NationStates Jolt Archive

Part One and Two (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/20854/page=UN_proposal/start=8)
Part Three and Four (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/20854/page=UN_proposal/start=10)

The People of Domnonia have a qualm with this proposal, and would like to suggest that large, complex pieces of legislation like this be first brought to the U.N. Forum to ensure fair and agreeable terms are laid out. Thus, increasing the chances of the proposal making it to the Vote.



Article One proclaims "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." While, in contradiction to Article One and current U.N. Resolution 12, Article 16 attempts to define marriage to two Heterosexual couples to the excusion of all others.

Article 16 "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Whether or not this was the writers intent, it is the belief of Domnonia that this Resolution should not, in any circumstance, make it to a vote of the floor.

The People of Domnonia implore any Delegate who supports Human Rights and Liberties, please withdraw or abstain your vote regarding these proposals.

Article 16 "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."We have examined this, and find the language acceptable. Article 16 does not limit marriage to one man and one woman only. The current wording includes one man and one man, one man and one woman, one woman and one woman, as well as one man and two women, two men and one woman, seven men and seven women, et cetera.

In fact, the language seems carefully designed to be neutral. The wording "right to found a family", for example, does not exclude founding a family by adoption, which method might be desired by a gay or lesbian couple, a couple who cannot bear children for medical reasons, a multi-member marriage composed of people celibate by religious observance, or those who wish to dedicate their time and love to an otherwise parentless child.

Accordingly, and with great respect to the egalitarian intentions of The Republic of Domnonia, we decline at this time to withdraw our support for the United Nations proposal at hand.

Article 16 "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Whether or not this was the writers intent, it is the belief of Domnonia that this Resolution should not, in any circumstance, make it to a vote of the floor.

Upon examining the wording of your quote, I find it lacks any indication men and women are supposed to marry each other. I also find a lack of indication it leans the other direction. It's neutral. Therefore, it should be supported for civil rights.

I must agree as such. The article is neutral, "Men (plural) and Women (Plural)" in no way limits it to heterosexual unions only. As such the argument is based upon an incorrect rendering by grammar, of the proposal.

The Constitutional Republic has approved the bulk of the Resolution, and already approved, as Futura regional Delegate, those parts which are in accordance with our view of rights and freedom. And disapproved parts which may contain an invalidation of enumerated rights to governtment or the people, in accordance with our Republic.

Maybe we are innotating it differantly in our own minds.After taking out additives, your left with

"Men and Women have the right to marry."

It just appears to ambiguous to our eyes.

It is ambiguous. That way, it does not violate any other resolutions in play. It lets the other resolutions dictate the limits on its wording.

The People of Domnonia are once again debating this issue, and have turned to fellow members of the International Democratic Union for their opinions.

Currently, our original position stands.

Our UN Ambassador's lobbying efforts have resulted in 12 Nations from withdrawing their support for this proposal thus far. For now, he will abstain from his efforts while awaiting a final decision from the Domini Parliament.

To me it just seems like a load of rubbish. Some of the things it is saying are already covered by previous resolutions. It sets out no way of fulfilling these goals.

statements like
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
attack the values of some cultures

and
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures
is against dictatorships, monarchies, ect. and anarchies.

Not to mention article 19 could be used to contradict the others.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda has a long history in allowing many freedoms to its people, among them the right for any person of 18 years and older to marry any other person of 18 years and older.

Reading article 16, we interpret it as allowing any man or woman to marry. There is no clear limitation on the sex of the person they marry. In other words, this proposal allows same-sex marriages. We do agree that this proposal is not clear in its intentions.

Because the wording is loose enough to allow same-sex marriages, we would support this proposal. But adding "sexual preference" to article two would definitely improve this proposal and take away the doubts that nations might have.

I think its a very well-written proposal, and I don't agree that it would ban homosexual marriage. I especially like how the author thought and added "(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." and included the part barring a priori crimes.

Thank you for your insight into these matters, friends. The People of Domnonia have decided to withdraw their claim, and leave the proposal to its own fate.