NationStates Jolt Archive

Quoting the resolution passed on May 3, 2003:

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays ... We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Citing the tremendous (comparative) opposition to this resolution, which passed with 12705 votes to 7734 against, the Ambassador of Germanic Power wishes to make an amendment to better satisfy both pro-rights and religious groups, since the protection of civil rights are equally as important a matter as religious freedom. The proposal is this:


Whereas the civil rights of every citizen in free nations must be protected at all costs.

Whereas religious freedom is a central tenet not to be ignored in the majority of freely democratic states.

We resolve that the word "marriage," being religious in foundation and origin, be removed entirely from state documentation, and in it's place the term "civil union" will be substituted. Civil unions will thus apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex consenting adult couples. The standard of equality is therefore upheld under the law. The term "marriage" would then pass to the use of religious institutions to use as they deem fit, to be applied when they unite two people.

Government documentation will contain the term "civil union" regardless of sexual orientation, and thus the "sanctity of marriage" is preserved in the traditional definition. Civil rights and religious freedom are therefore both protected and served under this resolution.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

http://tropforum.homestead.com/files/peepwallA.gif

You can not make amendments to past resolutions.

Giordano,
Assistant representative,
The Black New World
(this was a standard response)

Delete

http://tropforum.homestead.com/files/peepwallA.gif

First, I'd like to super-size this issue.

Next, on behalf of my constituents, I ask: what are trying to say?

That you're built like a brick sh**house?

Or is this your statement of solidarity with the 1970 (1971?) Stonewall protests in NYC against police brutality that started the gay civil rights movement?

We wish you well in your continuing quest for self-identity.

Thank you and have a nice day,

The People & Senate of Bobs Bigboy
"Do You Want Fries With That?"

http://tropforum.homestead.com/files/peepwallA.gif

First, I'd like to super-size this issue.

Next, on behalf of my constituents, I ask: what are trying to say?

That you're built like a brick sh**house?

Or is this your statement of solidarity with the 1970 (1971?) Stonewall protests in NYC against police brutality that started the gay civil rights movement?

We wish you well in your continuing quest for self-identity.

Thank you and have a nice day,

The People & Senate of Bobs Bigboy
"Do You Want Fries With That?"

http://tropforum.homestead.com/files/peepwallA.gif

First, I'd like to super-size this issue.

Next, on behalf of my constituents, I ask: what are trying to say?

That you're built like a brick sh**house?

Or is this your statement of solidarity with the 1970 (1971?) Stonewall protests in NYC against police brutality that started the gay civil rights movement?

We wish you well in your continuing quest for self-identity.

Thank you and have a nice day,

The People & Senate of Bobs Bigboy
"Do You Want Fries With That?"

Sigh... Time to dispense some text based justice...

Whereas the civil rights of every citizen in free nations must be protected at all costs.

Indeedy, thats why we also protect the rights of homosexuals to marriage.

Whereas religious freedom is a central tenet not to be ignored in the majority of freely democratic states.

Well, I am atheist, so really we don't exactly ignore religious freedoms really, we just tend to ignore the religions themselves and let them get on with things unless they break our laws with things like human sacrifices...

We resolve that the word "marriage," being religious in foundation and origin, be removed entirely from state documentation, and in it's place the term "civil union" will be substituted.

Thats nice dear, once you ignore the fact you can only change the state documentation, and thus not effect international law protecting gay marriage, thus meaning you'll make it so homosexuals can marry but heterosexuals can only, only I say, enage in civil unions.

Civil unions will thus apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex consenting adult couples.

Nope, only to heterosexual couple, international law still over-rides state law.

The standard of equality is therefore upheld under the law. The term "marriage" would then pass to the use of religious institutions to use as they deem fit, to be applied when they unite two people.

Ping, no, the standard of equality is already upheld, and two homosexuals marrying does not remove the rights of a heterosexual couply marrying. It might bug the small minded though unable to accept their are people out there who practice differing life-styles.

Government documentation will contain the term "civil union" regardless of sexual orientation, and thus the "sanctity of marriage" is preserved in the traditional definition. Civil rights and religious freedom are therefore both protected and served under this resolution.

1) Once again, you'll only be limiting heterosexual couples to civil unions, becuase once again international law over-rides that of the state.

2) "Sanctity of marriage" is an term used usually with opinionated bias, which is what I am detecting here faintly...

3) I always though religious freedom would automatically be considered civil righs, quite frankly you seem to be proposing to solve a problem which does not exist.



Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

No, more likely,

Category: Waste of time
Strength: Significantly so...

- The Rep of Komokom.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane objects to this proposal. It's intent seems well enough (in that it intends to fight inequality), but it's methods are obviously the road to Hell (paved with aforementioned good intentions).

The Holy Empire of Gethamane cannot remove the term "marriage" from its State documentation because our State documention is our religious documentation; we have no separation of Church and State. Obviously, we comply with International Law regarding Gay Marriage by giving the same legal rights to homosexual couples who choose to marry. So this, in fact, damages our religious freedom, and I personally would thank you to stop treading over my Religion and show some tolerance.

The Commonwealth of Erectobia opposes this proposal because our nation grants little free rights to our citizens and we oppose marriage to homosexuals, however his excellency has passed a law giving homosexuals the right to marry but we will not amend our documentation to support homosexuals, as we do carry a strong religion that does not support homosexuality, therefor we will not give homosexuality an advantage over hedirosexuality. We will leave it equal as is, anything more will be opposed directly.

And now, the Sophista National Drum and Bugle Corps presents their smash international hit, "Get Your Tired, Debating-Gay-Marriage-When-Its-Such-A-Domestic-Issue-Its-Not-Even-Funny Ass Out Of Here, Bitch," composed by the great Kosten Rowski.

::much fanfare and festivity occurs::

Oh look. National soveriegnty (as in, an issue already exists covering this specific debate) being infringed upon by people who don't read the other 5000 threads in the forum

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

* The Rep of Komokom is seen running, screaming, through the thread, and those screamed words are,

" HA HA HA, GAY MARRIAGE IS ALREADY 100% PROTECTED BY * INTERNATIONAL LAW * OF THE UNITED NATIONS, MU HU HU HA HA HA, AND YOU'LL NEVER, EVER, GET RID OF IT YOU SMALL MINDED INTOLERANT PEOPLE, SO EAT WARM FUZZY EQUALITY FOR ALL ! "

* Don't worry, he was dragged away and sedate'd as per usual, but I think his point got through... Well, only to the regulars who are just as stressed by this rubbish as him...

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink: