NationStates Jolt Archive

Preamble

This proposal will serve two purposes:

1. To delineate the freedoms of nations, with respect to internal marriage laws;
2. Eluidating the responsibilities of nations in honouring external marriage contracts.

Assumptions

It is assumed that arbitrary factors such as ethnicity, fidelity, intelligence, orientation, nationality, religion and sex and the like can be used to discriminate between couples eligible for marriage and those who are not, and that no form of discrimination is more morally valid than any other. This precludes any debate concerning the moral implications of discrimination on the basis of, say, sexual orientation as opposed to ethnicity by effectively deeming such distinctions irrelevent.

Definitions

Marriage: a civil contract between two individuals and their government, assuming the nature of their union adheres to internal laws and restrictions on this contract.

The Proposal

UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.

Should citizens of a UN member state enter the territory of another UN member in which their union would not be recognised as legally valid, that territory is under no obligation to provide the services normally provisioned to married couples in their country. However: -

(a) said nation must not treat such visitors prejudicially because of their union;

(b) no attempts should be made to block services provided by the citizen's home government/institutions by virtue of their married status, such as joint pension plans or bank accounts;

(c) UN member states must honour any marriage contract that is in accord with their own laws and restrictions.

This proposal is put before the United Nations by Jordan, the present Monarch of Archaeus.

It's a thought. Although there are sure to be people who disagree with the definition of marriage as two persons only.

What happens if a nation bans a marriage after a couple is married?

It's a thought. Although there are sure to be people who disagree with the definition of marriage as two persons only.

What happens if a nation bans a marriage after a couple is married?

Excellent points, thank you for raising them.

I restrict marriage to two people because it is a reasonable limitation. Most countries will definitely not allow the marriage of, say, twelve people. This avoids the nasty question of 'who is the real spouse?' It makes marriage more 'portable'.

The second point is harder. If a nation changes the definition to make the present marriage null and void, I think it is reasonable to honour the original contract until it is terminated, voluntarily, naturally or legally.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

It's a thought. Although there are sure to be people who disagree with the definition of marriage as two persons only.

What happens if a nation bans a marriage after a couple is married?

Excellent points, thank you for raising them.

I restrict marriage to two people because it is a reasonable limitation. Most countries will definitely not allow the marriage of, say, twelve people. This avoids the nasty question of 'who is the real spouse?' It makes marriage more 'portable'.

The second point is harder. If a nation changes the definition to make the present marriage null and void, I think it is reasonable to honour the original contract until it is terminated, voluntarily, naturally or legally.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I'm stunned!!!! A resolution that someone actually put some thought into!!!!!!!!

All hail Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus :D

I'm stunned!!!! A resolution that someone actually put some thought into!!!!!!!!

All hail Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus :D

Thank you very much, though I am already hailed enough by my own citizens - it's quite embarassing! And the idea, it seems, was entirely logical, and would soon have been put forth by someone else.

I formulated this resolution to satisfy both sides of the 'same-sex marriage' debate - I intentionally passed over some of the possible objections and provided opportunities for nations to do as their national consciences dictate. Hopefully, it will provide a common interface for nations with different marriage laws while minimising intrusion into their national prerogatives

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I'm against this resolution because it is anti-human rights, the reason being that 'UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.'

What's the difference between what gays are going through now and what, say, black people went through in the 1960s U.S.? The same with people of different races or religions? I don't really see the difference between this and someone making a resolution saying that countries have the 'right' to institute, say, racial apartheid. The restrictions due to 'intelligence' and 'ethnic/national origin' clauses are very disturbing.

What this would is give a cover to regimes with repressive policies. I don't want to come off as being too harsh, but I can't help but feel if doing something like this is not a major step backward.

I'm against this resolution because it is anti-human rights, the reason being that 'UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.'

I don't see the difference between what gays are going through now with their civil rights movement and what, say, black people went through in the 1960s U.S.-both are fighting/had fought for their natural-born rights? I also don't really see the fundamental difference between this and a resolution saying that countries have the 'right' to institute, say, racial or gender segregation. The restrictions due to 'intelligence' and 'ethnic/national origin' clauses are very disturbing.

What this would is give a cover to regimes with repressive policies. I don't want to come off as being harsh, seeing how this resolution idea is well-intentioned, but from reading the text I can't help but feel if doing something like this is not a major step backward, and because of this I can't support it.

I'm against this resolution because it is anti-human rights, the reason being that 'UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.'

I don't see the difference between what gays are going through now with their civil rights movement and what, say, black people went through in the 1960s U.S.-both are fighting/had fought for their natural-born rights? I also don't really see the fundamental difference between this and a resolution saying that countries have the 'right' to institute, say, racial or gender segregation. The restrictions due to 'intelligence' and 'ethnic/national origin' clauses are very disturbing.

What this would is give a cover to regimes with repressive policies. I don't want to come off as being harsh, seeing how this resolution idea is well-intentioned, but from reading the text I can't help but feel if doing something like this is not a major step backward, and because of this I can't support it.

Very sorry for the multiple posts. I was having trouble with the forum and was not allowed to delete them. Please feel free to delete my extra posts if you are a mod. Very sorry again.

I'm against this resolution because it is anti-human rights, the reason being that 'UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.'

I don't see the difference between what gays are going through now with their civil rights movement and what, say, black people went through in the 1960s U.S.-both are fighting/had fought for their natural-born rights. I also don't really see the fundamental difference between this and a resolution saying that countries have the 'right' to institute, say, racial or gender segregation. The restrictions due to 'intelligence' and 'ethnic/national origin' clauses are very disturbing.

What this would is give a cover to regimes with repressive policies. I don't want to come off as being harsh, seeing how this resolution idea is well-intentioned, but from reading the text I can't help but feel if doing something like this is not a major step backward, and because of this I can't support it.

I'm against this resolution because it is anti-human rights, the reason being that 'UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.'

I don't see the difference between what gays are going through now with their civil rights movement and what, say, black people went through in the 1960s U.S.-both are fighting/had fought for their natural-born rights. I also don't really see the fundamental difference between this and a resolution saying that countries have the 'right' to institute, say, racial or gender segregation. The restrictions due to 'intelligence' and 'ethnic/national origin' clauses are very disturbing.

What this would is give a cover to regimes with repressive policies. I don't want to come off as being harsh, seeing how this resolution idea is well-intentioned, but from reading the text I can't help but feel if doing something like this is not a major step backward, and because of this I can't support it.

I'm against this resolution because it is anti-human rights, the reason being that 'UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.'

What's the difference between what gays are going through now and what, say, black people went through in the 1960s U.S.? The same with people of different races or religions? I don't really see the difference between this and someone making a resolution saying that countries have the 'right' to institute, say, racial apartheid. The restrictions due to 'intelligence' and 'ethnic/national origin' clauses are very disturbing.

What this would is give a cover to regimes with repressive policies. I don't want to come off as being too harsh, but I can't help but feel if doing something like this is not a major step backward.

You're absolutely right, it is very anti-human rights. It allows coutries to decide at which age people can be married, whether they want to allow same-sex marriages, whether they wish to only permit legal voters to marry...

There are a few points I should make.

In my country, I choose to permit gay/lesbian marriages, and consider marriage a purely legal matter, devoid of religious connotations. I will also permit gay couples to adopt children just like straight couples can. However, that is because I arbitrarily decided that marriage was an abstract relationship which takes places between any two consenting individuals.

Other countries start from different fundamental beliefs - such as, the belief that marriage is a religious institution, or that it can only take place between a man or a woman for social reasons - and thus will demand different rules. I proposed what I did because I wanted to reconcile both of these different views, settling for legislation that would safeguard citizens of Archaeus (for example) should they visit a country where their married rights were not recognised.

Also, you say you find the concept of restrictions based on intelligence and nationality/ethnicity 'disturbing.' I might ask, why are they more disturbing than the concept of restrictions based on sexuality? The reason I put this in was to bypass objections that sexual orientation was being specifically picked upon. Governments could equally declare marriage closed to infertile couples, or pursue a regime of eugenics. The fact is, however, that very few governments would ever be in the position to make such a choice, even fewer would choose to and that those few which do would be so heavily criticised that they would likely cave in under pressure.

And you will notice that I do not say, for example, that only married couples would have the right to have children or sexual relations. These are far more basic human rights that are dealt with separately.

So, in summary, yes, it's unfair from a human rights perspective, and it could lead to some sinister programs, but if some sensible additional legislation is introduced to safeguard the right to copulate with whomever one wishes, the most sinister of these possibilities will be all but impossible. And it's doesn't unfairly emphasise certain attributes as more 'morally reprehensible' or dangerous than others.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Very sorry for the multiple posts. I was having trouble with the forum and was not allowed to delete them. Please feel free to delete my extra posts if you are a mod. Very sorry again.

Don't worry - it might increase the popularity of the conversation if people see there are so many postings.

I also find it takes a long time for posts to come through, and sometimes press the button again in error.

I must go now, for it is time to eat.

(I don't feel I made my points very clearly, but if you didn't understand them, feel free to ask me to phrase them a little better!)

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

i would say no nation has any business defining the emotional relations and living arraingements between any two or more people what so ever.

the only thing any government legitimately has anything to do with it is to insure that anyone choosing to leave, quit, abondon such a relationship, be able and allowed to do so safely.

a merrage is no different then a corporation or any other legal aggreement

though i suppose in some sense i've just said that it is in that most governments do define the forms corporate entities may take

still we firmly believe there is far too much of this business of people medling in what forms other people's relationships may take

=^^=
.../\...

I'm against this resolution because it is anti-human rights, the reason being that 'UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.'

What's the difference between what gays are going through now and what, say, black people went through in the 1960s U.S.? The same with people of different races or religions? I don't really see the difference between this and someone making a resolution saying that countries have the 'right' to institute, say, racial apartheid. The restrictions due to 'intelligence' and 'ethnic/national origin' clauses are very disturbing.

What this would is give a cover to regimes with repressive policies. I don't want to come off as being too harsh, but I can't help but feel if doing something like this is not a major step backward.

You're absolutely right, it is very anti-human rights. It allows coutries to decide at which age people can be married, whether they want to allow same-sex marriages, whether they wish to only permit legal voters to marry...

There are a few points I should make.

In my country, I choose to permit gay/lesbian marriages, and consider marriage a purely legal matter, devoid of religious connotations. I will also permit gay couples to adopt children just like straight couples can. However, that is because I arbitrarily decided that marriage was an abstract relationship which takes places between any two consenting individuals.

Other countries start from different fundamental beliefs - such as, the belief that marriage is a religious institution, or that it can only take place between a man or a woman for social reasons - and thus will demand different rules. I proposed what I did because I wanted to reconcile both of these different views, settling for legislation that would safeguard citizens of Archaeus (for example) should they visit a country where their married rights were not recognised.

Also, you say you find the concept of restrictions based on intelligence and nationality/ethnicity 'disturbing.' I might ask, why are they more disturbing than the concept of restrictions based on sexuality? The reason I put this in was to bypass objections that sexual orientation was being specifically picked upon. Governments could equally declare marriage closed to infertile couples, or pursue a regime of eugenics. The fact is, however, that very few governments would ever be in the position to make such a choice, even fewer would choose to and that those few which do would be so heavily criticised that they would likely cave in under pressure.

And you will notice that I do not say, for example, that only married couples would have the right to have children or sexual relations. These are far more basic human rights that are dealt with separately.

So, in summary, yes, it's unfair from a human rights perspective, and it could lead to some sinister programs, but if some sensible additional legislation is introduced to safeguard the right to copulate with whomever one wishes, the most sinister of these possibilities will be all but impossible. And it's doesn't unfairly emphasise certain attributes as more 'morally reprehensible' or dangerous than others.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I continue to be impressed. Well argued

i would say no nation has any business defining the emotional relations and living arraingements between any two or more people what so ever.


And so would I, if all nations adhered to Archaeus' standards. Now, the first aspect you mention - 'emotional relations' - is not necessarily one which is limited to marriage alone; in fact, from previous UN resolutions no UN member state should be able to limit emotional relationships between people, except perhaps age or consanguinity restrictions. The second category, however, some governments view as a privilege which should only be administered to those people who fulfil certain religious, social and sexual specifications, and regardless of how we feel about the matter it would be seen as intrusive and, if not wholly unjustified, highly questionable for the UN to intrude in such matters.

My intention is not to force my own moral standards upon people, but to protect the right of a nation and its people to define their own standards (subject, of course, to certain basic rules) and have them respected.

the only thing any government legitimately has anything to do with it is to insure that anyone choosing to leave, quit, abondon such a relationship, be able and allowed to do so safely.

If marriage is not allowed between two people i the first place, there need be no provision to leave or abandon a relationship safely, because it is not recognised in the first place. It is a pity, I feel, that governments feel it is necessary to make arbitrary restrictions on marriage, but they do, and so I am determined to make the best of it.

a merrage is no different then a corporation or any other legal aggreement

though i suppose in some sense i've just said that it is in that most governments do define the forms corporate entities may take

Although I define marriage as a legal agreement, there is a specific difference between a legal agreement made with a corporation, and a marriage contract because the latter is made between two people and their government. This is significant; different governments have different motivations and moral tennets; for example, some governments are tied deeply with the Holy Catholic Church, and are obliged to safeguard the religious ideals of that institution. Most of these governments will want to retain an implicitly religious definition of marriage (which was, originally, a fundamentally religious institution), and that is their prerrogative.

still we firmly believe there is far too much of this business of people medling in what forms other people's relationships may take

=^^=
.../\...

Thank you. I believe that also, and our nations will not only have the right to define its own marriage legislation, but will have this legislation honoured abroad under this new proposal.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I'm against this resolution because it is anti-human rights, the reason being that 'UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.'

What's the difference between what gays are going through now and what, say, black people went through in the 1960s U.S.? The same with people of different races or religions? I don't really see the difference between this and someone making a resolution saying that countries have the 'right' to institute, say, racial apartheid. The restrictions due to 'intelligence' and 'ethnic/national origin' clauses are very disturbing.

What this would is give a cover to regimes with repressive policies. I don't want to come off as being too harsh, but I can't help but feel if doing something like this is not a major step backward.

You're absolutely right, it is very anti-human rights. It allows coutries to decide at which age people can be married, whether they want to allow same-sex marriages, whether they wish to only permit legal voters to marry...

There are a few points I should make.

In my country, I choose to permit gay/lesbian marriages, and consider marriage a purely legal matter, devoid of religious connotations. I will also permit gay couples to adopt children just like straight couples can. However, that is because I arbitrarily decided that marriage was an abstract relationship which takes places between any two consenting individuals.

Other countries start from different fundamental beliefs - such as, the belief that marriage is a religious institution, or that it can only take place between a man or a woman for social reasons - and thus will demand different rules. I proposed what I did because I wanted to reconcile both of these different views, settling for legislation that would safeguard citizens of Archaeus (for example) should they visit a country where their married rights were not recognised.

Also, you say you find the concept of restrictions based on intelligence and nationality/ethnicity 'disturbing.' I might ask, why are they more disturbing than the concept of restrictions based on sexuality? The reason I put this in was to bypass objections that sexual orientation was being specifically picked upon. Governments could equally declare marriage closed to infertile couples, or pursue a regime of eugenics. The fact is, however, that very few governments would ever be in the position to make such a choice, even fewer would choose to and that those few which do would be so heavily criticised that they would likely cave in under pressure.

And you will notice that I do not say, for example, that only married couples would have the right to have children or sexual relations. These are far more basic human rights that are dealt with separately.

So, in summary, yes, it's unfair from a human rights perspective, and it could lead to some sinister programs, but if some sensible additional legislation is introduced to safeguard the right to copulate with whomever one wishes, the most sinister of these possibilities will be all but impossible. And it's doesn't unfairly emphasise certain attributes as more 'morally reprehensible' or dangerous than others.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I continue to be impressed. Well argued

Thank you, Vegas-di-mare. I hope that by answering differences of opinion rationally and intelligently, I will encourage support for this standard, and perhaps determine flaws that can be ironed out for the finalised proposal.

Incidentally, can you find any elements of my reasoning which you feel are still debatable? It would be very helpful in developing a rock-solid proposal, and argument for that proposal.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

From what I have seen, the standard argument is about marriage involving two persons. What about polygamy? I this something that ought to be allowed? I curious to see what everyone here thinks.

As for myself, I think that polygamy is not necessarily an unhappy situation--it is in many major cultures of this world.
However, I believe that it also has led to abuse and neglect an discontent in numerous cases, and therefore the government has a right to regulate it.


The other facet of marriage is strength of one's economy. Marriage is extremely important to a government because it directly effects certain things like employment, production, birth-rate and consumption as well as flexibility in downturn. A contract between two persons such as marriage makes for a more stable economy, because if one loses a job, there is the other to offer support. Similarly, combined income can mean more spending money, which stimulates a consumer culture.

For those of you who believe that the government has every right to regulate the economy, regulation of marriage is a simple follow-up. Now whether there are certain standard rights that ought to be allowed like sam-sex marriage is not an entirely different question--I personally am all for same-sex marriage, and I am optomistic that external cultural pressures will force any progressive nation to consider the well-being of its citizens (how happy they are) and the economic benefits.

As discussed in a thread about a different proposal on the same topic, the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria supports this well-thought out, well-written, and all around excellent proposal.

Catholic Europe supports this proposal as it allows different countries to create different laws, regarding marriage, which suit their own personal culture.

All I am left to ask is simply "when will the proposal hit the United Nations floor?"

It is certainly ready!

All I am left to ask is simply "when will the proposal hit the United Nations floor?"

It is certainly ready!

Yes, tell us, please! :D

From what I have seen, the standard argument is about marriage involving two persons. What about polygamy? I this something that ought to be allowed? I curious to see what everyone here thinks.

As for myself, I think that polygamy is not necessarily an unhappy situation--it is in many major cultures of this world.
However, I believe that it also has led to abuse and neglect an discontent in numerous cases, and therefore the government has a right to regulate it.


The other facet of marriage is strength of one's economy. Marriage is extremely important to a government because it directly effects certain things like employment, production, birth-rate and consumption as well as flexibility in downturn. A contract between two persons such as marriage makes for a more stable economy, because if one loses a job, there is the other to offer support. Similarly, combined income can mean more spending money, which stimulates a consumer culture.

For those of you who believe that the government has every right to regulate the economy, regulation of marriage is a simple follow-up. Now whether there are certain standard rights that ought to be allowed like sam-sex marriage is not an entirely different question--I personally am all for same-sex marriage, and I am optomistic that external cultural pressures will force any progressive nation to consider the well-being of its citizens (how happy they are) and the economic benefits.

A very intelligent and thoughtful response.

First, I address the issue of polygamy. I am personally not against either polygamy or polyandry, and acknowledge that they can be practised responsibly and to the benefit of all involved.

I have chosen to define marriage thus because I wanted an international definition, which was instantly transferrable, and it seems unlikely that such relationships will be commonly accepted by law or be much in demand. There is no reason a country could not make a provision for many-person relationships, but if it were to call it 'marriage' the instant result is a lack of portability should individuals in such a relationship enter another nation.

As I recall, marriage has implications for immigration law. These might be perfectly manageable if individuals have only one partner, but what if they have two, or five, or ten, or even more? In the USA, polygamous relationships preclude the judgement of 'good moral character,' and so applicants in such a relationship cannot become naturalised US citizens, and 'spouse' refers only to the first partner in such a relationship. (Of course, in many polygamous relationships it is the most recent, youngest partner which is given preferential treatment, but I digress).

The economic implications of many-person relationships are confusing. What do other people think?

If there is a stong enough impetus (i.e. good reason) for many-person relationships to be accepted, I am willing to modify my proposal.

And, may I just note, it's odd that most of the opinions expressed in this thread are well-formed and intelligent, rather unlike the common bickering found in more extravagantly of emotively titled proposals? Bravo to all involved for maintaining this! I look forward to hearing some thoughtful theists and their views on the efficacy of this proposal.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

All I am left to ask is simply "when will the proposal hit the United Nations floor?"

It is certainly ready!

Yes, tell us, please! :D

Would it be appropriate to say 'speak of the devil,' in reference to my last post?

Thank you very much, both of you. I shall give it another day or so, to further determine that there is no more that can be done to improve it - and there may be some interesting proposals concerning polygamy. If there are no significant objections, it will be suggested to the UN tomorrow.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Preamble

This proposal will serve four broad purposes:

1. to delineate the freedoms of nations, with respect to internal marriage laws;
2. eluidation the responsibilities of nations in honouring external marriage contracts;
3. development of a simple model whereby marriage agreements involving more than two people can be dealt with on an international level;
4. universalising shared human or civil rights in relationships not meeting the conditions for marriage.

Rationale

Many nations feel that marriage should not be merely a civil union, but an expression of love between people who meet certain religious, moral or political ideals. The intent of this proposal is, therefore, to permit nations to define marriage as and how they wish, such that it can be in accordance with these ideals.

If this proposal were accepted, it would have an effect on previous resolutions - for example, the 'Gay Rights' resolution would have to be modified, since marriage could now be defined to exclude gay couples. This proposal does not intend to exclude individuals from any basic shared rights on such a basis, and it is acknowledged that many of the shared rights granted by marriage should be accessible by almost any humans pursuing a relationship. This proposal states that provision be made, in order that marriage cannot be used as a means to block access to such rights.

Summary

Marriage is an institution that individual nations should be allow to define and restrict as they see fit, since it is often an expression of certain religious, moral or societal ideals. Therefore, it is proposed that marriage can be defined by nations as they see fit, but that married individuals entering a nation where their contract would not be valid are not necessarily eligable to the rights marriage caters for. However, such individuals should not be treated prejudicially on account of their marriage. Furthermore, shared human and civil rights should be accessible by entrants who do not meet the condtions for marriage, excepting age, consanguinity and gross number of participants, in the interests of the universality of human rights.

Assumptions

It is assumed that arbitrary factors such as age, consanguinity, consumation, ethnicity, fidelity, intelligence, orientation, nationality, number of partners of either sex, number and nature of previous partners/marriages, religion and sex and the like can be used to discriminate between couples eligible for marriage and those who are not, and that no form of discrimination is more morally valid than any other. This precludes any debate concerning the moral implications of discrimination on the basis of, say, sexual orientation as opposed to ethnicity by effectively deeming such distinctions irrelevent.

Definitions

Marriage: a civil contract between a number of individuals, their government and (possibly) an external entity (e.g. a religious organisation, God/gods), which entitles them to certain shared rights, assuming that their union adheres to the internal laws and restrictions of this contract.

Polygamy/polygamous: catch-all terms used to describe many-person relationships consisting of more than two people.

The Proposal

UN member states are free to apply their own laws and restrictions to the institution of marriage, including those dependent on the sex and orientation, intelligence, religious beliefs, fidelity and ethnic/national origins of the couple.

Should citizens of any nation enter the territory of a UN member in which their union would not be recognised as legally valid, that territory is under no obligation to provide the services normally provisioned to married couples in their country. However: -

(a) said member must not treat such visitors prejudicially because of their union;

(b) no attempts should be made to block services provided by the citizen's home government/institutions by virtue of their married status, such as joint pension plans or bank accounts;

(c) UN member states must honour any marriage contract that is in accord with their own laws and restrictions.

The implications of polygamous relationships are dealt with below, in the section titled 'Polygamy'.

Many of the rights granted by marriage are basic human or civil rights, such as the right to designate one's partner(s) as next of kin, shared property rights and consideration of partner(s) in pension/support schemes or for tax purposes. Therefore, provision should be made for individuals in relationships which meet the conditions for marriage in age, consanguinity and gross number, and who are capable of giving informed consent, to be given access to these and similar rights, though without being recognised as a 'married' couple.

Polygamy

Individuals in a polygamous relationship may enter the territory of a UN member wherein such relationships are not recognised. Therefore, it is proposed that any single groups/couples of individuals engaged in a polygamous relationship who meet the conditions for legal marriage set out by said member (ignoring breaches of fidelity of commited within marriage) must be accorded rights as set out above.

Any partners in such a relationship who are not included in such a group are at the discretion of the nation.

Note: Previous Marriage Agreements

If a UN member should change its marriage laws such that previous marriage contracts are no longer acceptable, the nation must honour fully and reasonably its responsibilities under this contract, without prejudice, until the contract is anulled by a breach of the original restrictions of the contract merits it, or the willing termination of the contract by the married parties - otherwise, the nation must consider them married until and even (for legal purposes) after the completion of the natural lives of both.

This proposal is put before the United Nations by Jordan, the present Monarch of Archaeus.

The proposal has been submitted, and is currently on the last page of the proposals list.

It is hoped that the above can serve as an extended description of how such a proposal could work.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

There's a bit of a problem with the modified proposal:

Many of the rights granted by marriage are basic human or civil rights, such as the right to designate one's partner(s) as next of kin, shared property rights and consideration of partner(s) in pension/support schemes or for tax purposes. Therefore, provision should be made for individuals in relationships which meet the conditions for marriage in age, consanguinity and gross number, and who are capable of giving informed consent, to be given access to these and similar rights, though without being recognised as a 'married' couple.

Thanks to this paragraph, there is absolutely nothing to stop virtually any two people from defrauding the taxation system. Without a marriage license, how can the state say whether a relationship does or does not exist? If documentation of some sort doesn't exist for a given relationship, then how is the state to determine whether the relationship is legitimately "marriage like" or not?

I still like the proposal overall, and would like to endorse it, but I think this paragraph significantly weakens it.

In my country, I choose to permit gay/lesbian marriages, and consider marriage a purely legal matter, devoid of religious connotations. I will also permit gay couples to adopt children just like straight couples can. However, that is because I arbitrarily decided that marriage was an abstract relationship which takes places between any two consenting individuals.

Excuse me, you "permit gay/lesbian marriages"? Do you also "permit" straight marriages, or just accept them as standard?

Special rights are not equal rights.

The other facet of marriage is strength of one's economy. Marriage is extremely important to a government because it directly effects certain things like employment, production, birth-rate and consumption as well as flexibility in downturn. A contract between two persons such as marriage makes for a more stable economy, because if one loses a job, there is the other to offer support. Similarly, combined income can mean more spending money, which stimulates a consumer culture.

How does marriage affect employment, apart from marriage celebrants and marriage councillors?

How does marriage affect production? Is it the dressmaking?

How does it affect birth-rate? Are unmarried couple unable to have children?

How does it affect consumption? Does an unmarried couple consume more or less than a married couple?

Do you have to be married before you are allowed to combine your income?

How does marriage affect employment, apart from marriage celebrants and marriage councillors?

How does marriage affect production? Is it the dressmaking?

How does it affect birth-rate? Are unmarried couple unable to have children?

How does it affect consumption? Does an unmarried couple consume more or less than a married couple?

Do you have to be married before you are allowed to combine your income?
Marriage affects production and employment by altering the labor costs. If industry is required by law to recognize the contractual obligation of marriage and the attendant benefits, these will affect the cost of labor. This adds to the fixed costs for industry, particularly when benefits are required by law to be paid by the private sector. Government sanctions can act as a boost or a drag on employment, just like any other subsidy or tariff.

The birth rate is liable to be affected by societal recognition of the institution of marriage. There will always be a certain percentage who choose to live within the bounds of the law, and will strive to have children only when legally permitted. There are also those who will ignore such laws. In certain governmental states, law-breakers often do not have the opportunity to reproduce.

Consumption evades me. I never found that two could eat as cheaply as one. There is less wastage when preparing for two or more, but wastage is still consumption ... just not productive consumption.

Combined income effects are often a result of national tax policy. Government recognition of marriage can have quite the positive effect on a couple's cashflow, by freeing up tax money for additonal consumption. There. I've managed to tie consumption back in. Hurrah.

I see no significant flaws in this paragraph. A few quibbles, perhaps, but no real flaws. Frisbeeteria would support this proposal.

Polygamy
The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.

Polyandry
The condition or practice of having more than one husband at one time.

Polygyny
The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time

Just splitting Hairs.

Source: www.dictionary.com

How does marriage affect employment, apart from marriage celebrants and marriage councillors?

How does marriage affect production? Is it the dressmaking?

How does it affect birth-rate? Are unmarried couple unable to have children?

How does it affect consumption? Does an unmarried couple consume more or less than a married couple?

Do you have to be married before you are allowed to combine your income?
Marriage affects production and employment by altering the labor costs. If industry is required by law to recognize the contractual obligation of marriage and the attendant benefits, these will affect the cost of labor. This adds to the fixed costs for industry, particularly when benefits are required by law to be paid by the private sector. Government sanctions can act as a boost or a drag on employment, just like any other subsidy or tariff.

The birth rate is liable to be affected by societal recognition of the institution of marriage. There will always be a certain percentage who choose to live within the bounds of the law, and will strive to have children only when legally permitted. There are also those who will ignore such laws. In certain governmental states, law-breakers often do not have the opportunity to reproduce.

Consumption evades me. I never found that two could eat as cheaply as one. There is less wastage when preparing for two or more, but wastage is still consumption ... just not productive consumption.

Combined income effects are often a result of national tax policy. Government recognition of marriage can have quite the positive effect on a couple's cashflow, by freeing up tax money for additonal consumption. There. I've managed to tie consumption back in. Hurrah.

I see no significant flaws in this paragraph. A few quibbles, perhaps, but no real flaws. Frisbeeteria would support this proposal.


So Marriage affects production and employment because your government unevenly applies subsidies or tariffs to married couples and unmarried couples.

Birthrate is affected because a couple will choose to get married to have a baby instead of getting married because they are going to have a baby, or because of any other reason. I can't see it happening. "Will you marry me because I want to have a baby!"

I'm still at a loss how an unmarried couple has a different consumption to a married couple. Note that I am not comparing two unmarried singles with a married couple.

Your unfairness with a national tax policy will encourage couples to register their relationship. It is not the registering of the relationship which drives this equation, it is the tax policy. Again marriage has no effect, it is the result.