NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, this is Prime Minister Panagiotis Psaropoulos, Prime Minister of the Aegean Union, a Member state of the Byzantine League. I think that we should make an Amendment to the Gay Rights UN Resolution, chageing it so that it is the Nation that determines what is a Legaly valid Mariage.

No. The right to a recognised relationship is a fundamental human right which should be afforded to all, including gays. Personally, I don't care if certain countries/people have religious objections or whatever - this is what the separation of church and state is for. People should not be able to force ideas based on religion on anyone, especially if those others do not believe in the same religion.

Uh... that's what state religions are for. They exist explicitly to encourage a specific religion, along with the morality specific to that religion.

No. The right to a recognised relationship is a fundamental human right which should be afforded to all, including gays. Personally, I don't care if certain countries/people have religious objections or whatever - this is what the separation of church and state is for. People should not be able to force ideas based on religion on anyone, especially if those others do not believe in the same religion.
Yes, but separation of Church and state has not been voted on as a UN resolution yet, so that argument has no value in UN debate until that point.

maybe I don't want to seperate my church and state, ever thought of that?

Gay Rights Amendment
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Thracia has made the above proposal, I recomend all go and endorce it and make sure it gets to be voted on. Although I do belive Gays have the right to human rights, the right to even marry, or at least thier mariage being recognized by the state is not a garantee. Nor should it be. If a Nation so choses to recognise mariages of any sort, it should have the right on it's own to chose what the nature of that mariage should be. This international body should not impose it's ideals on what should be a local issue. And as an other distinguist member of this body has said, since there is no UN resolution mandating seperation of Church and state, a State may have thier Church and State work together if they so chose. After all are there not Theocracies that are members of this esteemed body?

here is the full text of the proposal


Gay Rights Amendment
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Mild Proposed by: Thracia
Description: On behalf of The Allied States of The Byzantine League, Thracia submits the following proposal:

The Resolution on Gay Rights, accepted on Sat May 3 2003, needs to be amended as follows:

-- The last sentence of this resolution, the one on Gay marriages should change.

-- Each member state should be free to define for itself what is a legaly binding marriage.

-- While the UN can recommend the legalization of gay marriages, it should not impose it on every emeber-state.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 136 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Dec 27 2003

Simply because one does not like gays does not mean one can change a UN resolution. The resolution accepting gay marraige for all was a civil rights bill, meant for the betterment of society. I don't think you will gain the support needed, but you can try anyway.

Game Mechanics Alert
The text of a previously-passed UN resolution cannot be changed by vote of the UN.

Are you to tell me that the UN can not change it's mind if it thinks that it has done wrong? Are we to say it is unable to amend it self? Then what type of body is this, and how can one say this body is truly fair if UN resolutions can not be amended.

Simply because one does not like gays does not mean one can change a UN resolution.
Yes, but if the original resolution passed had banned gay marriage, would you hold your noble defense of the importance of sustaining UN resolutions; on the contrary, or would you, as I predict you would, condemn the UN in outrage and demand a repeal of the resolution?

Are you to tell me that the UN can not change it's mind if it thinks that it has done wrong? Are we to say it is unable to amend it self? Then what type of body is this, and how can one say this body is truly fair if UN resolutions can not be amended.

Although the UN cannot 'amend' previous resolutions you can submit an 'Replacement' (see 'Required Basic Healthcare' and ''RBH' Replacement') in previous resolutions. (At least I think that's right)

And Patoxia would like to applaud your idea, as we are big proponents of national sovereignty.

Albert G. Brown
Senior Patoxian Diplomat

I Emperor Nicholas I, of the Byzantine Republic, and President of the Byzantine League, do Here by implore all of you to support this UN Proposal. I ask that you all go and vote for it. It is important that the rights and sovereignty of nations be upheld, and this proposal is a step in that direction.

The "RBH Replacement" situation happened before the UN proposals list came under close scrutiny by the moderators (or by me, at least...), so it may not be the best example of what you're arguing about.
That said, and bearing in mind that I'm working from memory of an event rather a long time ago here, a distinction can be drawn as follows.
The original resolution there ("Required Basic Healthcare") was a Human Rights concern. The "Replacement" resolution merely served to strengthen that original resolution's resolve. Therefore, the fact that it was a Human Rights resolution as well means that it effectively increased the strength of the original one (I hope I'm making sense here), so there was no problem.

Here, however, you are seeking to amend something which is a Human Rights concern into something to do with the Democratic freedoms of the nation's population. A Democratic Freedom is freedom to vote for whoever you want, whereas gay marriage (or "the right to marry whoever you want") is a Human Right. This is a distinct problem as you're seeking to (in theory) change the operation of the resolution. Again, I hope that made sense.
-- While the UN can recommend the legalization of gay marriages, it should not impose it on every emeber-state.
This and the further argument about upholding the "sovereignty" of member nations is the other major concern I have with this proposal. While you might not want the UN to impose the legalisation of gay marriages on every member state, the fact of the matter is that not only can it do that, it has in that resolution. Since resolutions are not able to be repealed - and don't let's re-hash that old argument here - then there's very little you can do about the fact that gay marriages are legalised.
As for "sovereignty", it has been said on many occasions that a state joining the NationStates UN cedes at least a part of its sovereignty to that body. Are issues such as "Gun Control", "Gambling" and "The Legalisation of Gay Marriages" issues which would (in the real world) be determined by sovereign states? Yes, they are. In the real world, a proposal for that sort of thing wouldn't be made in the first place and even if it were then the member states could avoid compliance. As a result of the mechanics of this game, not only can such proposals be made, they have to be implemented across the board.
Saying that the UN cannot impose something upon everyone when it can and has is a game mechanics violation.

Here, however, you are seeking to amend something which is a Human Rights concern into something to do with the Democratic freedoms of the nation's population. A Democratic Freedom is freedom to vote for whoever you want, whereas gay marriage (or "the right to marry whoever you want") is a Human Right. This is a distinct problem as you're seeking to (in theory) change the operation of the resolution. Again, I hope that made sense.
Seems to me that you are a bit biasd.

I am not saying that a Nation can not have gay marriages if they so Choose, what I am saying is that a nation does not have to even recognize a Marriage. In a game in witch some nations have almost a 100% tax rate; there is almost no benefit from a governmental standpoint for even having their marriage recognized by the State. The only reason people even want there marriage to be recognized by the state is usually for tax purposes. I personally don't care if people, through what ever personal means, wish to marry, I on the other hand do not think it should be mandated that a Nation be required to recognize any marriage, gay strait or otherwise. The government recognizing Marriage is not a Human right. A human right is a right that a human deserves to function as a Human. One does not need the government to recognize there Marriage in order for a Human to function as a Human. In addition, I am not saying the UN does not have some Authority on what my Nation can do. It has the Authority to control what happens between nations, and their interactions with each other, and to set the ground rules for that. But the UN has no Authority, nor should it be allowed to control internal matters of a State. Why do you think one of the earliest resolutions passed by the UN was that the UN could never tax its member Nations? It was because the Member states of the UN did not want the UN medaling in the internal affairs of their state.


From the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Byzantine League

Here, however, you are seeking to amend something which is a Human Rights concern into something to do with the Democratic freedoms of the nation's population. A Democratic Freedom is freedom to vote for whoever you want, whereas gay marriage (or "the right to marry whoever you want") is a Human Right. This is a distinct problem as you're seeking to (in theory) change the operation of the resolution. Again, I hope that made sense.
Seems to me that you are a bit biased.
Seems to me that this statement needs clarification.

I am not saying that a Nation can not have gay marriages if they so Choose, what I am saying is that a nation does not have to even recognize a Marriage. In a game in witch some nations have almost a 100% tax rate; there is almost no benefit from a governmental standpoint for even having their marriage recognized by the State. The only reason people even want there marriage to be recognized by the state is usually for tax purposes. I personally don't care if people, through what ever personal means, wish to marry, I on the other hand do not think it should be mandated that a Nation be required to recognize any marriage, gay strait or otherwise. The government recognizing Marriage is not a Human right. A human right is a right that a human deserves to function as a Human. One does not need the government to recognize there Marriage in order for a Human to function as a Human. In addition, I am not saying the UN does not have some Authority on what my Nation can do. It has the Authority to control what happens between nations, and their interactions with each other, and to set the ground rules for that. But the UN has no Authority, nor should it be allowed to control internal matters of a State. Why do you think one of the earliest resolutions passed by the UN was that the UN could never tax its member Nations? It was because the Member states of the UN did not want the UN medaling in the internal affairs of their state.


From the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Byzantine League
If we may use US law as the starting point in this whole debate, marriage confers more legal benefits than just tax laws - i.e., anything to do with next of kin applies to a spouse. That includes visits in hospitals, inheritance law, and probably a dozen other things I can't recall off the top of my head.

That may be so Fallen Eden Envoy, but that does not mean that a State could still recognize those things through simple recognition that people are related to each other, rather than saying their needs to be an officially Government recognized Marriage. To put it plainly there are other ways, besides marriages that a Nation could deal with the problems that you stated. Again I encourage all Nations that Support this proposal to go and vote for it.

Office of Foreign Affairs of the Byzantine League.

Uh... that's what state religions are for. They exist explicitly to encourage a specific religion, along with the morality specific to that religion.

Which is why state religion is a bad thing.

maybe I don't want to seperate my church and state, ever thought of that?

Yes. I also think that that kind of ideology is counter-productive to freedom, and intensely oppose any attempt to put religion-based ideas into law purely because of the religion.

Don't try to bring back homophobia.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

STAY OUT OF MY NATIONS BEDROOM!

Here, however, you are seeking to amend something which is a Human Rights concern into something to do with the Democratic freedoms of the nation's population. A Democratic Freedom is freedom to vote for whoever you want, whereas gay marriage (or "the right to marry whoever you want") is a Human Right. This is a distinct problem as you're seeking to (in theory) change the operation of the resolution. Again, I hope that made sense.
Seems to me that you are a bit biasd.
Biased in what direction? The only bias I have in this business is that I'm sick to death of people trying to change game mechanics via proposals. If my own political views come through in so doing, then that just happens to be because the existing proposal may or may not support them. My politics doesn't enter into it.

And Byzantine League, while I understand your logic in saying that it makes sense for gay marriages to be recognised on a state-by-state basis, the resolution you are seeking to amend does not allow that. The resolution you are seeking to amend enforces compliance to a particular viewpoint, whether you like it or not. That's the way the game works.
The proposal will be deleted very shortly, trust me.

so are you to say that if the UN passed a resolution outlawing religion in all nations, that all member nations in the UN would have to comply and that the resoution outlawing religion could not be repealed? I do not see how this resolution is a game mechanics violation. Were does it say that the UN can not corect it self in any of the rules of the Game? At the verry least if you are to say that amendments can not be made to the UN, then it should be clearly stated in the rules, so nations could make more of an informed decision when Joining the UN.

As the UN cannot pass a resolution outlawing religion (well, not that I can see), it becomes rather a moot example.

Am I saying that the UN cannot amend or repeal legislation? Yes I am. Once a proposal is passed, its text is sacrosanct and cannot be tampered with. In fact, once a proposal reaches the floor of the UN, it cannot be deleted and once it is proposed, the only thing that can happen is that it can be deleted.
There are millions of arguments about this which have been had before and I don't propose to go into them right now. I will, however, try to dredge them up if they still seem necessary.

Should this be stated very clearly somewhere? I would contend that it is already stated in my sticky at the top of this forum - to which players are linked from the proposal screen. Assuming that isn't clear enough, then perhaps you should ask admin to make it clearer.