NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of the recent UN descision on gay-marriage, I thought that, perhaps we need another resolution on the nature of marriage itself. This proposal would descibe what sort of marriage is legal- For example, will the International community sanction Polygamy(Multiple wives)? Polyandry(Multiple Husbands)? Both? Will we allow marriage to animals, plants, or inanimate objects?

I don’t know… I’m not even part of the UN… But I think such a resolution would be good, at least to discuss in the forum.

PLEASE do not turn this thread into a flame-war. However, do feel free to express your opinions in a calm and objective way.

Definition of marriage:

marriage: monogamous relationship between one man and one woman based on a contract that is lasting for life-time.
Countries may or may not allow divorce.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

definition of marriage a confirmation of love betwene two or in some cases more people alowing legal rights in areas such as hospital visitation

I see little or no reason for any government -- local, provincial, regional, national or international -- to limit agreements between sentient beings where those agreements are freely, knowingly, and honestly entered into and have no apparent bearing upon any party outside of the agreement. If it doesn't involve force, fraud, or externality, why do you even care?

Kynerbirthia is that traditional marriage or what?

Conceptualists' government has removed itself completely from the institution of marriage, so the definition is moot for us.

I agree that consenting adult humans should never be limited in how they may live their lifes or who they wish to share it with. It is not the responsibility of any government to limit it's citizens in such a discriminatory way as to dictate which form of partnership is correct and sanctioned and which is disallowed and thus punishable to the degree of capital punishment in some countries. Gigatron rejects limiting its citizens to any form of life - our citizens may chose freely who and with how many individuals, they chose to love and thus marry and receive protection of their partnership from the government, including various benefits.

As much as I agree that government has no place in determining the lifestyles and appropriateness of consentual relationships, I do believe that a new definition of marriage is warranted. We must remember, that while it is no concern of the government in general, there are certain instances in the law and in business where establishment of marriage gives certain rights.

Therefore I submit to you my definition of marriage:

Marriage: the consentual affirmation of love, devotion and responsibility between two people of legal age; giving with it all guarantees of law that are extended to any married couple regardless of its composition.

Henceforth, no law should impede on these guarantees, nor be prohibited by any private contract for the purposes of equal insurance availability, medical survivorship decisions, the sale of property, equal opportunity employment, equal housing opportunities, wills and probate laws, financial survivorship decisions, tax breaks, legal protection from spousal testimony for the prosecution, or equal admission status into any educational facility receiving money/monies from government sources.

You still limit the term "marriage" to 2 people. I see no need to limit adult humans to marriages between 2 people only. If they wish to do so, adults may marry as many people as they wish, as long as it stays consensual. Again, the government has no right to dictate how many people an adult human choses to love or live with.

I do see a reason to limit marriage to only 2 consenting adults. Should health insurance companies be forced by multiple marriage allowances to insure ALL the spouses? What if a husband has severe medical needs? How then can a hospital decide WHICH spouses wishes would be suitable for care? Who then has legal precedent to have their wishes followed?

If any person wishes to have multiple partnerships, he or she should still only have one of those partners recognized by law for many purposes. Otherwise the court systems would be inundated with motions concerning such problems as those I have listed and more.

Then make it so that the husband or wife, depending who has multipleof what, is required to appoint one wife/husband that is the "legal" partner who's wishes wil be followed. It is unlikely that humans would marry multiple partners, given the problems such a partnership would bring with it, but the opportunity ot do it should be there.

I do see a reason to limit marriage to only 2 consenting adults. Should health insurance companies be forced by multiple marriage allowances to insure ALL the spouses? What if a husband has severe medical needs? How then can a hospital decide WHICH spouses wishes would be suitable for care? Who then has legal precedent to have their wishes followed?

That's the part where we ask ourselves another important question: Why are the businesses forced to insure customers they don't want to? If a trio of spouses doesn't work for a particular contract or law, I'd blame the law or contract. People should not mold to fit the desires of government; the opposite should be the case.

If any person wishes to have multiple partnerships, he or she should still only have one of those partners recognized by law for many purposes. Otherwise the court systems would be inundated with motions concerning such problems as those I have listed and more.

Of course, I hope you do realize that you just promoted, among other things, the denial of hospital visitation rights to immediate family, what would amount to extramarital affairs, and have trampled on the freedom of the people you claim to be protecting. It is convenient to limit marriage to a union between two people, yes -- that does not make it correct to do so, in my eyes.

Marriage is something between a man and woman of any age man and man woman and woman woman with multiple men man with multiple women multiple men with multiple women marriage with objects and marriage with animals is all legal no matter the age as long as both sides agree.

Marriage is something between a man and woman of any age man and man woman and woman woman with multiple men man with multiple women multiple men with multiple women marriage with objects and marriage with animals is all legal no matter the age as long as both sides agree.

I do see a reason to limit marriage to only 2 consenting adults. Should health insurance companies be forced by multiple marriage allowances to insure ALL the spouses? What if a husband has severe medical needs? How then can a hospital decide WHICH spouses wishes would be suitable for care? Who then has legal precedent to have their wishes followed?

That's the part where we ask ourselves another important question: Why are the businesses forced to insure customers they don't want to? If a trio of spouses doesn't work for a particular contract or law, I'd blame the law or contract. People should not mold to fit the desires of government; the opposite should be the case.

Some businesses, in contract with companies and governmental agencies, provide benefits to employees and can not deny coverage to spouses for any reason other than pre-existing health issues. Therefore, should the government recognize multiple marriages, those insurance companies in contract would be forced to accept ALL the spouses. Premiums would go up, and coverage would go down.

If any person wishes to have multiple partnerships, he or she should still only have one of those partners recognized by law for many purposes. Otherwise the court systems would be inundated with motions concerning such problems as those I have listed and more.

Of course, I hope you do realize that you just promoted, among other things, the denial of hospital visitation rights to immediate family, what would amount to extramarital affairs, and have trampled on the freedom of the people you claim to be protecting. It is convenient to limit marriage to a union between two people, yes -- that does not make it correct to do so, in my eyes.

Actually, in visitation rights, ANY immediate family member has a right to see their kin, and it is a right that is upheld consistently by the courts. However, should a husband/wife be having an extra-marital affair that the legal spouse would not want to have in the room, then that spouse is most likely not consenting to the affair. Legally speaking, a spouse may allow visitation by any number of people to their husband/wife in a hospital regardless of relationship. All that person must do is tell the hospital that he/she approves such visitation, and visitors must obey the policy regarding the number of visitors allowed at any time and the visitation times that are posted. However; if you are not the legal spouse or immediate family member of someone in the hospital, the facility can not give any information about the condition of a patient. Again, this may be over-ridden by the legal representative of the patient by informing the facility administrators.

The government has no qualms with a person wishing to conduct themselves sexually with any number of consenting adults. But for the purposes of LEGAL rights of survivorship and intervention on behalf of a husband/wife, it should only recognize ONE spouse per person.

Some businesses, in contract with companies and governmental agencies, provide benefits to employees and can not deny coverage to spouses for any reason other than pre-existing health issues. Therefore, should the government recognize multiple marriages, those insurance companies in contract would be forced to accept ALL the spouses. Premiums would go up, and coverage would go down.

Insurance businesses in such situations typically aren't allowed to discriminate based on the number of children, either; I'm not sure if I see how the number of spouses should be any different. We're also getting into areas where people requiring more services -- or perhaps requiring coverage for more dependents -- might be expected to pay higher prices.

Who then has legal precedent to have their wishes followed?

I'd imagine the course of action would be determined in much the same way as it is when there is no spouse, but only a number of children. Of course, that varies from nation to nation at the moment.

Legally speaking, a spouse may allow visitation by any number of people to their husband/wife in a hospital regardless of relationship.

...

However; if you are not the legal spouse or immediate family member of someone in the hospital, the facility can not give any information about the condition of a patient. Again, this may be over-ridden by the legal representative of the patient by informing the facility administrators.

Shouldn't such a right to visitation and information be implied for all of the spouses? Suppose one spouse wants to keep another away or uninformed? Can one spouse really be recognized as "more of a spouse" than the other spouses?

Actually, in visitation rights, ANY immediate family member has a right to see their kin, and it is a right that is upheld consistently by the courts.

I may have misunderstood or overestimated your meaning when you said: "If any person wishes to have multiple partnerships, he or she should still only have one of those partners recognized by law for many purposes." A big part of our disagreement probably comes from the "many purposes" phrase.

The government has no qualms with a person wishing to conduct themselves sexually with any number of consenting adults. But for the purposes of LEGAL rights of survivorship and intervention on behalf of a husband/wife, it should only recognize ONE spouse per person.

I must admit I don't know for sure what you mean by survivorship; does that have to do with transition of property after death? Same for intervention. Sounds more or less like power of attorney?

The nation of Kazooland feels that there is no reason for the UN to define marraige or force it's definition upon on country.

Furthermore, as there is no such thing as marraige in Kazooland, any decision made by this body would be null and void. Marraige, in our opinion is a religious term and ritual, and has no place in our law books. If you want to go get married, you do so at church, but it is not recognized by the government of Kazooland. We, instead have civil unions, and civil unions may take place between two consenting adults. You can still be married, but if you want your marraige to be truly recognized by the government, you must also be civilly united.

Ezzee

Insurance businesses in such situations typically aren't allowed to discriminate based on the number of children, either; I'm not sure if I see how the number of spouses should be any different. We're also getting into areas where people requiring more services -- or perhaps requiring coverage for more dependents -- might be expected to pay higher prices.

Can you imagine the repercussions if one person is allowed any number of spouses, who in turn have any number of children. From one policy, insurance companies could be facing a harem-sized number of insured, all receiving treatment from one payment. Eventually, the cost for insurace could become equal to the cost of care.

I'd imagine the course of action would be determined in much the same way as it is when there is no spouse, but only a number of children. Of course, that varies from nation to nation at the moment.

Currently, most nations IRL use the court system to determine such things. Lawsuits clog legal systems to excess as it stands. Are you honestly advocating more?

Shouldn't such a right to visitation and information be implied for all of the spouses? Suppose one spouse wants to keep another away or uninformed? Can one spouse really be recognized as "more of a spouse" than the other spouses?

What I am saying is that since there is only one spouse in my definition of marriage, then any other types of relationships that would have a spouse not wanting to grant such privileges usually means that the spouse in question isnt consenting to the relationship between the infirmed (hospitalized) and the other visitor.

Then comes again the question. Person A has multiple spouses. Person A goes into a coma for whatever reason. With multiple spouses, all having different ideas of what medical approach to take, who then decides what to do for person A? A legal battle for such eventualities could potentially take years to solve.

I may have misunderstood or overestimated your meaning when you said: "If any person wishes to have multiple partnerships, he or she should still only have one of those partners recognized by law for many purposes." A big part of our disagreement probably comes from the "many purposes" phrase.

As listed in my original definition, I listed a number of ways that same-sex couples are currently discriminated against IRL, or where there are no recognitions of a same-sex partner by legal standing.

If one partner gets sick, then their ONE spouse would gain guardianship over his/her partner's finances, medical decisions (should the hospitalized not have a living will or be otherwise unable to express their own wishes), legal matters, ect, ect.

Some states allow a partner to open a line of credit in their spouses name or by using said spouse's financial information without informed consent of the said spouse. By allowing multiple partners, think of the harrowing numbers in appalling credit that one person could accumulate. Consider even now the problem with credit in society and its propensity to further poverty.

I must admit I don't know for sure what you mean by survivorship; does that have to do with transition of property after death? Same for intervention. Sounds more or less like power of attorney?

That is precisely what survivorship is. Most states in the US alone have specific laws regarding the passage of non-willed property based on survivorship. Deeds to land ownership can be named by survivorship. So can cars. Imagine the hell that probate courts would become if several spouses all made bid for a dead spouse's property when there is no will.

Then you also get into the question of the legal incentives that married couples receive. For the purposes of this conversation, lets focus on the tax breaks that are allowed for joint filers, and welfare/food stamps. Is it possible that by marrying several people that a family could potentially tax break themselves out of paying income tax? Is it fair? How can you regulate that someone doesnt get married to multiple people for said reason? Would multiple spouses all be allowed to apply for government aid benefits like welfare and food stamps? Could they potentially receive enough money from said benefits to bankrupt the system?

People have gotten married for all sorts of benefits. It would stand to reason that they would marry multiple people for the same.

In light of the recent UN descision on gay-marriage
Recent? Have a look at this.
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
Not that recent. Over a year old.

@Perince

"Kybernetia is that traditional marriage or what"

It obviously is. We stand up and fight for our believes although we are a minority here. Fortunatley such sick things like homo-marriage are never going to get a majority in the real world.

And especially not - the even worse - marriage with children or animals which you have proposed.
How sick has somebody to be to propose that??

My country allows Gay marriage (as we are in the UN) and multiple partners. Although a recognised union doesn’t really have much benefit in TBlack.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Definition of marriage:

marriage: monogamous relationship between one man and one woman based on a contract that is lasting for life-time.
Countries may or may not allow divorce.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia


YES! ABSOLUTELY!!!!
JEssie leader of the naked people! :P

Whilst wishing to preserve the traditions of marriage, both in thier religious and cultural aspects, these preservations should not be based in legality.

Indeed, in wishing to build a wall of seperation between religion and state, I propose that the term 'marriage' be removed from all state legilature, instead the use of the more secular term 'civil union' be used instead.

The term 'civil union' is to be adopted in order to avoid the many religious and cultural connatations that go with the word 'marriage'. This allows the individual and his or her church (or other place of worship) to define 'marriage' as she or he wishes, as is according with freedom of belief.

Civil union is union in state eyes of at least two people recognise legally recognised as persons. Civil unions should not be offered to any being or object that does not have the same fundelmental rights as a person as such a union would be meaningless in any legal sense. A person has every right to enter into marriage with an object, if such a union fits into his or her definition of marriage, but state recording of such a union seems unneccesary.

Civil Union should be constructed to service as many types of union as possible, with no restraint on the type of that relationship. Any relationship where those inside wish to have it formalised in legal terms should be open to formalisation through civil union. This may include non-romantic forms of social and personal union.

HRH King Wight
contitutional Monarchy of Lambrinis

Whilst wishing to preserve the traditions of marriage, both in thier religious and cultural aspects, these preservations should not be based in legality.

Indeed, in wishing to build a wall of seperation between religion and state, I propose that the term 'marriage' be removed from all state legilature, instead the use of the more secular term 'civil union' be used instead.

The term 'civil union' is to be adopted in order to avoid the many religious and cultural connatations that go with the word 'marriage'. This allows the individual and his or her church (or other place of worship) to define 'marriage' as she or he wishes, as is according with freedom of belief.

Civil union is union in state eyes of at least two people recognise legally recognised as persons. Civil unions should not be offered to any being or object that does not have the same fundelmental rights as a person as such a union would be meaningless in any legal sense. A person has every right to enter into marriage with an object, if such a union fits into his or her definition of marriage, but state recording of such a union seems unneccesary.

Civil Union should be constructed to service as many types of union as possible, with no restraint on the type of that relationship. Any relationship where those inside wish to have it formalised in legal terms should be open to formalisation through civil union. This may include non-romantic forms of social and personal union.

HRH King Wight
contitutional Monarchy of Lambrinis

Welcome to NS, and the UN. Hope you can stand the heat in here - not many states last long past their first week before resigining with tears in their eyes. :)

Anyway, we cannot refine the passed resolutions due to game mechanics - you'll hear that term a lot in here. You might have a point, but it's pretty moot thanks to those two words. :)

Anyway, we cannot refine the passed resolutions due to game mechanics - you'll hear that term a lot in here. You might have a point, but it's pretty moot thanks to those two words. :)
OOC:

I've tried to explain it here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=).

Definition of marriage:

marriage: monogamous relationship between one man and one woman based on a contract that is lasting for life-time.
Countries may or may not allow divorce.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

I would like to revisit this part of the conversation and agree with it whole-heartedly!

Definition of marriage:

marriage: monogamous relationship between one man and one woman based on a contract that is lasting for life-time.
Countries may or may not allow divorce.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

I would like to revisit this part of the conversation and agree with it whole-heartedly! - Canary Land Minister for Religion - Archbishop John Huffman