be urged to not get married still unless they are truly in love. In the event of a seperation, property should be handled just as a seperation between gf/bf... each should get the property they had going in, the money they made, and things bought jointly should be split by who wants what (equal value if both parties want more than half)
And voila.

(I may have worded stuff confusing, but let me outline the main idea again: No government involvement in actual marriage. Its stupid.)

In Pantocratoria, neither the Imperial Government nor any of its agencies perform marriages. There are no civil celebrants. There are no state issued marriage licences. The only way to get married in Pantocratoria is in a Roman Catholic Church. The diocese's documentation is sufficient for the Imperial Government's purposes. The Imperial Government doesn't see a reason to get involved in the business of marrying people.

I imagine this isn't exactly what you envisioned, but it may comfort you to know that the Imperial Government agrees with you insofar as marriage is really not the government's business. It sees it as a religious affair, not a secular one.

The nation of Enerica agrees very much with this act, and any other that ensures the sanctity of marriage is upheld by every nation. Therefore we would vote for this proposal and would hope that any nation with any moral decency would too.

Fine, have it your way. If it goes through, we'll just tax it into extinction. I think a 1,000% tax may do it.

Kindly keep your moralistic hands off my soverignity, please.

Sorry, I don't have time to analyse the rest of this (rather well thought out) post, but I will briefly mention something in relation to this particular contention.

The biological potential for 'mating,' I assumed, was not the purpose which marriage is safeguarding. Of course, there are specific rights which relate to children (both explicit and implicit), but I remind you that many couples do not ever have children, and use methods to prevent the production thereof.

I agree that protecting the potential for childbirth is not the sole purpose of marriage (although certainly some may see it differently). I was simply pointing out that the argument couldn't necessarily be made that banning a gay marriage was on a slippery slope to banning inter-racial marriages, that a nation might draw a line along biological grounds, or along any other grounds, and that there was no reason to suggest that not recognising same-sex marriages was a "self-inconsistent" position to take, as I believe Billthecat phrased it. If a given nation decided to take a position against these unions, there is no reason why that position should be self-inconsistent. If Pantocratoria only recognises marriages according to canon law, then I fail to see how that position is somehow self-inconsistent. Likewise, if another nation decides on some other justification (I used that biological line of reasoning as an example of this alternative justification), I don't see how that position is self-inconsistent either. The position would only be self-inconsistent if it allowed for some same-sex marriages but didn't recognise others. There are plenty of things which Billthecat or anybody could say against this positions, certainly, but you couldn't call them "self-inconsistent", and that is what I was trying to get across.

I'm sorry I didn't articulate myself better. I think Billthecat was trying to say that taking a position to forbid any type of marriage on "moral grounds" was "impractical". I was trying to point out that it was not impractical to do so, and that there may be other justifications than an individual's moral code behind such decisions.

I think mostly I was just reacting to the absurd notion that there was a slippery slope, that not recognising gay unions as marriages would lead to not recognising inter-racial marriages, and so on. Perhaps the better argument against this nonsense would be to point out that most nations in the real world started with a definition of marriage as being between one man and one women (there are many exceptions of course, especially in pre-modern history, but let us limit ourselves to the modern world). Some nations required that the man and woman be of similar religious or racial persuasion. Over time, governments have recognised first inter-religious then inter-racial marriages. Now it looks like many governments will recognise gay unions as marriages. Now, let's say that a modern government which has come this far decides to not recognise same-sex marriages. I fail to see how deciding now not to recognise same-sex marriages will result in a roll-back of over two centuries! One could only make that argument if there was a country which at first allowed every type of union, which then decided to outlaw gay marriages, and then from that, outlawed inter-racial marriages, and inter-religious ones. I can think of no such example.

That would've been a much more sensible argument than some random thoughts about there being a biological line in the sand as an alternative to moral/religious judgments.

I think this can be expressed generally as: any moral system requires (an) axiom(s). The real dispute is with the axioms, not the logic (which, as far as I can see, is quite firm) and thus the disputes are taken from a position of faith - faith in the direction of religious sensibilities, in the collective moral integrity of the people, or that the purpose of morality is the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number,' or any other arbitrary axiom we choose.

Thus, Pantocratoria's position, while differing significantly from Archaeus', is perfectly consistant. Though I disagree with the assumptions it makes, I cannot do so on a purely rational basis because truths taken on faith, by definition, starts with a priori assumptions which are beyond logic.

- Jordan

I would happily lend support to this, marriage is a sacred event between a man and women. If same-sex marriages were allowed to exist, it would absolutely compromise the integrity of marriage. Marriage would just be a big joke, and there would be no point.

i completely agree. marriage is the founfation of society, and is betweena man and a women. in the last 20 years divorcehas sky rocketed, and also crime went up along with it, with marriage society has nothing.

I would happily lend support to this, marriage is a sacred event between a man and women. If same-sex marriages were allowed to exist, it would absolutely compromise the integrity of marriage. Marriage would just be a big joke, and there would be no point.

I am being utterly serious when I say that marriage should be allowed between individuals of either sex. I am not joking, and I am being as supremely logical about the issue as is humanly possible.

You have contributed nothing with this comment, other than to say that you disagree on principle. So do many others. There is no logical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

The 'integrity' of marriage has, by your reasoning, been compromised several times before, when (a) civil marriages were allowed to qualify for the same rights as non-secular marriages; (b) men were told they could only have one wife (in biblical times, it was common to have many); (c) marriage was extended to allow interratial marriages in countries practicing racial discrimination...

How, precisely, would same-sex marriages cause a logical problem?

I argue because you made a conclusion, which must be backed-up with a chain of reasoning if it is to be valid.

Furthermore, I have made a proposal which deems it acceptable for states to limit marriage to a distinct-sex ceremony or whatever type of ceremony they wish. Perhaps you will agree with that, rather than with one that seeks to remove the rights of other countries to define marriage as they want - a hypocritical and arrogant intention.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

i completely agree. marriage is the founfation of society, and is betweena man and a women. in the last 20 years divorcehas sky rocketed, and also crime went up along with it, with marriage society has nothing.

My man, you are implying a conclusion from a correlation. Divorce and crime are not necessarily related. I challenge you to find evidence that they are.

What is more, marriage is most definitely not the foundation of society. There are far more important factors, such as universal suffrage, education etc.

Finally, if marriage is so important, why do you want to deny the supposed stability it brings to a significant portion of the population? It sounds like mere pettiness!

- Jordan

I would happily lend support to this, marriage is a sacred event between a man and women. If same-sex marriages were allowed to exist, it would absolutely compromise the integrity of marriage. Marriage would just be a big joke, and there would be no point.

I am being utterly serious when I say that marriage should be allowed between individuals of either sex. I am not joking, and I am being as supremely logical about the issue as is humanly possible.

You have contributed nothing with this comment, other than to say that you disagree on principle. So do many others. There is no logical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

The 'integrity' of marriage has, by your reasoning, been compromised several times before, when (a) civil marriages were allowed to qualify for the same rights as non-secular marriages; (b) men were told they could only have one wife (in biblical times, it was common to have many); (c) marriage was extended to allow interratial marriages in countries practicing racial discrimination...

How, precisely, would same-sex marriages cause a logical problem?

I argue because you made a conclusion, which must be backed-up with a chain of reasoning if it is to be valid.

Furthermore, I have made a proposal which deems it acceptable for states to limit marriage to a distinct-sex ceremony or whatever type of ceremony they wish. Perhaps you will agree with that, rather than with one that seeks to remove the rights of other countries to define marriage as they want - a hypocritical and arrogant intention.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

if you keep reading the bibel that is changed, and same sex marriages is against what is natural. because what is the point of marriage? to have children. i seriously hope you are not catholic.

I would happily lend support to this, marriage is a sacred event between a man and women. If same-sex marriages were allowed to exist, it would absolutely compromise the integrity of marriage. Marriage would just be a big joke, and there would be no point.

I am being utterly serious when I say that marriage should be allowed between individuals of either sex. I am not joking, and I am being as supremely logical about the issue as is humanly possible.

You have contributed nothing with this comment, other than to say that you disagree on principle. So do many others. There is no logical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

The 'integrity' of marriage has, by your reasoning, been compromised several times before, when (a) civil marriages were allowed to qualify for the same rights as non-secular marriages; (b) men were told they could only have one wife (in biblical times, it was common to have many); (c) marriage was extended to allow interratial marriages in countries practicing racial discrimination...

How, precisely, would same-sex marriages cause a logical problem?

I argue because you made a conclusion, which must be backed-up with a chain of reasoning if it is to be valid.

Furthermore, I have made a proposal which deems it acceptable for states to limit marriage to a distinct-sex ceremony or whatever type of ceremony they wish. Perhaps you will agree with that, rather than with one that seeks to remove the rights of other countries to define marriage as they want - a hypocritical and arrogant intention.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

if you keep reading the bibel that is changed, and same sex marriages is against what is natural. because what is the point of marriage? to have children. i seriously hope you are not catholic.

Plenty of married couples choose not to have children. Does this mean they cannot be married?

I am not a Catholic, though I am aquainted with their doctrines.

My observations are based on scientific evidence. If you wish to debate marriage from a religious perspective, then we may as well stop now, because most religions state that homosexuality is a wrongful practice, while science conclusively states that it is perfectly natural - animals do it, there is a genetic influence that contributes to it, and it is nigh on impossible to change, under any circumstances.

If you wish to argue that it is 'unnatural,' from a scientific point of view, rest assured that I will win. I say this not out of arrogance, but from experience and knowledge.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

...because what is the point of marriage? to have children. i seriously hope you are not catholic.

So if procreation is the purpose of marriage, then we should not allow the elderly to marry, or to stay married. In fact anyone who may have lost the capability to reproduce, through cancer, injury, surgery, etc. should be prevented from ever marryings and be given a divorce if they are already married.

I think this can be expressed generally as: any moral system requires (an) axiom(s). The real dispute is with the axioms, not the logic (which, as far as I can see, is quite firm) and thus the disputes are taken from a position of faith - faith in the direction of religious sensibilities, in the collective moral integrity of the people, or that the purpose of morality is the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number,' or any other arbitrary axiom we choose.

Thus, Pantocratoria's position, while differing significantly from Archaeus', is perfectly consistant. Though I disagree with the assumptions it makes, I cannot do so on a purely rational basis because truths taken on faith, by definition, starts with a priori assumptions which are beyond logic.

- Jordan

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make, there is nothing "self-inconsistent" or impractical about taking positions based on a given axiom unless the position ends up contradicting that axiom. It seemed like an odd choice of words for Billthecat to use.

I am being utterly serious when I say that marriage should be allowed between individuals of either sex. I am not joking, and I am being as supremely logical about the issue as is humanly possible.

You have contributed nothing with this comment, other than to say that you disagree on principle. So do many others. There is no logical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

While I like and support your proposal, I should add something to your reasoning here. The reverse is also true. There is no purely logical reason that a same-sex couple (or anybody really) should be allowed to marry.

Any stance on marriage requires an axiom of some sort, as you alluded to earlier. Where in the case of Pantocratoria, the Imperial Government's stance on marriage is based on canon law, in the case of Archaeus it seems to be based on egalitarian ideology. Nothing is necessarily wrong with that, but you're on no more logical grounds than people who take a position supported by a different axiom.

In any case, I support your proposal, because it seems to me that every government should be able to take its own position on this matter.

The 'integrity' of marriage has, by your reasoning, been compromised several times before, when (a) civil marriages were allowed to qualify for the same rights as non-secular marriages; (b) men were told they could only have one wife (in biblical times, it was common to have many); (c) marriage was extended to allow interratial marriages in countries practicing racial discrimination...

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I think your missing the point, those factors made marraige a more stable institution; homosexual marriages diminishes it. If Homosexuals are allowed to marry, why dont we just make it so people are allowed to marry goats as well. That is almost the same thing.

I think your missing the point, those factors made marraige a more stable institution; homosexual marriages diminishes it. If Homosexuals are allowed to marry, why dont we just make it so people are allowed to marry goats as well. That is almost the same thing.

Why does every Religious Conservative say this one,that gay marriage will lead to the marrying of human and animal,etc?

Also,why compare gays to animals? They're human beings and deserve the same rights,freedoms,and respect you do.

The 'integrity' of marriage has, by your reasoning, been compromised several times before, when (a) civil marriages were allowed to qualify for the same rights as non-secular marriages; (b) men were told they could only have one wife (in biblical times, it was common to have many); (c) marriage was extended to allow interratial marriages in countries practicing racial discrimination...
I think your missing the point, those factors made marraige a more stable institution; homosexual marriages diminishes it. If Homosexuals are allowed to marry, why dont we just make it so people are allowed to marry goats as well. That is almost the same thing.

I think it's safe that say that you're missing the point, Chenkow. The argument you're using now is very similar to the ones that were used against all of the changes Archaeus mentioned.

And, that aside, why are gay people goats, now?

Emopiratopia will never accept this resolution. Marriage is banned, which is to say it is completely separate from government. If two people want to dedicate their lives to each other, they are free to do that without the government interfering. The freedom to "marry" at will is one of the few freedoms left and it will always stay that way.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

It's more like an offense of marriage.

Gay Marriage was made legal in all UN member nations on May 3rd of this year. Please see the resolution 'gay rights' in the UN's proposal history.

Phuckuvia cannot support rolling back the civil rights of 10% of the citizens of all UN nations. Furthermore, this proposal is too US centric.

PS: Why can't these 'defense of marriage types' focus their efforts on the real threats to marriage: Attorneys, no fault divorce laws, drive through wedding chapels, on the spot marriage liscences, Las Vegas, Elvis impersonators, and mother-in-laws.

Actually, the figure is closer to 5%.

Apparently, many UN nations do not agree with gay marriage, and some (it appears) do not follow this UN resolution.

- Jordan

The 'integrity' of marriage has, by your reasoning, been compromised several times before, when (a) civil marriages were allowed to qualify for the same rights as non-secular marriages; (b) men were told they could only have one wife (in biblical times, it was common to have many); (c) marriage was extended to allow interratial marriages in countries practicing racial discrimination...

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I think your missing the point, those factors made marraige a more stable institution; homosexual marriages diminishes it. If Homosexuals are allowed to marry, why dont we just make it so people are allowed to marry goats as well. That is almost the same thing.

No it is not, and for reasons that are manifest should we choose to look unblinkered.

The most major point is that a goat cannot issue informed consent, unless you have exceedingly intelligent goats and have developed some amazing way of asking them complex questions involving abstract relationships such as 'marriage'.

Next, a goat is an animal. A man or woman is a human being. In this respect, men and women are inarguably and unaviodably distinct from other animals.

I respectfully ask that you make a valid counter-argument, or concede that your point is nonsensical (and, furthermore, extremely hurtful).

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Why can't the gay and lesbian societies accept legislation, that has been proposed, in almost every state, that grants full legal rights but not the term marriage? Sounds like an attack on the term marriage instead of a battle for rights.

I am being utterly serious when I say that marriage should be allowed between individuals of either sex. I am not joking, and I am being as supremely logical about the issue as is humanly possible.

You have contributed nothing with this comment, other than to say that you disagree on principle. So do many others. There is no logical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

While I like and support your proposal, I should add something to your reasoning here. The reverse is also true. There is no purely logical reason that a same-sex couple (or anybody really) should be allowed to marry.

Any stance on marriage requires an axiom of some sort, as you alluded to earlier. Where in the case of Pantocratoria, the Imperial Government's stance on marriage is based on canon law, in the case of Archaeus it seems to be based on egalitarian ideology. Nothing is necessarily wrong with that, but you're on no more logical grounds than people who take a position supported by a different axiom.

In any case, I support your proposal, because it seems to me that every government should be able to take its own position on this matter.

You are absolutely correct, my friend. The reason I responded thus is because he was assuming implicitly - or so it seemed to me - that everyone was in accord with his definition of marriage, and should therefore concur with his deduction that same-sex marriage would render the whole institution 'a joke'.

I do not wish to have my nation's laws dictated to such an extent by an external entity. It is in reciprocation of this that I developed my proposal.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I am being utterly serious when I say that marriage should be allowed between individuals of either sex. I am not joking, and I am being as supremely logical about the issue as is humanly possible.

You have contributed nothing with this comment, other than to say that you disagree on principle. So do many others. There is no logical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

While I like and support your proposal, I should add something to your reasoning here. The reverse is also true. There is no purely logical reason that a same-sex couple (or anybody really) should be allowed to marry.

Any stance on marriage requires an axiom of some sort, as you alluded to earlier. Where in the case of Pantocratoria, the Imperial Government's stance on marriage is based on canon law, in the case of Archaeus it seems to be based on egalitarian ideology. Nothing is necessarily wrong with that, but you're on no more logical grounds than people who take a position supported by a different axiom.

In any case, I support your proposal, because it seems to me that every government should be able to take its own position on this matter.

You are absolutely correct, my friend. The reason I responded thus is because he was assuming implicitly - or so it seemed to me - that everyone was in accord with his definition of marriage, and should therefore concur with his deduction that same-sex marriage would render the whole institution 'a joke'.

I do not wish to have my nation's laws dictated to such an extent by an external entity. It is in reciprocation of this that I developed my proposal.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Why can't the gay and lesbian societies accept legislation, that has been proposed, in almost every state, that grants full legal rights but not the term marriage? Sounds like an attack on the term marriage instead of a battle for rights.

It is an excellent proposal. However, a rose by another name...

I feel that individual members should be free to make their own determinations on what constitutes 'marriage' and what does not.

- Jordan

Why can't the gay and lesbian societies accept legislation, that has been proposed, in almost every state, that grants full legal rights but not the term marriage? Sounds like an attack on the term marriage instead of a battle for rights.

It is an excellent proposal. However, a rose by another name...

I feel that individual members should be free to make their own determinations on what constitutes 'marriage' and what does not.

- JordanYou are correct in that. If they so choose they can legalize "gay marriages". Then we can choose to boycott their nation due to their choice. Seems fair enough.

edited to fix there to their so there.

Why can't the gay and lesbian societies accept legislation, that has been proposed, in almost every state, that grants full legal rights but not the term marriage? Sounds like an attack on the term marriage instead of a battle for rights.

It is an excellent proposal. However, a rose by another name...

I feel that individual members should be free to make their own determinations on what constitutes 'marriage' and what does not.

- JordanYou are correct in that. If they so choose they can legalize "gay marriages". Then we can choose to boycott their nation due to their choice. Seems fair enough.

edited to fix there to their so there.

Hmm... I don't quite see, what would you boycott them for?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

In Lost Paradise, if the sex is good and children (when produced) are taken care of, we don't really worry about such troublesome institutions as marrage...

This disgusting immoral piece of tripe would trample over the sacred Outer Eugenian institution of marriage! In Free Outer Eugenia marriage is rightly recodnized exclusively as the sacred bond between a hippo and a hummingbird. You people make me sick.

This disgusting immoral piece of tripe would trample over the sacred Outer Eugenian institution of marriage! In Free Outer Eugenia marriage is rightly recodnized exclusively as the sacred bond between a hippo and a hummingbird. You people make me sick.

I actually laughed at this. It seems the representative for FOE is gloriously insane.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Insane like a fox and as sly as a loon. How dare you mock the Sacred Institution of marriage! Pervert.

- Jordan, Archivist of Monarch Butterflies

Insane like a fox and as sly as a loon. How dare you mock the Sacred Institution of marriage! Pervert.

- Jordan, Archivist of Monarch Butterflies

Behold as I bedeck the heathen with a great rum trifle, the national animal of Generica!

- Freak Out Enclave

Set loose the dogs of diplomacy and cry HAVOC!

The Defence of Marriage Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Free Outer Eugenia
Description:

Whereas;

The sacred institution of marriage has been under constant assault by an international conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevik bankers seeking to seduce our children with Marijuana and to undermine our Traditional Family Values;

Be It Resolved;

That Marriage be defined exclusively as the sacred bond between a hippo and a hummingbird.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 129 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Dec 10 2003

Set loose the dogs of diplomacy and cry HAVOC!

The Defence of Marriage Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Free Outer Eugenia
Description:

Whereas;

The sacred institution of marriage has been under constant assault by an international conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevik bankers seeking to seduce our children with Marijuana and to undermine our Traditional Family Values;

Be It Resolved;

That Marriage be defined exclusively as the sacred bond between a hippo and a hummingbird.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 129 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Dec 10 2003

Charming. However, I should warn you that there will be pestering for hummingbird-hummingbird, and even hippo-hippo, relationships.

Marriage is dangerous territory.

Ah, to glory in trivialty!

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Hippos and Hummingbirds shall remain free to pursue same-species relationships, but they must not be allowed to soil the Sacred Institution of Marriage.

Now that same-sex marriage is practiced in Heian-Edo,we vote against any Act redefining maariage in strict heterosexual terms.

All of the citizenry of the People's Republic of Sildonia does say in one voice:
Notice that Wooly-Bully stated: No Nation, territory, or Region,shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other Nation, territory, or Region, respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. Although in Sildonia gay-marriage is allowed (we draw the line at marrrying turtles though), this part of the plan says that other nations need not legally recognized such a marriage (such as in this spirit we will not regonize the previously mentioned human-animal marriage. With this part we agree, with the definition of marriage as man-woman only we do not.
- Alexander Bornt, Under-deputy of the Department of Law

Perverts! God made Adam (the hippo) and Steve (the hummingbird) Not Adam (not the hippo) and Something That Rhymes With Steve (not the hummingbird) :!: