NationStates Jolt Archive

The Most Serene Republic of Etanistan, seeing the necessity for recognition of a variety of views as well as the sovereignty of nations, proudly unveils its newest proposal, "The Recognition of Marriage."

1: Member governments of the United Nations shall henceforth be required to recognize marriages performed in all other member nations.

2: The United Nations shall not now or at any point in the future define marriage or similar unions. Only sovereign governments shall retain the right to define marriage and create legislation within their borders.

3: Each member government shall award the same rights and privileges to marriages performed outside its borders under the definitions of other sovereign nations as it does to marriages performed inside its borders under its own definitions. Marriages performed in one country shall be recognized as marriages in all other countries; however, all married beings are subject to the marriage legislation of the country in which they currently exist at any given time.

4: Should the differences between defintions in various nations be so excessive as to make legislation of a marriage made in one country improbable or impossible in a second nation, the being(s) of questionable legality shall be treated by the laws of the second nation as being(s) more easily legislated. The determination of this treatment shall be made by the government of the second nation. However, at no time can a marriage performed in one member nation be deemed illegal or void in the laws of any other member nation.

The UN has already passed a gay marriage law:


Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
*
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

Votes For: 12705
Votes Against: 7734
Implemented: Sat May 3 2003


While your proposal is more detailed and, one might argue, better written in some parts, many of the actions it seeks to implement already exist. Therefore, it probably won't make it to vote...sorry.

The UN has already passed a gay marriage law:


Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

Votes For: 12705
Votes Against: 7734
Implemented: Sat May 3 2003


While your proposal is more detailed and, one might argue, better written in some parts, many of the actions it seeks to implement already exist. Therefore, it probably won't make it to vote...sorry.

I also tried to formulate another proposal. However, since its being passed would necessitate removing the aforementioned resolution, it was removed from the forum.

If you're interested, the thread and proposal can be found here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=101111&start=20

- Jordan

The UN has already passed a gay marriage law:


Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

Votes For: 12705
Votes Against: 7734
Implemented: Sat May 3 2003


While your proposal is more detailed and, one might argue, better written in some parts, many of the actions it seeks to implement already exist. Therefore, it probably won't make it to vote...sorry.

I also tried to formulate another proposal. However, since its being passed would necessitate removing the aforementioned resolution, it was removed from the forum.

If you're interested, the thread and proposal can be found here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=101111&start=20

- Jordan

.... and thus it continues....

The nation of Lupinster stands against any proposal that would afford the right to marriage and adopt to gay couples. We would be prepared to go to war over this issue and nuke any country that intends to introduce such legislation.

I find the last part confusing.

If you have polygamy permitted in one nation, and illegal in the second nation, what is the legal standing of a man who travels with three wives from the first nation to the second nation? The second nation might be permitting married people to file joint tax returns? The second nation might have a limit on the number of children permitted to a couple.

Oh real nice Lupin, why don't you blow up the moon while you're at it. Nuke another country over the issue of gay marriage eh? Why with that kind of intelligence i'd be surprised if your country even HAS a military budget. (I'm implying your people are probably too stupid to manufacture any kind of technology).

The nation of Lupinster stands against any proposal that would afford the right to marriage and adopt to gay couples. We would be prepared to go to war over this issue and nuke any country that intends to introduce such legislation.

Get ready to mobilise those nukes and start firing on every member of the UN, including yourself. It is impossible to break UN law in this game (no exceptions, the programming doesn't allow it), and the Gay Rights resolution, which I'll post again, enshrines gay marriages in UN law:


Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

Votes For: 12705
Votes Against: 7734
Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

The nation of Lupinster stands against any proposal that would afford the right to marriage and adopt to gay couples. We would be prepared to go to war over this issue and nuke any country that intends to introduce such legislation.

Stop mastrubating in front of your pc.

Bunch of Politically Correct wastes of space we have running the UN then. Laws around the world are already starting to afford minority groups way more protection than your average Joe in the street. It's a disgrace.

Bunch of Politically Correct wastes of space we have running the UN then. Laws around the world are already starting to afford minority groups way more protection than your average Joe in the street. It's a disgrace.

Where do you get this from?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

All this proposal is asking is that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, which include tax benefits, the ability to inherit assets, the ability to visit one another in the hospital, and other such things. Straight couples already have these rights, and many more. This, is no way, constitutes a proposal for "special" rights.

Obviously, the issue of homosexual marriage is a touchy subject for some people. Compounded with the fact that there are many religious nations in this game, it makes it unlikely that this issue will ever die down.

Therefore, I propose an idea. Make marriage solely a church event. Have it confer no legal or economic benifets what so ever. Therefore, if it is soley a church event, people can marry as many people as they want, the church can forbid homosexual marriage, and that will resolve the issue.

However, obviously, there will be non-religious people who look to have the same type of union that marriage confers. THat being said, I say have a "Civil Union" ceremony that will confer all the legal/economic benifets of marriage, but be Non-religious. Thus, all types of civil unions would be allowed, including Homo-sexual ones, without infringing on the church's right to forbid Homosexuals from performing what is esentially a church's ceremony.(Granted, some churchs coud allow Homoesexual Marriage, if they so chose)

Unfortunately, you cannot refuse to recognise gay marriage, though there are no resolutions protecting straight marriage.

I'm quite annoyed at how gay marriage was just dropped into that resolution at the end. I support gay marriage, but I feel that, while the rights of gay couples should be protected, marriage in some nations is an expression of traditional ideals. While I deplore the existence of such limiting ideals, I consider it wrong to refuse nations the right to support them, if they see fit. Changing these ideals is where we should start if we want recognition of gay marriage, not changing the law to reflect one nation's values above those of others.

This proposal has not only denied them this, but it forces nations to recognise the writer's own traditional values - i.e. the existence of the institution of 'marriage' - regardless of their own customs. And we are impotent to do anything, because the UN apparently does not support correcting mistakes.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Unfortunately, you cannot refuse to recognise gay marriage, though there are no resolutions protecting straight marriage.

I'm quite annoyed at how gay marriage was just dropped into that resolution at the end. I support gay marriage, but I feel that, while the rights of gay couples should be protected, marriage in some nations is an expression of traditional ideals. While I deplore the existence of such limiting ideals, I consider it wrong to refuse nations the right to support them, if they see fit. Changing these ideals is where we should start if we want recognition of gay marriage, not changing the law to reflect one nation's values above those of others.

This proposal has not only denied them this, but it forces nations to recognise the writer's own traditional values - i.e. the existence of the institution of 'marriage' - regardless of their own customs. And we are impotent to do anything, because the UN apparently does not support correcting mistakes.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

The Most Serene Republic of Etanistan was not in existence when this previous resolution was passed and we are very sorry to have offended the great nation of Artemis and Persephone with our supreme ignorance.

It seems that only attrociously bad proposals ever make quorum, so we will now set to work writing an inane, poorly-written proposal such as the one currently at vote. Any nation that can tell us what that proposal is actually banning and/or why it sounds like a transcription of a drunken conversation would be greatly appreciated.

-Diego Kwanzaa-Sharma, UN Associate Co-Representative for Useless Bickering on Pointless Resolutions, Most Serene Republic of Etanistan

The UN has already passed a gay marriage law:


Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

Votes For: 12705
Votes Against: 7734
Implemented: Sat May 3 2003


While your proposal is more detailed and, one might argue, better written in some parts, many of the actions it seeks to implement already exist. Therefore, it probably won't make it to vote...sorry.

I find the last part confusing.

If you have polygamy permitted in one nation, and illegal in the second nation, what is the legal standing of a man who travels with three wives from the first nation to the second nation? The second nation might be permitting married people to file joint tax returns? The second nation might have a limit on the number of children permitted to a couple.

The last part is a bit confusing. To continue with your example, let's say the polygamous group moves from Nation A to Nation B. Nation A recognizes polygamy and Nation B has made the mistake of following the American Congress and has passed a "Defense of Marriage Act" which defines marriage as the union of one woman and one man. When the polygamous group moves to Nation B, Nation B MUST recognize their marriage. If further legislation is required, say the third wife wishes a divorce because she meets a hot young person in Nation B, then Nation B MUST figure out how to legislate this, although Nation B has the right to figure out exactly how to legislate. They could, for instance, legislate it AS IF the third wife were the one and only wife of the man or they could legislate it as if the second wife were the husband of the third wife or they could simply legislate it as a "no fault" divorce and maybe avoid any court appearances.

I realize the lack of examples makes the resolution a bit unclear, but for the sake of keeping it short and to the point, we didn't want examples in the proposal itself.

- Ramanath Wahid-Garcia, Assistant to the Associate to the Co-Director of Legal Union Legislation for the Etanistan UN Delegation

The Government of the Dominion of Petrolium Springs, while not a member of the U.N ( and this example of the recognition of Gay marriage being imposed on member nations on a "like it or not" basis is a good example of the requirements of membership in the U.N. which surrenders the basic right of every free nation to administer the laws of the land) would like to propose the establishment of a new organization that will continue the work of the U.N. without this unacceptable condition.

Called, perhaps, " The Enlightened Nations " this organization could complete the work of the U.N. without surrendering national sovereignty.

With respects.
Claude Spheres
Minister of Complicated Answers to Simple P

roblems

Obviously, the issue of homosexual marriage is a touchy subject for some people. Compounded with the fact that there are many religious nations in this game, it makes it unlikely that this issue will ever die down.

Therefore, I propose an idea. Make marriage solely a church event. Have it confer no legal or economic benifets what so ever. Therefore, if it is soley a church event, people can marry as many people as they want, the church can forbid homosexual marriage, and that will resolve the issue.

However, obviously, there will be non-religious people who look to have the same type of union that marriage confers. THat being said, I say have a "Civil Union" ceremony that will confer all the legal/economic benifets of marriage, but be Non-religious. Thus, all types of civil unions would be allowed, including Homo-sexual ones, without infringing on the church's right to forbid Homosexuals from performing what is esentially a church's ceremony.(Granted, some churchs coud allow Homoesexual Marriage, if they so chose)


yeah....but marriage is good for a country. There should be legal benefits because when you get married it is good for the country. Marriage builds strong relationships and is the best way for kids to grow up without becoming wacky or paranoid. Married people are far less likely to fall into poverty or be poor. And most chuches can marry non-religious people anyway.

But if any kinds of civil unions exist, then the govenment IS saying that any kind of civil union are ok. Even ones that the majority of ppl in their country say is wrong. Who is the government to say such a thing? Isn't that a dictatorship?

For example, most Americans would say that gay marriage is wrong. (At least the last time I checked, it may have changed since i don't actively seek out polls very often). Should the government come and say that the majority of Americans are a bunch of hateful doof-bags and that it doesn't matter what they think? Or, heres another example. I know for sure that most Americans think that polygamous relationships are wrong. If all kinds of civil unions exist, then would we have to accept those too? Even if they are wrong?

If one has to accept something even though they think it is wrong, where does that leave society?? Would I have to accept a governmental approval for ...uh....bullfighting?? I don't like bullfigting because its wrong. Or cockfighting. Or dog fighting. Or human sacrifices in the name of religious tolerance? How far do we go?? Responsible racing is ok.

I'd like to finish with a little blurp. Not a year after all the hullabaloo on gay sex and marriage let out in Texas, polygamists in Utah want their relationships legitimized. So, my point is that, as always, "ideas have consequences" and what may look sweet, loving, open and great now may lead to some sticky situations where the entire idea of marriage is changed. If that happens there will be some serious friction in society that may tear it apart. Just look at any great civilization- but thats a whole different topic and my love of history will have me talking about that for days.

Oh, and Scottie, im not picking on you! I just took one of your ideas and used it as a jumping board.

Cheers!

I'm not offended by gay rights proposals... in fact, I would gladly pass and implement 4,521 of them, because I think they're an important issue. I was simply explaining why your proposal may not make it to vote. While I would prefer your proposal over the one that's already been passed, the rule in NS is unfortunately first-come-first-served.

Obviously, the issue of homosexual marriage is a touchy subject for some people. Compounded with the fact that there are many religious nations in this game, it makes it unlikely that this issue will ever die down.

Therefore, I propose an idea. Make marriage solely a church event. Have it confer no legal or economic benifets what so ever. Therefore, if it is soley a church event, people can marry as many people as they want, the church can forbid homosexual marriage, and that will resolve the issue.

However, obviously, there will be non-religious people who look to have the same type of union that marriage confers. THat being said, I say have a "Civil Union" ceremony that will confer all the legal/economic benifets of marriage, but be Non-religious. Thus, all types of civil unions would be allowed, including Homo-sexual ones, without infringing on the church's right to forbid Homosexuals from performing what is esentially a church's ceremony.(Granted, some churchs coud allow Homoesexual Marriage, if they so chose)

So we should give in to the church and yield to them marriage, so that nobody who the church dislikes can be married, only have civil unions? The name differentiation is important. Marriage should be the legal stuff available to gays too, and the churches should have the choice of whether to accept a request to bless a marriage - that's all a marriage ceremony is anyway.

Bunch of Politically Correct wastes of space we have running the UN then. Laws around the world are already starting to afford minority groups way more protection than your average Joe in the street. It's a disgrace.

Because of course, heterosexuals don't have the right to marry? :roll: This is equal rights, not special treatment.