NationStates Jolt Archive

For some odd reason, it didn't show up the last time I posted:

Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: Seeing as the United Nations has been bombarded hither with gay marriage resolutions and also that,

People that get married are usually in love, or at least have one good business deal, and need no government charter to love [or profit from] one another,

Further that letting the government regulate marriage only makes things either unfairly discriminatory or ridiculously complicated, therefore,

Be it resolved that no nation, nor the United Nations, shall make marriage a legal institution.

Approvals: 1 (The Global Market)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 8 2004

The Confederated Trade League of The Global Market has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

Anything that kills government or capitalism can't be very bad. I support it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

We have always viewed that marriage was more symbolic than anything else. We approve of your resolution and will vote for it when it reaches the floor.

Confederacy of the Isles Region UN Delegate
Hung Tony

I like it, hence why I supported it

Thank you all kindly.

I will support this proposal if it comes up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I support it too. Marriage has however only been a token term since we allowed marriage with dogs. It is basically an economic proposition of unitying economic assets. Love is something shared between two people and the rest of the world can ...whater. However some people like to combine it. And if you want to make vows, fine. They just don't have any legal value. Unless you want to add some strange lines to the economic contract. I guess you shall just have to trust your partner.

Marriage is also a way of placing people* into other people's families. Because of this it must genrally be recognized by the government for medical and personal reasons(such as deaths, Next of kin mentions, etc.)
Therfore as we see it this proposal as useless and somewhat harmful.

*where person is definied, as anything wether matter, energy, or something else that is elegable for marrage under the law.

Marriage is also a way of placing people* into other people's families. Because of this it must genrally be recognized by the government for medical and personal reasons(such as deaths, Next of kin mentions, etc.)
Therfore as we see it this proposal as useless and somewhat harmful.

*where person is definied, as anything wether matter, energy, or something else that is elegable for marrage under the law.

Yes, what about countries which do have tighter restrictions than TGM but where next of kin are granted privileges? Married couples need recognition like this.

It is basically an economic proposition of unitying economic assets.

In countries with regulated economic systems, doesn't unifying economic assets require legal recognition for tax purposes (let's just accept for now that some nations have taxation, others don't)?

I don't support it for traditional reasons

Marriage has to have some legal business in it. All it should be, of the legal part, should be signing of some papers after all the ceremonies and everything. But I will support this proclamation if/when it comes to the floor.

Marriage has to have some legal business in it. All it should be, of the legal part, should be signing of some papers after all the ceremonies and everything. But I will support this proclamation if/when it comes to the floor.

Why would you support it, when you have just stated that your opinion is the opposite to that which the proposal supports? You said it should have some legal business, then say you will support legislation to remove all legal recognition of marriage!

This proposal infringes upon the rights of the member nations to pass laws that make sense in their tiny part of the country. I oppose.

For some odd reason, it didn't show up the last time I posted:

Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: Seeing as the United Nations has been bombarded hither with gay marriage resolutions and also that,

People that get married are usually in love, or at least have one good business deal, and need no government charter to love [or profit from] one another,

Further that letting the government regulate marriage only makes things either unfairly discriminatory or ridiculously complicated, therefore,

Be it resolved that no nation, nor the United Nations, shall make marriage a legal institution.

Approvals: 1 (The Global Market)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 8 2004

The Confederated Trade League of The Global Market has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

Er.. why do you say "withdraw approval" ? :)

Seriously, this would cause problems. Suppose a man were to leave a fortune to his wife. We'd have people for miles over claiming to be his wife. Without a proper legal document, we'd never know. Plus, then you'd have to legalize polygamy (and polyandry as well.)

The Great Nation of Putergeeks will support this proposal when it comes to the floor.

[quote="Letila"]Anything that kills government or capitalism can't be very bad. I support it./quote]
We took your advise, and abolished all government. But without government, there was no law. And without law, there was no order. And without law and order nothing prevented the biker gang, Heaven's Devils, from taking control of our poor country.

Anything that kills government or capitalism can't be very bad. I support it.
We took your advise, and abolished all government. But without government, there was no law. And without law, there was no order. And without law and order nothing prevented the biker gang, Heaven's Devils, from taking control of our poor country.

I believe the use of the word regulate is inappropriate, as regulation does not explicetly mean prohibition. The proposal might be more accurate to its intent if it were phrased so that it specificly forbid government banning marriage between persons of the same sex and such else that you have in mind. Completely eliminating government regulation of marriage would eliminate certain legal rules regarding confidentiality, taxes, economic situations, and other rights that are given to the members of such a union that should best be left in place.

Catholic Europe supports this proposal in that we believe that marriage should not be something which we are forced to do but rather something we do out of love for another person, whom we are able to make a life-long commitment to. This proposal would seem to allow for that to occur.

Catholic Europe supports this proposal in that we believe that marriage should not be something which we are forced to do but rather something we do out of love for another person, whom we are able to make a life-long commitment to. This proposal would seem to allow for that to occur.

Yes but it takes away all the important things that Arturia Demigodia mentions.

While our nation believes very strongly in civil liberties and individual freedom when it comes to marriage, we also believe very strongly in the rights of individual nations to decide what is best for themselves when it comes to touchy subjects like marriage. While in Amygdaland any person is free to marry or not marry anybody he or she likes, our people wouldn't dream of telling another nation what is right or wrong for them. Therefore, we must offer up a gentle protest to this proposal, even though we agree with the spirit of it.

Executive Head Honcho
The Republic of Amygdaland

The proposal is not primarily about granting equal rights for gay marriages, it's about taking away all the legal rights that come with marriage.

The proposal is not primarily about granting equal rights for gay marriages, it's about taking away all the legal rights that come with marriage.

I thought that it was stating that the UN cannot decree what is 'marriage' and the legal rights of married people. Rather, that is left up to the individual nation to decide. It also, I thought, meant that individual nations would not be able to impose their beliefs of marriage onto another nation.

Our bad-- the translator assigned to this proposal had a bit of trouble with the wording of the proposal. He will be mildly scolded. And yet, we can't help but wonder whether it is wise to take away all the legal meaning of marriage. What happens, for example, if one has a partner who dies, and one's in-laws want to take the only photograph that one has of one's partner? Should the partner's mom have equal claim and equal rights as the marriage partner does? What about children within the marriage? Should your brother and sister-in-law's opinions about how to raise the children be given equal weight as the spouse's? How about in the case of a bad marriage? Should a spouse who has been treated badly and then dumped for somebody else have no legal recourse towards a means of support? It is not clear from the proposal whether the UN means that it will not interfere with a nation's governance, or that no nation will accept any legal definition of marriage. Perhaps a clarification of these points would be helpful in the proposal.

The proposal is not primarily about granting equal rights for gay marriages, it's about taking away all the legal rights that come with marriage.

I thought that it was stating that the UN cannot decree what is 'marriage' and the legal rights of married people. Rather, that is left up to the individual nation to decide. It also, I thought, meant that individual nations would not be able to impose their beliefs of marriage onto another nation.

Nope - it says:

Be it resolved that no nation, nor the United Nations, shall make marriage a legal institution.

It says that no marriage is no longer recognised by any government.

What happens, for example, if one has a partner who dies, and one's in-laws want to take the only photograph that one has of one's partner? Should the partner's mom have equal claim and equal rights as the marriage partner does? What about children within the marriage? Should your brother and sister-in-law's opinions about how to raise the children be given equal weight as the spouse's? How about in the case of a bad marriage? Should a spouse who has been treated badly and then dumped for somebody else have no legal recourse towards a means of support? It is not clear from the proposal whether the UN means that it will not interfere with a nation's governance, or that no nation will accept any legal definition of marriage. Perhaps a clarification of these points would be helpful in the proposal.

These are the kinds of things I mean. Actually, it wouldn't be family having equal rights to spouses, it would be families having more rights than spouses, at least in countries which grant special privileges to family members (i.e. most countries). This kind of move can only work in countries like TGM, where the government doesn't take a hand in anything anyway, and those countries already have laws like this.

I would bet that if TGM clarified these points, you would not like the answers. I would guess he believes that, based on marriage being voluntary, any failure is the spouses' problem and the government shouldn't interfere with support anyway, and that government should not rule on disputes between the spouse and family of the deceased.

How can we kidnap traitors' spouses if we have no record of who they are? I abhor this proposal.

King Flubbert III

We will also support this proposal once it comes to a vote...nicely worded

For some odd reason, it didn't show up the last time I posted:

Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: Seeing as the United Nations has been bombarded hither with gay marriage resolutions and also that,

People that get married are usually in love, or at least have one good business deal, and need no government charter to love [or profit from] one another,

Further that letting the government regulate marriage only makes things either unfairly discriminatory or ridiculously complicated, therefore,

Be it resolved that no nation, nor the United Nations, shall make marriage a legal institution.

Approvals: 1 (The Global Market)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 8 2004

The Confederated Trade League of The Global Market has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

Governments have so abused the institution of marriage that I believe this proposal would do more good than harm.

I think it would need to be understood, though, that governments are free to create a new institution that protects the genetic DNA-coupled offspring of two parents. And adoption and sperm donation are not substitutes for DNA parents. This is suggesting that it is having children that defines an essential legal aspect of marriage.

For some odd reason, it didn't show up the last time I posted:

Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: Seeing as the United Nations has been bombarded hither with gay marriage resolutions and also that,

People that get married are usually in love, or at least have one good business deal, and need no government charter to love [or profit from] one another,

Further that letting the government regulate marriage only makes things either unfairly discriminatory or ridiculously complicated, therefore,

Be it resolved that no nation, nor the United Nations, shall make marriage a legal institution.

Approvals: 1 (The Global Market)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 8 2004

The Confederated Trade League of The Global Market has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

Unfortunately, this proposal cannot be passed. Straight marriage is not protected in the UN, but gay marriage is, by the UN proposal Gay Rights: 'We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.' This makes it impossible to abolish gay marriages, and any member nations that do not recognise this institution - at least for gay couples - are in contravention of UN regulations.

I am pointing this out because I consider this proposal to be badly thought out. While Archaeus permits gay or straight marriage, it does not wish to enforce its ethical principles and traditions on other nations. Also, this proposal necessitates the introduction of marriage laws in nations which have no need or inclination to include them, so the person who wrote it has enforced their traditions on other nations for no good reason.

Gay rights must be protected, including shared rights of gay couples, but not by forcing ideals on other nations.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

...
Straight marriage is not protected in the UN, but gay marriage is...
...


Quelling the gay agenda is indeed part of why I endorse this "Freedom of Marriage" proposal. This "Freedom of Marriage" rule would in no way stop gay people from having their bishops marry them. It would, however, get rid of bureacracy that attracts gay people to an institution that really has nothing to do with roommates.

Likewise, it would get rid of bureacy like this old UN law about gay marriage.

Governments have so abused the institution of marriage that I believe this proposal would do more good than harm.

I think it would need to be understood, though, that governments are free to create a new institution that protects the genetic DNA-coupled offspring of two parents. And adoption and sperm donation are not substitutes for DNA parents. This is suggesting that it is having children that defines an essential legal aspect of marriage.

So you're saying that marriage should be left alone by the government, but there should be civil unions - only for couples with children who are the biological offspring of both members of the relationship? That is a thinly-veiled stab against equality for homosexuals.

Whether or not you endorse the spirit of the proposal is irrelevant. This is something individual nations whould be able to decide on their own. This is NOT an issue for the UN. Please refrain from endorsing this proposal.

We agree with Sofa King Country, this is not for the UN. But we are also confused, what happens when marriages/civil unions/mutual states of cohabitation/state of sleeping with the same person mostly monogamously for a protracted period of time, beyond what would normally be considered 'the first date', break down?
Most of the marriage laws in Drakosovar arose out of common law and the feeling that couples frequently could not amicably agree about what should happen to their children/car/complete first series of the Soprano's DVDs when they split up. We did experiment for a while with allowing them to fight it out with chainsaws on prime time television, but the UN outlawed that sort of behaviour (as usual).
Given all of this it was felt rather necessary to have some sort of rules so that failing couples can torture each other in the courts rather than on telly. Hence marriage as an instituition.
Furthermore the statement 'people who marry are usually in love' is preposterous; in Drakosovar people who marry are meeting their obligation to further the development of the state's genetic supremacy program, nothing else.
Drakos, Commander in Chief of the Government Department of the Systematic Execution of Romance, Love and All Things Sloppy, especially as Valentine's Day will soon be upon us.

...
Straight marriage is not protected in the UN, but gay marriage is...
...


Quelling the gay agenda is indeed part of why I endorse this "Freedom of Marriage" proposal. This "Freedom of Marriage" rule would in no way stop gay people from having their bishops marry them. It would, however, get rid of bureacracy that attracts gay people to an institution that really has nothing to do with roommates.

Likewise, it would get rid of bureacy like this old UN law about gay marriage.

First, we can't get rid of that old UN resolution because there's no way to modify or remove old resolutions.

Secondly, plenty of straight couples choose not to have children or families. Would you prefer to ban marriage to any non-parental straight couples, i.e. granting marriage only after birth or a commitment to procreate, and terminating it once they no longer have any parental duties (for example, after their children die)? And also denying marriage to infertile couples?

Otherwise, you are being contradictory - many straight couples do not have children, and some don't ever plan to have them - thus, they are merely 'roommates,' to use your phrase.

Or is it mere potential to have children, in which case infertile couples still have no rights? Unless you plan also to block gay adoptions.

I see no 'gay agenda' - since any straight couple, infertile or not, planning to have children or not, can marry, it looks like the only conditions for marriage are age and heterosexuality. Gay rights activists are disputing the latter condition, which is more random than most.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Marriage has to have some legal business in it. All it should be, of the legal part, should be signing of some papers after all the ceremonies and everything. But I will support this proclamation if/when it comes to the floor.

Why would you support it, when you have just stated that your opinion is the opposite to that which the proposal supports? You said it should have some legal business, then say you will support legislation to remove all legal recognition of marriage!

I think the Alienware post is saying that the legal relationship between two (or more) people getting married can be handled sufficiently by the signing of a contract, no government regulation needed.

...Completely eliminating government regulation of marriage would eliminate certain legal rules regarding confidentiality, taxes, economic situations, and other rights that are given to the members of such a union that should best be left in place.

In my mind, it's unfair tax policies that drive this "Freedom of Marriage" proposal. Why should a couple be forced to choose between cohabitation and marriage based on which has the better tax rates? One of my best friends cohabitates because her government pays her (through lower taxes) to remain unmarried. This "Freedom of Marriage" proposal would free her to make her own choice.

So you're saying that marriage should be left alone by the government, but there should be civil unions - only for couples with children who are the biological offspring of both members of the relationship? That is a thinly-veiled stab against equality for homosexuals.

translation:
"thinly-veiled". . . . . . . . . . . . unfair disguise
"stab" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I'm being attacked, help!
"equality for homosexuals" . I subscribe to the homosexual agenda

Was there some constructive reason to use the word "stab", when I used the word "quell" (def: pacify, quiet) in my Jan 9 response to Archaeus?

Anyway, I'm not aware of any theory that prevents two males from creating a DNA union (child).

I think that the topic in the subject line, "save the parents foundation", has more to do with the word:

illegitimate: 1. not recognized as lawful offspring

The Global Market's proposal, in preventing government recognition of marriage, might seem to require that all children be illegitimate, but this is counter-intuitive. DNA unions (children or children plus parents) are a legitimate purview of government. With the "DNA unions" concept in place, the corollary of "Freedom of Marriage" is, "No Child a Bastard".

...we can't get rid of that old UN resolution because there's no way to modify or remove old resolutions.

Yes, but check out "'RBH' Replacement" for a precedent in repealing older laws. It doesn't go away, but it has no force of law.

Straight marriage is not protected in the UN, but gay marriage is...
Quelling the gay agenda...
I see no 'gay agenda'
If there is no gay agenda, why is gay marriage protected, and straight marriage not? If this disparity is not the result of a gay agenda, what is it?

I also refer you to the proposal itself and ask, "How is this not the effect of a 'gay agenda', and if not, what is it?":
Seeing as the United Nations has been bombarded hither with gay marriage resolutions"

...
Second, plenty of straight couples choose not to have children or families. Would you prefer to ban marriage to any non-parental straight couples...


I haven't said anything about banning marriage, just the opposite, I want FREEDOM of Marriage. The proposal reads, "Be it resolved that no nation, nor the United Nations, shall make marriage a legal institution." It's like the freedom of religion, the institution is there, and people are involved with it, but the government doesn't regulate it.

The point about "DNA Unions" is to follow the biology.

in kaccarak we destroy homosexuals and clone starting the process over from birth so they don't end all fucked up sinced they screwed up the first time unsupervised. so in short there a few gays in kaccarak and it will soon be zero due to a strict policy i have installed drilling everthing not homosexual in to my citizens.

don't use that homophobic bullshit either or you will understand the true meaning of nuclear destruction.

Oh dear. Somebody has issues. Still, we shoot immigrants so each to their own we suppose.
We're getting a bit (more) confused about this whole issue. Which part of government regulation of marriage to people object to - is it age limits, divorce laws or merely all of it? As we already explained Drakosovar started regulating divorces because couples frequently get into difficulties dividing up property. However marriage in our country is still predominantly a religious instituition, and if a couple are atheists then they will merely be recognised as a couple under common law if they co-habit continuously for four years. The concept of children being 'bastards' is one derived from religious doctrine, not civil law and therefore if a couple is not religious, this shouldn't worry them.
As to the gay agenda, well again we feel marriage is a religious instituition endorsed by many religions that have a, how to put this, less than tolerant attitude to homosexuality. The rights and wrongs of that issue is one for members of religions that are homosexual to take up with their respective churches with a view to bringing about change. The people of Drakosovar believe this has no bearing on the government and already happily endorse gay marriages. (Even those with children, after all the majority of our population are clones of the Supreme Leader so what difference does it make who brings them up...)
Drakos, Head of the Department of Genetic Purity and Religious Law, Drakosovar