NationStates Jolt Archive

The Civil Unions Proposal proposes Civil Unions as a method of legal union without the "Sacred Word". It would give all couples the same legal benefits, although religious marriage stays independent. Actual text:

--

It is already understood that persons who are married are considered nearly the same person. However, the definition of marriage is often said to be a special relationship between a man and a woman.

Thus, in order to preserve the universality of rights to all persons, regardless to physical or psychological attributes, there should be legalistic CIVIL UNIONS (all religious marriages are CIVIL UNIONS but not all CIVIL UNIONS are religious marriages).

The legality of CIVIL UNIONS will be as follows:

1. A CIVIL UNION is 2 people who have petitioned to their government to be recognized as such. A person who is in one CIVIL UNION can not be in another, and so on.

2. In a situation where one of the 2 people in a civil union is incapacitated and has not left written instructions, the other member of the CIVIL UNION will have the right, nay, the responsibility, of making decisions for them.

3. Insurance benefits are extended to both members of a CIVIL UNION (see marriage benefits).

4. A CIVIL UNION may adopt children who have been legally put up for adoption, and these children would then be legally their children.

5. A member of a CIVIL UNION is in all other respects treated legally as a family member the other member.

--

Feel free to respond here :)

Argh. People seem to be completely ignoring my post... I feel lonely.

Argh. People seem to be completely ignoring my post... I feel lonely.

Hang in there. This may be a quiet time for players, depending on which part of the world you are in.

I would not go for the whole adoption thing. Also I believe one would get a lot less friction if that were removed and somehow place marriage in a almost holy definition. Thus, something seperating marriage from a civil union, yet allowing the exact same benifits.

Just kill off the adoption part and I think you'll have a lot easier time.

As it is currently written, Greenspoint could not support this proposal. The term 'people' is not defined at all. We'd like to see some age requirements put in at the least.

As it is currently written, Greenspoint could not support this proposal. The term 'people' is not defined at all. We'd like to see some age requirements put in at the least.

hum let's see..

What's is a union or marriage? civil or religious? man and woman or gay or lesbian.


Well, the point of view of Ficelle is the following a couple shall be define by the relation between 2 peoples (man-man, woman-man, or woman-woman), I know our position is liberal. But shall we decide that 2 men or woman, living together as a couple is not a couple. How do we decide, how those person feels for each other?

My definition of couple is : 2 persons living together as a couple (that exclude brothers or sisters), sharing everything including their bed. The time period however shall be deliminated, so a one night stand, does not correspond as a couple living together. :D .

So a couple implies: sharing, loving, caring and in some case having children or animals together. Exemple it is their cats not so and so cats.

It is the opinion of the people from Ficelle Country

I'm answering no. Not because I'm against it, but rather because doing so means differentiating between marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The separate but equal concept has never worked before...

I'm answering no. Not because I'm against it, but rather because doing so means differentiating between marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The separate but equal concept has never worked before...

Arrgh

You are putting words in my mouth!

The proposal clearly states,
there should be legalistic CIVIL UNIONS (all religious marriages are CIVIL UNIONS but not all CIVIL UNIONS are religious marriages).

That means that CIVIL UNION is the all-encompassing term for BOTH, legally. Legally there would be NO difference whatsoever. The only even possible difference would be INSIDE a place of worship where people are free to practice their religion.

Separately, I agree that people could be better defined. But this is the only one like this out there, and everyone knows what I mean. If it doesn't pass, then when I repost it will be with corrections like that. Thank you for the corrections though, Greenspoint. (although I don't understand why not to vote for it)

I'm answering no. Not because I'm against it, but rather because doing so means differentiating between marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The separate but equal concept has never worked before...

Arrgh

You are putting words in my mouth!

The proposal clearly states,
there should be legalistic CIVIL UNIONS (all religious marriages are CIVIL UNIONS but not all CIVIL UNIONS are religious marriages).

That means that CIVIL UNION is the all-encompassing term for BOTH, legally. Legally there would be NO difference whatsoever. The only even possible difference would be INSIDE a place of worship where people are free to practice their religion.

Separately, I agree that people could be better defined. But this is the only one like this out there, and everyone knows what I mean. If it doesn't pass, then when I repost it will be with corrections like that. Thank you for the corrections though, Greenspoint. (although I don't understand why not to vote for it)

We of insanica are having a problem with the 2 in the proposal. We would prefer a group of people up to the legal limit applied by the state in question.

Effectively, what the proposal is saying, is that a secular version of marriage be put in place, without religious involvement; right?

You cannot expect religious nations to suport this. The UN cannot be used this way to bend nations domestic policies.

I fully support this resolution. Frankly, I'm not even remotely concerned if it aggravates the religious; the perspective we should be taking is that people have the choice whether or not to have a secular or religious union (or neither) and shouldn't have to fear a degraded legal status because of their choice.

I wouldn't have a problem with a union involving more than two people either (gender mix is, again, not an issue for me).

I'm sure my citizens - be they religious or secular - are in broad agreement...

Good luck.

You cannot expect religious nations to suport this. The UN cannot be used this way to bend nations domestic policies.

The always respectful but completely befuddled nation of Berkylvania then asks humbly, then what the hell is the point?

The UN exists as a general institution to formalize a world compromise for civilization. Those nations choosing to embrace the UN and it's policies, even the one's they don't agree with, in the spirit of compromise and to promote greater world stability and harmony, will reap the benefits. Those nations that feel the UN is not serving their best interests are more than free to break off ties and on their head be it.

So yes, actually, the UN can be used this way through the agreement of it's member nations. Otherwise, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

On the whole, though, the nation of Berkylvania would like to wave dramatically at the dead horse which is this resolution. Hello horsie. How are the beatings going today?

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. Whilst we view it as a pretty worthy proposal we feel that it ruins the sacred institution of marriage and so do not support it.

The always respectful but completely befuddled nation of Berkylvania then asks humbly, then what the hell is the point?
The Corporate States of Frisbeeteria have their own internal governments, such as they are. Boards of Directors, in most cases. They have absolute freedom to do anything within their borders. Once issues cross the border into another Corporation's territory, it comes before the Allied States government. They deal exclusively with trans-state issues such as transportation, tracking criminals, and such. Frisbeeteria's interests in other sovereign NationStates are similarly handled by the UN. As we wish our aircraft to be able to land in your nations and own fleeing criminals returned to us for trial, we are willing to make a few compromises in other minor areas.

We are not interested in having our internal politics decided by the citizens of your Nation. We are perfectly capable of choosing our own direction. If smoke from our chimneys drifts across your national borders, by all means mention it to our UN representative. We would be delighted to work to make such problems work out to everyone's benefit and profit. But our marriage laws, library systems, weapons management, drug interactions, and all those sorts of purely local affairs are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

If you think highly of a law, or your morals demand you pursue such-and-such a program, go right ahead. Frisbeeteria will not stand in your way as you pass such laws to apply in your own country. Don't, under ANY circumstances, think that your moral stances are Universal Truth. Guaranteed Human Rights DO NOT EXIST. Ask a drowning father who has the right to the only life preserver - him or his son? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fine goals, but I can assure you they are not RIGHTS.


Oh, by the way, Frisbeeteria OPPOSES a UN Resolution to recognize Civil Unions. As if you couldn't have guessed. We already have such arrangements in some of our Corporate States, not that it matters to our national or international interests. It's a purely local matter.

The Republic of Watenho would wholeheartedly support this proposal, but realises it will never gain enough support from religious nations to be passed and implemented. However, a few points need clarifying:

A). An age limit must be applied to this. This should, of course, be left up to the nation, and we feel it should be the same as that nation's age for marriage.

B). The persons entering into the Civil Union together must not be directly related; no Civil Union shall be permitted between a person and his/her mother, father, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, grandparent, great-uncle, great-aunt, son, daughter or first cousin, by blood or legal adoption, or between step-relatives.

C). Adoption should not be a part of this Proposal. We feel that the issue of adoption should be dealt with separately to any issue involving homosexuality, as American Conservativism tends to react with a jerk of the knee when it sees those two words in the same sentence. To strike out Article 4, therefore, we feel may increase the proposal's chances of success.

-Felix Niels, President of Watenho

Shall we really regulate interpersonnal realtionship? The fact that 2 peoples lives together as husband and wife ( this includes same sex relations) shall be recognised as an ((Union Libre)). Does people really need the Law or the Chruch to make it legal, or should a fact be accepted as such and protected by the state.

IF 2 peoples decide to live together as a couple, they should however to protect their heritage by will or documents, so what belongs to each other is clearly define.

The always respectful but completely befuddled nation of Berkylvania then asks humbly, then what the hell is the point?
The Corporate States of Frisbeeteria have their own internal governments, such as they are. Boards of Directors, in most cases. They have absolute freedom to do anything within their borders. Once issues cross the border into another Corporation's territory, it comes before the Allied States government. They deal exclusively with trans-state issues such as transportation, tracking criminals, and such. Frisbeeteria's interests in other sovereign NationStates are similarly handled by the UN. As we wish our aircraft to be able to land in your nations and own fleeing criminals returned to us for trial, we are willing to make a few compromises in other minor areas.

We are not interested in having our internal politics decided by the citizens of your Nation. We are perfectly capable of choosing our own direction. If smoke from our chimneys drifts across your national borders, by all means mention it to our UN representative. We would be delighted to work to make such problems work out to everyone's benefit and profit. But our marriage laws, library systems, weapons management, drug interactions, and all those sorts of purely local affairs are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

If you think highly of a law, or your morals demand you pursue such-and-such a program, go right ahead. Frisbeeteria will not stand in your way as you pass such laws to apply in your own country. Don't, under ANY circumstances, think that your moral stances are Universal Truth. Guaranteed Human Rights DO NOT EXIST. Ask a drowning father who has the right to the only life preserver - him or his son? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fine goals, but I can assure you they are not RIGHTS.


Oh, by the way, Frisbeeteria OPPOSES a UN Resolution to recognize Civil Unions. As if you couldn't have guessed. We already have such arrangements in some of our Corporate States, not that it matters to our national or international interests. It's a purely local matter.

Then, on the off chance that a married/civilly unionize same sex couple from my country might happen to vacation in your country, their rights as a legally recognized union in my country may or may not be in effect in your country. Therefore, this becomes an international situation and falls under your own mandate of the UN's scope.

There's this little thing called National Sovereignty. 'Sovereignty' is a term used in many senses and is much abused. As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory generally to the exclusion of other states, authority to govern in that territory, and authority to apply law there. Here's a bit more of a definition:

"The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent."

The laws of Berkylvania do not apply within the sovereign borders of Frisbeeteria. Even if this resolution passes (which it likely won't), Frisbeeteria may choose to withdraw from the UN and any such resolutions would have no bearing. Your visiting citizens have NO RIGHTS not explicitly granted to our citizens.

... their rights as a legally recognized union in my country may or may not be in effect in your country. Therefore, this becomes an international situation and falls under your own mandate of the UN's scope.
That is correct. They have no rights granted by YOUR country while visiting MINE. They will observe local laws and practices just as the natives do. Frisbeeterians visiting your nation will rub blue mud into their navels while genuflecting to your leader, if that's what local laws require. They understand that when the leave the borders of their beloved Frisbeeteria, they leave behind the protections of the Frisbeeterian government. That's life, in Berkylvania or anywhere else. You observe the local laws or you get arrested, imprisoned, deported, or shot.

Just because you want to impose your worldview on other nations does not a mandate make. There is no case for International intervention in the matter of sovereign territory - it is the very antithesis of the definition of Sovereign.