NationStates Jolt Archive

In many jurisdictions, common-law marriage is a legal provision whereby two heterosexual people who are eligible to marry, but who do not obtain a legal marriage, are nevertheless considered married under certain conditions. Typically, they are deemed married after living together openly as a married couple under specified conditions for a specified period of time. In other jurisdictions, the couple are required to have actually stated their mutual intent to be presently married. Depending on the jurisdiction, a common-law marriage may provide special benefits, such as filiation and adoption, inheritance, and division of property.

The purpose of this proposal is for the legalization and recognition of same-sex marriage under the common-law.

I'm entirely in favor of this idea, and totally opposed to this proposal.


This has no business in the UN. It's not an international issue. Can we just stop trying to adjust the law around religion, and let the nations decide for themselves, please?

As a representative of Frisbeeteria, did you think the legalization of prostitution belonged in the UN?

No he doesn't, and he's on record with that.

And you my friend have just committed a logical fallacy, two wrongs don't make a right.

Lubria agrees wholeheartedly with Frisbeeteria. It isn’t the place of the UN. The states that refuse to adopt this kind of socially progressive policy will just implode on their own in their own time.

As a representative of Frisbeeteria, did you think the legalization of prostitution belonged in the UN?
Thanks, Lubria, but I'll reiterate it myself.

No, I don't think it belonged in the UN. Neither do we believe that, nor did we vote for, the "Legalise Euthanasia", "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill" or the "Freedom From SPAM Act" belonged there. There are others we disagree with as well, but Frisbeeteria wasn't a UN member when they were passed, and my statement on them would be irrelevant.

The UN should concern itself with issues that transpire between nations, not within them. Frisbeeteria has libertarian issues with anything that purports to address human rights on an international scale, as many of these so-called rights tend to be perceptual rather than absolute. There are many viewpoints and many systems of government in the world of NationStates, and the 'one-size-fits-all' solution simply doesn't work.

It is an international issue... Suppose a nation legalized same-sex marriage under the common-law and a couple under this kind of marriage moved to another nation. Wouldn't they want their common-law marriage recognized there?

It would only be recognized there if that particular nation supported the idea, which, frankly, is the way it should be.

Many of the recent issues have been issues that should be addressed by each sovereign nation, and it is disheartening to see that so many are trying to globalize everything.

In your situation, Neo Rizenbul, perhaps that couple should check into the foreign nation's policies before moving there.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Wouldn't they want their common-law marriage recognized there?
Want and law are not interchangeable, nor is your citizens desire to live in my nation reason enough for my nation to change its law.

I don't care what they 'want'. If you live in Frisbeeteria, you live under Frisbeeterian law. As it happens, their union would be recognized under existing Frisbeeterian law, and they would be welcome guests. I daresay the nation of Catholic Europe might have a different set of laws.

It has international repercussion to the couple(s) in question, certainly. They should choose a nation whose laws match their desires for peace, security, and happiness. Last I looked, there were over 110,000 nations for them to choose between. Plenty of options for choice there.

Do not confuse the desire to create a better world, according to your standards, with an imperative for international law. They are NOT the same.

It is moot, little brother. Homosexual marriage is legal.

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

We oppose this legislation, as it defies national sovereignty under the assumption that we of kokablel even marry in the same fashion as you other cultures. However, it is in place already. Why create another. Stop wasting precious ink.

I agree with you whole heartedly on that point. But would submitting it as an Issue do any justice for the matter?

I agree with you whole heartedly on that point. But would submitting it as an Issue do any justice for the matter?
Many points have been made, and no one mentioned issues. What are you talking about here?

Kokablel, NationStates was alot different back then...

Frisbeeteria, we would consider it an honor for you to help rejoin the ranks of the formerly begun coalition of national sovereignty. Though we do not concur on individual matters, we acknowledge a like mind in you in this matter.

...the law still applies Neo. It cannot be removed. It accomplishes what you desire. Do not repeat unecessary legislation. To do so borders on adding insult to injury.

Traditional (for lack of a better word) marriage laws in many nations include a clause called "Full Faith & Credit", which basically says that if a person from another nation is legally married in there, they are legally married here. The laws often make no mention as to the specifics of marriage, and in fact gay people married in Canada are looking to us FF&C to get their marriages recognized in the US, which has a FF&C clause in its laws.

So the argument could be made that no such international law is needed.

Traditional (for lack of a better word) marriage laws in many nations include a clause called "Full Faith & Credit", which basically says that if a person from another nation is legally married in there, they are legally married here. The laws often make no mention as to the specifics of marriage, and in fact gay people married in Canada are looking to us FF&C to get their marriages recognized in the US, which has a FF&C clause in its laws.

So the argument could be made that no such international law is needed.

and yet it already exists... what irony.

The latest outstanding issue brought before my desk today involved rising divorce rates and the legalization of same-sex marriages.

Where's the Love Gone?

The Issue
Last night the respected tabloid TV show "60 Minutes" ran a report on Neo Rizenbul's rising divorce rate. What is happening to the nuclear family?

The Debate
"There's a simple solution," says Pastor Felix, of the Catholic Church. "Divorce should be illegal. 'For better or worse,' anyone remember how that goes? We should return to the good old days, when you got married for life and stuck by your partner no matter how much of a drunken, abusive, adulterating disappointment they turned out to be."

John Black, author of the hit book, 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Some Whole Other Place,' has a simpler solution. "If couples would just call each other 'darling' once in a while, there would be far fewer relationship breakdowns. A little affection is all it takes. So the government should make it mandatory: call your spouse 'darling' at least once a day, or face a fine."

"There's a simple way to boost the marriage rate," says gay rights activist Jazz Wong. "Abolish those arcane laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages. It's obscene to treat people differently because of their sexual preference. Besides, everyone knows gay relationships are more stable than straight ones."

Issues are a matter of national policy, and are independent of the UN. Your issues are as irrelevant here as ours.

Again, you are confusing national law with international law. Which is the entire reason Frisbeeteria, Lubria, Caligatio, and possibly Kokablel are arguing with you in this very forum. Perhaps you should read the arguments we are making before dismissing them as unworthy.

To boot, one may in one's own mind portray the precise methods by which one handles these legal matters in your state. If you have a euthenasia bill in your lap when euthenasia is internationally legal, you may in your mind correct the legislation you present to make it so difficult as to be impossible, rather than illegal.

Issues are not international law, and we feel that many of the issues should remain solely national issues, not international.

1st of, is my rave against the proposal in relation to N.S. player makes the choice issues, second lot of smaller text is the exually important rave in support of the issue fundamenals, in relation to the freedom of the common man/woman from inequality.

If I remember correctly, :)

THERE IS A FREEKING N.S. ISSUE TO DEAL WITH SEXUAL DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUALS IN NATIONAL BORDERS OF ALL NATIONS, U.N. MEMBERS INCLUDED, AND SINCE IT INVOLVES OFFICIAL RECOGNITION I WOULD NATURALLY ASSUME THIS TOPIC WOULD BE COVERED TOO! BUT HELL, DON'T LET THAT STOP YOU MINDLESS CLICKERS, AFTER ALL WE SAW THAT DAMN EUTHANASIA BILL PASS DESPITE A N.S. ISSUE EQUAL, SO REALLY, WHY DON'T I JUST SHOOT MY FOOT NOW AND VOTE YES ANYWAY WHEN IT COMES UP? :cry:

:wink: Although, on a less realistic point, it would be nice if people stopped freeking so much over sexuality, I mean, freekin' freekin - freek, if the human mind (And the self, the individual) is capable of feeling such emotions and making such decisions as things stand now, how can you stop it, realistically?

In this modern world, where a group of people can be blown up by a wacko with a bomb, simply because they live/work/relax in an area where people of a different faith live/work/relax and plain hang out, who are we to reject the love between free thinking people, despite it taking a form contrary to the self enforced norm of the previous generations, anyway, its pretty clear that historically and (Rude noise: ) "religiously" (That is drawing from information in historical texts and artefacts, and data from "religious" texts) homosexuality has been about for just as long as heterosexuality.

So whats the big deal, a person lives with/loves (Take that love bit however you want) a person of the same sex, whats the big deal? If they wanna tie the knot, then let'em.

In conclusion.

Love, Is Love, Is Love. And may it always be so.

A Rep of Komokom.

(P.S. Before some sad case with no other argument says it, no, I am "straight", and a guy, get over your predujices, oh yeah, personally I would be more worried about some wacko blowing up my favourite cafe while I'm in it, in the name of some "god" then two men/ women kising/holding hands in public. And really, what they do between the sheets with each other is none of your business anyway... :D )