NationStates Jolt Archive

Whereas the act of marriage bestows certain rights and responsibilities upon those entering into such a contract.

Whereas many religious groups consider the term 'marriage' to be sacred, and therefore consider various forms of marriage to be inappropriate

Whereas many governments apply marriage civilly as a contract between individuals, in a manner unrelated to the religious context.

We propose that all unions between people perfomed by the State or licensed by the State be referred to as Civil Unions, reserving the term Marriage for religious and social ceremonies unrelated to the civil contract.

This will allow individual States to determine who may enter into a Civil Union based on their laws, without worry about religious objections to said unions. It also relieves the State of the burden of having two different categories of marriage, should they choose to allow non-traditional marriages.

Whereas the act of marriage bestows certain rights and responsibilities upon those entering into such a contract.

Whereas many religious groups consider the term 'marriage' to be sacred, and therefore consider various forms of marriage to be inappropriate

This will allow individual States to determine who may enter into a Civil Union based on their laws, without worry about religious objections to said unions. It also relieves the State of the burden of having two different categories of marriage, should they choose to allow non-traditional marriages.

Obviously something like this is important to people, since the marriage threads seem to be popular.

What I don't understand is why we need something like this at an international level? My country recently faced an issue similar to this. We considered the issue and took action.

But I was unaware that there would be international complications of the words my people use to describe things. Marriage, Civil Union, Domestic Partner, Friend With Benefits?

What would happen if we just ignored this issue?

10kMichael

The difficulty is that there is a clear international desire to recognize gay marriage in the interest of freedom and another clear (if smaller) international desire not to in the interests of several religions. The two generally conflict, and this is an attempt to ease or possibly even end that conflict.

While this issue is posted in good timing with current poltical climates in the US and Canada. I disagree completely. While the term "marriage" may refer to specifically religious context, the state cannot dictate what the term means, especially if it constitutes the religious connotation of the word. Therefore, the state needs to give our marriage licenses, not civil unions licenese, to uphold this separation of church and state.

The difficulty is that there is a clear international desire to recognize gay marriage in the interest of freedom and another clear (if smaller) international desire not to in the interests of several religions. The two generally conflict, and this is an attempt to ease or possibly even end that conflict.

So the trade off:

- Civil Rights for people wanting to be married
- Religious Freedom for another group not wanting to recognize that union?

Sounds to me like whomever wants to state things this way should come up with a domestic issue. Or is there going to be international tensions if we don't?

But if we decide either way, could I suggest that we all change our currency to Spice Melange? There certainly are people who love to use it in their food or for navigating around. I've never heard somebody who tried it say it wasn't the best thing.

We could call it an international trade proposal. Surely it is just as important about talking about marriage. It would ease currency tensions.

10kMichael

Lubria fully supports this, under the following stipulations:

-That marriage carry no greater benefit than civil union.
-That religious institutions may deny anyone the right to marry within their church, so long as they are consistent with such practices.
-That all references to gender and number be removed from civil union contracts.
-That civil unions (and marriages, whomever they are preformed between) be recognized within any UN member nation with full faith and credit.

To many people, it's become more an issue of seperating religion and government. The gay marriage argument goes around in circles so long as marriage has a religious connotation. I'll spare the typing to explain that in depth, at least for the moment. In sum, as long as marriage is a religious issue, this topic isn't likely to be settled; many people see significant problems in distinguishing between "marriage types," as it were, because such distinctions may well lead to the creation of a second class of citizens.

In any case, as so many people define marriage in a religious context, most who believe in the seperation of church and state would concede that government probably should opt out of the marriage business and instead offer civil unions. You might argue that any such resolution unduly infringes on your national sovereignty, but remember that the UN has already passed a resolution legalizing gay marriage in all member nations -- there's plenty of people who don't like that so much.

You might also be interested to know that the real life United Nations has spent a fair amount of time on the subject of marriage. Take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if you want a particular example (I don't remember which article, I'll edit it in later if I have more time).

And human rights are quite an international issue. Basic limitation of government is, as I see it, a fundamental mission of the United Nations.

Edited to add... yeah, I do think this issue is getting a bit much play. I think of it as an international issue because most people would be absolutely outraged if their government banned heterosexual marriage, and then I get to wondering what that's like for the homosexuals. Hopefully that makes sense.

yeah, I do think this issue is getting a bit much play. I think of it as an international issue because most people would be absolutely outraged if their government banned heterosexual marriage, and then I get to wondering what that's like for the homosexuals. Hopefully that makes sense.

While I agree that if a country banned heterosexual marriage people would be outraged, but what if the country next door did this?

If the UN starts telling all nations we need to have the same marriage policies, should the UN go on to dictate to couples what positions they need to sleep in? This *is* an issue too, as some socities have issues with how their neighbors like to sleep at night.

What I'm missing is the international connection.

For every UN resolution (not domestic issue), I run the following test:

How does the action from country A cross a border and do harm to country B?

Call it the Mikitivity test, but it really is one of the first things my nation looks at.

10kMichael

To many people, it's become more an issue of seperating religion and government. The gay marriage argument goes around in circles so long as marriage has a religious connotation. I'll spare the typing to explain that in depth, at least for the moment. In sum, as long as marriage is a religious issue, this topic isn't likely to be settled; many people see significant problems in distinguishing between "marriage types," as it were, because such distinctions may well lead to the creation of a second class of citizens.

In any case, as so many people define marriage in a religious context, most who believe in the separation of church and state would concede that government probably should opt out of the marriage business and instead offer civil unions. You might argue that any such resolution unduly infringes on your national sovereignty, but remember that the UN has already passed a resolution legalizing gay marriage in all member nations -- there's plenty of people who don't like that so much.

You might also be interested to know that the real life United Nations has spent a fair amount of time on the subject of marriage. Take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if you want a particular example (I don't remember which article, I'll edit it in later if I have more time).

And human rights are quite an international issue. Basic limitation of government is, as I see it, a fundamental mission of the United Nations.

Edited to add... yeah, I do think this issue is getting a bit much play. I think of it as an international issue because most people would be absolutely outraged if their government banned heterosexual marriage, and then I get to wondering what that's like for the homosexuals. Hopefully that makes sense.

Lubria agrees, we cannot establish a group of second class citizens as we seek marriage equality. If marriage is to be a religious institution, than it is for religion to decide how and with whom it is to be preformed. The Faith of the Mother, a popular religion on liberal college campuses in Lubria, defines marriage as, "A union of two, bound in love and respect, for as long as the Mother lights the beacon each morn." The ceremony is preformed with the entire coven in the nude, and the union is consummated by the two lovers passing a mint leaf between their mouths in a kiss. Unions between members of the same sex are preformed almost as often as between a man and a woman. In accordance with Lubria's laws, the couple has the right to all the rights accorded anyone joined in civil union; the only distinction is that the ceremony was preformed by a religious authority, and not the state.

There is no discrimination in this. Religions are free to allow to define marriage as they see fit. Couples (or groups) are free to be joined in civil union so long as they are all of consent.

Yeah, that's a good test. It's very similar to my own rule of thumb. Basic human rights are some of the only exceptions to that rule that I make, because such issues are frequently only settled domestically by civil wars or other massive upheaval. That and few efforts to topple tyrranical governments are successful without some sort of outside help. Then we get to the question of whether marriage is a "basic human right" and whether a government which bans marriage could really be described as "tyrranical." I don't think I want to get into that. If nothing else, that's about as semantic a debate as I've ever seen coming. :?

I think I understand your position ("I think" because I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth), and I don't have any quarrel with it. I just won't be voting that way in this particular case. This falls short enough of being a truly international issue that I'm not going to endorse it, but I might vote for it if it reaches the floor.

Santin, Lubria is of the opinion that governments don't need reasons to make something legal, they need reasons to make something illegal.

Is marriage a basic human right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But there is no reason to keep the recognition of love between two (or more) persons, based on religious reasons, illegal within a state that values the separation of church and state. Any state that provides secular rights to joined persons that are not available to joined persons, and prevents people of consent from joining in union, is getting in bed with religion. Such a nation is not longer secular, it is theocratic.

yeah, I do think this issue is getting a bit much play. I think of it as an international issue because most people would be absolutely outraged if their government banned heterosexual marriage, and then I get to wondering what that's like for the homosexuals. Hopefully that makes sense.

While I agree that if a country banned heterosexual marriage people would be outraged, but what if the country next door did this?

If the UN starts telling all nations we need to have the same marriage policies, should the UN go on to dictate to couples what positions they need to sleep in? This *is* an issue too, as some societies have issues with how their neighbors like to sleep at night.

What I'm missing is the international connection.

For every UN resolution (not domestic issue), I run the following test:

How does the action from country A cross a border and do harm to country B?

Call it the Mikitivity test, but it really is one of the first things my nation looks at.

10kMichael

Harm is done when full faith and credit is not given by one member state to the public records (marriage and civil union licenses being public records) of another member state. The harm is done when a citizen on Country A marries a citizen from Country B, and because country B does not recognize same sex unions (and the couple are the same sex), then the couple is not afforded the right of immigration and naturalization of spouse that country B offers to opposite sex couples. That is the harm. In that case, marriage equality laws very much constitute an international issue.

Hi, I'm John Marat and I'm about to repeat myself: as far as we in Albion are concerned, religions can say what the hell they want, as loud as they want for as long as they want and it won't make a blind bit of difference what our nation does unless our various religions can command a majority vote in the soviets, which is pretty unlikely. Until this point comes, marriage is what the state says it is and we will not gave any favour or privallage to any sect, cult or movement.

By the way, if anyone would like to buy my book, 'Whining Your Way To Happiness: A Guide To Self Fufilment by Annoying Other People With Your Problems', you can find copies in the Un building lobby, okay? You know, Oprah loves this book and I think you will too!

You've been great, I've been John Marat, thanks for listening. ^_^

IS THIS CRAZY CRUD GOING TO GO ON?

Fine, thats it, my FINAL ARGUMENT.

* THIS * IS * NOT * A * U.N. * ISSUE *

FORGET RELIGION, FORGET DIVISION OF OPINIONS.

* THIS IS A N.S. INDIVIDUAL NATION ISSUE *

* SO * JUST * DROP * IT *

I mean, freek'in - freek'in'freek!

The Rep of Komokom.

Hi, I'm John Marat, you may remember me from threads like 'Quit Pushing Democracy' and 'Death To Capitalism'. Komokom, not only have I made a sign out of your speech but I've now decided to wear it as a t shirt! ^_^

Because my friend, you are right! You keep it up, ok? Okay, have a copy of my latest book, 'It's Good To Cry'. Its a self help book, ypu'll love it ^_^

Bahgum looks in and sees that originality has taken a backseat yet again. Please can we have no more on religion and folks sexual persuasions, it's been done to death!

Bahgum looks in and sees that originality has taken a backseat yet again. Please can we have no more on religion and folks sexual persuasions, it's been done to death!

Funny you should mention that Baghum because 'Orginality Has Taken A Back Seat' is the latest number one here in Albion, its a Power Ballad by those giants of soft Rock, The Silver Plums and you can hear it on the chart countdown this sunday hosted by me, Tommy 'Wacky' Muppet, 9am-12pm only on Rad FM 98-101 on the fm dial! Heeeeeeeeere's Tommy :D