NationStates Jolt Archive

Support this if you like the idea, and feel free to leave comments. Under same name as topic of thread:

Whereas marriage legalization proposals have hitherto been limited to two people, limiting the rights of those who wish to have multiple partners we the nation of Insainica wish to make a proposal stating that:
All marriages between consenting adults of any number greater then one shall be legal within all member states, and that the phrase consenting shall mean, any person who is regarded able to be accountable for there actions, and is of sound mind and body and has signed an agreement without the influence of any drugs which would be regarded by a judicial official to impair judgment, or is under duress, and adult would mean any person who is considered to be an adult by the state and is of an age no less then 16.

The following rules are also put in place:
A marriage must be authorized by the state, and may be sanctified by a church with the agreement of said church.

The following exceptions to the above will also be put into effect with the passage:
A. Parental consent may reduce the age barrier to no less then 14 provided all others within the ceremony are not adults and have similar consent.
B. Theocracies may provide civil unions in lieu of marriage should clergy be irremovable from their marriage proceedings.

Note that spelling error has been found in actual proposal, but I have declined to correct it as that would require a new proposal which would simply be a waste of board space.
Also note that this would have been called "Lealization of polyagamy and polyandry" if there was space so no sexism was intended in title.

'Polygamy' refers to either form. The practise of having several wives is correctly called 'polygyny'. I'm not sure where you got the additional 'a' from.

I doubt that specifically forbidding drugs is necessary. 'Sound body and mind' would be held to cover that by most.

We would submit that this system in its current form would be widely susceptible to abuse. Corporations might require that their entire workforce marry each other in order to reap state benefits. Individuals might marry hundreds of foreign nationals at a time in order to grant them citizenship rights. While Rehochipe supports the sentiment of this proposal, it cannot vote for it in its present form.

P.D.K. Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

A good day to you all,

It is the opinion of the courts of the Kingdom of Tyrenburgh that, were
this to be a proposal, should only be valid
for the individual state/s proposing it, and need not be enforced in states
that do not wish it.

If you wish your state to have polygamy legislated as a life-choice,
then so be it.
The Kingdom of Tyrenburgh does not recognise it in legislative form,
and does not see why it should need to.

Kind regards

Stephanie du Pont,

Secretary of Civil Liberties/Rights
Kingdom of Tyrenburgh

More than one mother in law each??? Are you mad, what the hell, two she who thinks she must be obeyed???......
and so on went the response of our glorious leader, as such the Bahgum nation will not support this as we feel thta our social services and pubs jsut could not cope with the extra strain.

This is a national issue, not an issue for the UN.

We suggest that our glorious comrades of Bahgum consider how their brewing industry would prosper under the new arrangements...

We find Bahgum's constant reduction of all issues to their effect on mothers-in-law to be unsettling, the more so because we cannot fix upon a suitably literary name for this variety of complex. Quasi-Oedipal? Inverse Lolita?

Once again, someone has mistaken the United Nations for their Make Every Nation Like Mine Kit. I consider it a personal privelege to point out the specific areas of standing United Nations legislation that this proposal would violate.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

There are no standing treaties that guarantee a person the right to do whatever the hell they please by way of marriage, and thus the right to regulate marriage falls exclusively upon the government of each individual nation. If even one member nation is opposed to the idea of polgamy, this resolution is in violation of this clause.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Since there are no major international disputes originating in tensions around polygamy, nor has any nation come to the United Nations requesting aid because of polygamy-related coups, this proposal also violates this clause. This certainly qualifies as a political and social affiar.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Bahgum feels that the problem is not our fixation on the dreaded mother in law, but...the fact that almost ALL issues can be reduced down to mother in law effects!
What is their secret plan?
Why are they involved in everything?
Why has no-one noticed until now?
How do we stop them?
Is it too late?
Can we stop them?

In the meantime Bahgum has taken to heart the ever wise advice of our Comrades from East Hackney and have cleverly combine the social service with the pubs and vastly increased our brewing capacity. We just hope that our reaction was not foreseen byt the MIL plan.....

Bahgum has taken to heart the ever wise advice of our Comrades from East Hackney and have cleverly combine the social service with the pubs and vastly increased our brewing capacity.

We neglected to mention in our previous post that our pubs are our social services, since there is no problem that cannot be solved with a splash of People's Revolutionary Rum. We applaud Bahgum for taking such an enlightened stance towards the radical reform of his social services.

The wise psychologists of Rehochipe may make what they like of our fixation on alcohol, but should note that we have no psychological hangups whatsoever regarding mothers-in-law.

Comrade Guevara
Delegate for Rum and Other Revolutionary Beverages

The government needs to stop regulating how people think. They have no right to. Try to ease up your control.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg