NationStates Jolt Archive

Human Rights/Mild

***


Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.

Good.. very good.

Can we add consent into the resolution?

...the consensual (check spelling) civil...

Already covered by the Universal Bill of Human Rights

Cannot make a reasonable inference as to consent in the Bill of Rights..
Please outline where it exists.

The Dominion of Necros-Vacuia applauds such a proposal, and shall urge our regional delegate to support it.

The entire concept of objecting to the marriage of individuals you are not is both outdated and quite bigoted, something the UN member nations ought to be beyond at this point.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the UN

Cannot make a reasonable inference as to consent in the Bill of Rights..
Please outline where it exists.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Either they both consent, or neither consent. Consensuality is up to the member nation - either everyone does, or no one does. I leave that up to National Soverignty.

And no, I have no problem with nations forcing marriage on their people, provided they do it to everyone equally.

Then it is resolved.

AP will petition its delegate to support this resolution.

The resolution has been brought to the attention of our region.

Thank you muchly.

With luck, enough telegrams will hit enough people to get them to vote yes to that proposal.

I have to admit, I am surprised. Normally the phrase "definition of marriage" fills me with a horror you can't comprehend. But this is something I can get behind and put all my support to.

One thing - gender and sex are the same thing :}

Gender and sex are not the same things.

"Gender" is learned/perception, while sex is biology.

The government of Telidia is in support of this proposal. We will petition our delegate for support and open the subject for debate amongst our regional members.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

"Gender" is learned/perception

No, despite what sociologists proclaim gender is a synonym for the sex of an animal, and one of the two can be removed. Sexual/Gender preference is the term used to disuade discrimination against homosexuals. Gender association/identity is what an individual considers himself to be.

Gender/Sex is genetic, your preference/identity is accepted to be genetic as well (See studies on animal and human genome...proven in animals, accepted to also be case in human animals). If it is a choice it can be regulated, and thus is not truelly discrimination. But since it is genetic, the individual is without control and can not be expected to control their preference/identity.

:OOC:-Oh my. I'm one of those "Sociologists". Graduated a few months ago, working on getting into CL now.

I don't know where to start, but we are both right mostly.
Gender, in Sociology, is the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex. Ergo, I may have a penis, but could perceive myself as female, adopting female gender roles ect.

Well then.. Congratulations on the accomplishment!

Since we both have technical arguments AP does not have any real problem with gender remaining.

We are delighted to finally have the opportunity to slap the "Frisbeeterian Seal of Approval" on a Vastiva proposal. Good Luck with this one.

Oh my - I am sorry I brought it up now!

Human Rights/Mild
DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;


Sounds like this clause is supporting marriages between multiple couples as well.

Man A marries Woman A, Country A
Man A marries Man B, Country B

Country C then recognizes that Man A is married to Woman A and Man B. This doesn't mean that Man B is married to Woman A, but it does mean in Country C that a person can be married multiple times, depending on the laws in other countries.

This is certainly an interesting twist on a domestic issue.

You have our support.

But then you knew that already.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Human Rights/Mild

***


Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.


A question for those more wise than I in matters of the UN.

If this does what it does "IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution", does that mean that "Gay rights" (#12) can not be repealed unless this is repealed? Or would the potential repeal of #12 have any affect on this?

A question for those more wise than I in matters of the UN.

If this does what it does "IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution", does that mean that "Gay rights" (#12) can not be repealed unless this is repealed? Or would the potential repeal of #12 have any affect on this?

IN VIEW is similar to saying something like, "Making note of", or "Recalling", or "Recognizing".

I don't know how the game would react to the situation you've suggested, but I would imagine based on what I know of real world legal changes that if resolution #12 were repealed, that this resolution would be fine.

IN VIEW is similar to saying something like, "Making note of", or "Recalling", or "Recognizing".

I don't know how the game would react to the situation you've suggested, but I would imagine based on what I know of real world legal changes that if resolution #12 were repealed, that this resolution would be fine.

So that if, by some slim chance, #12 was repealed, then the rights enshrined within it would not be able to be banned across UN states?

I am going to support this proposal regardless of the answer, but in relation to this and to any future proposals it is always good to know :}

So that if, by some slim chance, #12 was repealed, then the rights enshrined within it would not be able to be banned across UN states?

I am going to support this proposal regardless of the answer, but in relation to this and to any future proposals it is always good to know :}

The rights enshrined by #12 would be up to nations, if the resolution was repealed. Some nations would drop them, others would keep them.

But the *new* rights added by this proposal would stick around. At least this is how it would work in the real world.

NS will be different. Our civil freedoms will jump up twice: once for resolution 12 and once for this new resolution, and then take a smaller step back again with the first repeal, but not the second.



My region has convinced me this proposal is a basic human rights issue and worthy of support. But I am curious if the proposal was designed to allow multiple marriages or not. I don't think it is clear, but it seems to me that in some socities this is not a problem at all ... but in other societies this would at least be something new for governments to deal with.


Example:

Byron the telepath marries 5 female human telepaths, including a woman named Lyta, 4 male human telepaths, and one Centuri man, named Vir.

Byron is killed while visiting the Drazi homeworld. Lyta requests that Byron's body be shipped to her at the Interstellar Alliance Headquarters. Vir wants Byron's body shipped to the Pak'Maraw homeworld -- let's not worry about why. The remaining telepaths insist that the body be sent to space and by no means returned to Earth.

What should the Drazi do?

An answer is that Byron's will should say where is body goes, otherwise Lyta, Vic, and the others can all battle over Byron's estate (his body ... he is afterall only a rogue telepath and has little else).

My region has convinced me this proposal is a basic human rights issue and worthy of support. But I am curious if the proposal was designed to allow multiple marriages or not. I don't think it is clear, but it seems to me that in some socities this is not a problem at all ... but in other societies this would at least be something new for governments to deal with.


I think that whether it covers multiple marriages or not is not really a problem. Some cultures already support polygamy, and if you are going to define marriage you can't really exclude them from it.

And the example you gave is not so much to do with marriage as the rights of next of kin, which I don't think this proposal gets in to.

Gender is inherantly a neuter word, dealing with a type of sets... Sociology, Biology and the like borrow the word to reffer to different things, culminating its specified usage based on the criteria of the study... In essence, the word is synonymous with "catagory"... It exists in the english language through Old French, and is the present usage descendant of the latin word genus (kind or type). So arguing how the word is used in different disciplines is pointless, since the disciplines borrow the word for specific usage, their definitions are invalid as a universal maxim.

As such, given the context is marriage between people, it is therefore determined by the Republic that the usage as such is inappropriate by context of the proposal. And while we believe the proposal is fine as it stands, the need of the term "gender" is unnecessary.

I think that whether it covers multiple marriages or not is not really a problem. Some cultures already support polygamy, and if you are going to define marriage you can't really exclude them from it.

And the example you gave is not so much to do with marriage as the rights of next of kin, which I don't think this proposal gets in to.

You are right, my example has to do with next of kin too. And a will would answer the question. :)


I think the fault is mine. I think cultures already support polyamory (open relationships) and polygamy (legalized) are protected here. But the real question in my mind is what about those that don't?

Let's say you are married in Utah and have two husbands (I know this isn't legal ... but it is just an example). Then let's assume that your family moves to California. Should California recognize both of your marriages because they were both legal in Utah?

It actually sounds fair to me. And I think that since this definition doesn't say one to one or one to many, that as long as one nation wants to recognize a marriage all UN states will have to recognize that marriage.

I don't see a danger here at all, but if this is not the intent, now is a good time to change that in the draft proposal.

You are right, my example has to do with next of kin too. And a will would answer the question. :)


I think the fault is mine. I think cultures already support polyamory (open relationships) and polygamy (legalized) are protected here. But the real question in my mind is what about those that don't?

Let's say you are married in Utah and have two husbands (I know this isn't legal ... but it is just an example). Then let's assume that your family moves to California. Should California recognize both of your marriages because they were both legal in Utah?

It actually sounds fair to me. And I think that since this definition doesn't say one to one or one to many, that as long as one nation wants to recognize a marriage all UN states will have to recognize that marriage.

I don't see a danger here at all, but if this is not the intent, now is a good time to change that in the draft proposal.

This might get a touch OOC, but it is about the only way I can deal with it.

This act appears to be the counterpart to the USA full faith and credit act. That means that if marriage is defined as this proposal defines it, then it must be defined as that for all of the UN member states. So if you are married to two people in TilEnca, and then the three of you move to GeminiLand, that nation has to accept you are married as well.

I think that the person who proposed it should clarify their point - they might not have meant to define the allowance of multiple partners in marriage. From the way it is phrased (any person can marry any other person) I would think it was more of an oversite that it can be viewed that way. So - a clarification from the original proposer would be helpful :}

Let's say you are married in Utah and have two husbands (I know this isn't legal ... but it is just an example). Then let's assume that your family moves to California. Should California recognize both of your marriages because they were both legal in Utah?


(OOC)

From what I learned from The West Wing (my source of all knoweldge about the USA political system!) I think that if you were to marry two husbands in Utah, then California might not have to accept it. The FFAC act mentioned above says that every state in the union has to give full faith and credit (hence the name) to the records of every other states (which would mean that California would have to accept that marriage), however Congress can define the manner in which records are proven. The state of California could not refuse to accept the marriage, but if Congress says that it is not a proper marriage record, then no state would have to accept it.

Keep in mind a) I don't live in the USA, b) I am not a lawyer, c) I am not a constitutional expert and d) this is all based on one episode of a TV show.

Just thought I would mention it.


It says that full faith and credit shall be given by each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state - it means if you're married in Maryland it's got to be recognized by Nebraska.

'Cause it also says that Congress can proscribe the manner in which such acts and records are proved - which means they can decide what being married means within the context of Article IV.

(OOC)

From what I learned from The West Wing (my source of all knoweldge about the USA political system!) I think that if you were to marry two husbands in Utah, then California might not have to accept it.

Er, well, not Utah. Utah's about the least likely state in the US to endorse same-sex/mutliple marriages. But, yeah I think your point stands. Say a gay couple is married in Massechusetts. Ohio courts don't necessarily need to recognize it. Recognition of out-of-state marriages varies between states.

But, anyway, I've approved it. If for no other reason but to...er...well, nevermind. Let's just say I have my reasons. Good Luck!

I become a UN Delegate tomorrow, although I don't believe in same sex marriage, I am supporting this Proposal, because my moral values shouldn't be opressed on others, and I believe people have free will therefore, I will stand behind this and give you my support.

Er, well, not Utah. Utah's about the least likely state in the US to endorse same-sex/mutliple marriages. But, yeah I think your point stands. Say a gay couple is married in Massechusetts. Ohio courts don't necessarily need to recognize it. Recognition of out-of-state marriages varies between states.


OOC:
I thought that polygamy was still practiced in Utah in this century by a small group of the population? But same-sex marriages in Utah? I don't see that happening any time soon.

As for same-sex marriages, it is interesting that San Francisco's Gavin Newsome is now being targetted with some of the blame for Kerry's loss. The short story is his reaction to President Bush's plan to make same-sex marriage illegal via a Constitutional Amendment by rushing out and issuing marriage licenses to couples, help fueled interest in the 11 states that had anti-gay marriage laws on their ballots ... which in turn drove up the numbers of conservative voters in these states (like Ohio). While I don't feel Newsome did anything wrong there, I do agree that he did mislead Northern Californian couples and probably did hurt or setback same-sex marriages by violating the state law (I don't agree with it, but I also don't advocate doing something to rattle people up so much).

As for the West-Wing, I've never watched it but heard it is a very well done show. Maybe I'll get my paws on a DVD someday.

Anyway, I'm interested to see how NS UN members will vote on this one, and plan to just sit out the resolution debate and watch.

The west wing is not a good insight into the American Political System. Nor is law and order a good representation of the American Legal System and how it operates.

If you get C-Span it has the House of Representatives on From time to time. Also, the federalist papers and writings on theories of American politics are available from American Colleges and Universities. Our Constitution is also a good, and most laws are accessable through government maintained sites.

Aso, drama TV shows are not real, much less accurate. Please do not act on the information presented in them.

Thank you all for your support (Wow, support for one of my bills, I'm floored)

I think the polygamy/polyamoury question is already answered by the Universal Bill of Human Rights, article 4


Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

In other words, if you have one marriage per person in your nation, anyone gets one. If you have lots, everyone gets the option of lots. And so on and so forth. Again, it's up to the nation itself to determine how many - but the same ruler has to apply to all situations within that nation.

As to what happens when you go to another nation - that's a National Soverignty issue. Some cultures can have multiple marriages, some cannot, and its up to each nation to "untie the knot" as they wish. (pun intentional)

My goal was equality in standard - you have to treat all your people equally. How you treat them is up to you.

If you get C-Span it has the House of Representatives on From time to time. Also, the federalist papers and writings on theories of American politics are available from American Colleges and Universities. Our Constitution is also a good, and most laws are accessable through government maintained sites.


Actually I'd like to build onto this ...

C-Span is an excellent source of information!

Other opportunities:

- Community / Local Cable
-- League of Women Voters
-- County / City or Special District Hearings

- College Radio
-- Political Inteviews

- News Radio
-- Opinion pieces, but still interesting

- Political Party Meetings / Campus Organizations


I personally think the real key is to simply just expose yourself to several different sources. You'll find out what works best for you, and see how things begin to behave differently.



Turning this to the thread at hand ... I think that even if the West-Wing is not accurate (can't say ... never watched it), that the questions raised about marriage laws between states still sound pretty reasonable to me. Is this wrong?

(I feel less bad about the hijack since one of the co-authors has joined in ... apologies and thanks!) :)


it's time to let go
spend some time alone
reconsider what could be done
unbind the imagination

we're ready for a new Age of Innocence

- shattered in aspect, faith and the muse

you have to treat all your people equally. How you treat them is up to you.

Like the sound of this, it has an air of tranquility and darkness. Something that should be on a pamphlet or serve as motto of some sort.

I become a UN Delegate tomorrow, although I don't believe in same sex marriage, I am supporting this Proposal, because my moral values shouldn't be opressed on others, and I believe people have free will therefore, I will stand behind this and give you my support.

There are too few Delegates that are against same sex marriage, yet for civil liberty. Well done you.

My goal was equality in standard - you have to treat all your people equally. How you treat them is up to you.

Ah-ha! cunning. This is a line that would have saved many a human rights proposal. This proposal has my vote. Or did I already approve it?...
*wanders off muttering*

The west wing is not a good insight into the American Political System. Nor is law and order a good representation of the American Legal System and how it operates.

If you get C-Span it has the House of Representatives on From time to time. Also, the federalist papers and writings on theories of American politics are available from American Colleges and Universities. Our Constitution is also a good, and most laws are accessable through government maintained sites.

Aso, drama TV shows are not real, much less accurate. Please do not act on the information presented in them.

(OOC)
I am not, plus I was just commenting on something else and it was totally out of character. I just thought it would help :}

And please give me enough credit to know that The West Wing isn't actually real :} (Although next you'll be telling me Buffy and Angel aren't real, and then I will know you are lying!)

Also I live in the UK, and actually have little or no access to anything you sited, and (to be honest) care even less.

The Miko Mono Politburo must rise up and express its strong opposition to this proposal, which we will do all we can to prevent being offered before the full United Nations.

We oppose this proposal on several fronts, including:

1. While the People's Republic of Miko Mono is proud of its position as a beacon to all as an example of human rights, we cannot support proposals intended to introduce bourgeoisie degeneracy. We view such efforts as merely attempts to weaken countries for later domination -- something we are becoming increasingly concerend of in this once august body.

2. This proposal, like so many others as of late, directly infringes on the all-important concept of national soverignity. The United Nations has no business micro-managing a soverign state's domestic policies. Again, we view such proposals as insidious efforts by a select group of small, weak nations to accomplish through flowery diplomacy and legislative fiat what they know they could not do through miltiary force -- establish their controls over the rest of us. The People's Republic of Miko Mono has no wish to resemble or be subjegated to other countries, and we will resist with all our might any effort to do so.

We wish to end our communique with the revealing words of the delegate from Wrigleyivy -- "I am supporting this Proposal, because my moral values shouldn't be opressed on others."

Surely all right-minded U.N. members can see the inherent contradiction in this statement!

I note the honourable member from Miko Mono's comments with interest, however:

1. While the People's Republic of Miko Mono is proud of its position as a beacon to all as an example of human rights, we cannot support proposals intended to introduce bourgeoisie degeneracy. We view such efforts as merely attempts to weaken countries for later domination -- something we are becoming increasingly concerend of in this once august body.

Domination, weaken?? I’m note sure what you mean here. I’d be grateful if the honourable member would explain.

2. This proposal, like so many others as of late, directly infringes on the all-important concept of national soverignity. The United Nations has no business micro-managing a soverign state's domestic policies. Again, we view such proposals as insidious efforts by a select group of small, weak nations to accomplish through flowery diplomacy and legislative fiat what they know they could not do through miltiary force -- establish their controls over the rest of us. The People's Republic of Miko Mono has no wish to resemble or be subjegated to other countries, and we will resist with all our might any effort to do so.

Just to ensure there is no misunderstanding, this proposal came as a result of another debate choosing to repeal resolution 12, entitled “Gay Rights”. I would be grateful if the honourable member would peruse the link provided below, to ensure they understand this debate in the correct context.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=370368

I certainly respect your view with regard to sovereignty, which you have made very clear in many debates. However, I believe this is a matter of international concern and I feel once the honourable member view this debate in context, they will agree.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia.

1. While the People's Republic of Miko Mono is proud of its position as a beacon to all as an example of human rights, we cannot support proposals intended to introduce bourgeoisie degeneracy. We view such efforts as merely attempts to weaken countries for later domination -- something we are becoming increasingly concerend of in this once august body.


So you think having equal rights for everyone across the UN is actually a prelude to war?


2. This proposal, like so many others as of late, directly infringes on the all-important concept of national soverignity. The United Nations has no business micro-managing a soverign state's domestic policies. Again, we view such proposals as insidious efforts by a select group of small, weak nations to accomplish through flowery diplomacy and legislative fiat what they know they could not do through miltiary force -- establish their controls over the rest of us. The People's Republic of Miko Mono has no wish to resemble or be subjegated to other countries, and we will resist with all our might any effort to do so.


I do not consider that everyone having the right to marry the person they love an assult on national sovereignty. And nor do I think anyone who is supporting this proposal is planning to take over anyone elses country.

I do believe the right for someone to marry someone else, regardless of gender, species, religion, level of IQ or anything else as an assult on all human rights, and something that the UN, as an example, should support.


We wish to end our communique with the revealing words of the delegate from Wrigleyivy -- "I am supporting this Proposal, because my moral values shouldn't be opressed on others."

Surely all right-minded U.N. members can see the inherent contradiction in this statement!

And you can't see the contradiction of attacking a proposal by using a phrase "right-minded"? Does right-minded mean all those people who agree with you? Or does it mean "anyone who is not a moron"?

If you really believe that giving someone the right to marry their loved one is a pre-emptive act of war, then I have no way of convincing you otherwise. I and, as is apparent through this thread, quite a number of other nations disagree.

The Miko Mono Politburo is glad to see that we have helped to foster debate over this contentious topic.

First, we wish to reply to the gracious delegate from Telidia. As you suggested, we examined the transcripts of the past debate on the resolution to repeal gay rights (a resolution which we opposed due to our human rights stance). What the Politburo took from this debate, however, is signs of the troubling tendancy becoming more and more apparent among some U.N. members that the United Nations is not a collective body, but a type of "macro-government" to which we are all subsumed.

As evidence, we quote this from the ambassador of Domnonia: "a national government is of no concern to the U.N. - only your citizens are."

The People's Republic of Miko Mono has no issue at all with whatever domestic policies, including those regarding marriage, other countries wish to follow. We ourselves point to our sterling record of human rights as evidence of our progressive values. However, we CAN NOT see why such matters have to be imposed from above?

This is a point that needs to be stated loud and clear: WE ARE NOT VASSELS OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

On a purely practical matter, with the issue of marriage rights so contentious in many countries, do not those U.N. members who support this proposal think that it will be even more rejected by national populations if it is seen as being imposed from some nebulous international body? Would it not be better that such proposals come "up from below" as it were, so they may be implemented in an orderly fashion with popular support?

As for the representative from TilEnca, what we have repeatedly expressed concerns over is the increasing signs that a small number of small countries well-adapt at the shadowy worlds of diplomacy and parliamentary maneuvering, are using the United Nations to impose on other countries their views and policies. Let us be clear on this: We are accusing such countries of legislative invasion, since they know well their militaries would be defeated by the People's Army of Miko Mono.

Invasion of any type, be it direct miltary conflict, or throguh the tentacles of resolutions, will be resisted at all cost by the People's Republic of Miko Mono. From what we have seen throughout a number of debates, there are many countries that share our view.

First, we wish to reply to the gracious delegate from Telidia. As you suggested, we examined the transcripts of the past debate on the resolution to repeal gay rights (a resolution which we opposed due to our human rights stance). What the Politburo took from this debate, however, is signs of the troubling tendancy becoming more and more apparent among some U.N. members that the United Nations is not a collective body, but a type of "macro-government" to which we are all subsumed.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, however whilst I note your opposition the resolution in question is in fact now law. What this proposal is seeking is to amend the suggestion that an inequality exits in the “Gay Rights” legislation with regard to marriage. (The previous debate discussed this in length. I would prefer not to re-open that debate here.) Therefore whilst your opposition is noted, we have to deal with the legislative situation as it stands presently. The resolution “Gay rights” is in fact law. So we are left with a choice:

We can repeal it and then write a new all-inclusive version, which is not only dangerous, but has no chance of actually happening. The vast majority of members in this body want this legislation, or

We ‘patch up’ the current legislation to erase any suggested ‘inequalities’, which in my view has a much better chance of success and is certainly more expedient.

In closing I would like to add, that the vast majority of nations in this body has almost always universally regarded issues with regard to human rights as international issues. If the honourable member wishes to have proof of this, you only have to look at the voting margins on human rights resolutions.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I've added a revised version of that resolution, adding in Consensual and removing the clause about inter-specis marriage. As obviously any creature other than humans could not possibly consent to marriage

I've added a revised version of that resolution, adding in Consensual and removing the clause about inter-specis marriage. As obviously any creature other than humans could not possibly consent to marriage


My region was talking just this morning about consent and interspecies issues as well. We were planning on making a suggestion for an amendment, but we actually felt that since a few of our nations have both human and elf and/or faire populations, and that since it is common for the two species to mix, that the consent clause would just enough.

Hybredia has voted in favor of this proposal. I'll TG the appropriate delegates with whom I have some say with.

I've just approved the version with consensual in. Presumably that is the current one?

With regard to Miko Mono's point about national sovreignity, surely this is an international issue if someone from country A wanted to marry someone from country B?

I've added a revised version of that resolution, adding in Consensual and removing the clause about inter-specis marriage. As obviously any creature other than humans could not possibly consent to marriage

Woah!! Do you know you have pretty much insulted and alientate two thirds of the people of my nation? And made one of the most racist and discriminatory statements I have ever heard?

I am not insulted (as yet) as I will just put it down to a lack of understanding about the world of Nation States, but I think that given we have a population that is (on average) one third Elf and one third Dwarf you should not be suggesting that species other than human can not consent to marriage.

Just a suggestion :}

I've added a revised version of that resolution, adding in Consensual and removing the clause about inter-specis marriage. As obviously any creature other than humans could not possibly consent to marriage
It's also a rather extreme breach of etiquette to poach another player's UN proposal and repost it under your own name. You owe Vastiva an apology as well.

What the Politburo took from this debate, however, is signs of the troubling tendancy becoming more and more apparent among some U.N. members that the United Nations is not a collective body, but a type of "macro-government" to which we are all subsumed.


The UN is a totally democratic body. No nation has more say than any other. While some nations (mine included) might put more effort in to commenting and posting in these forumns, that does not give them any more power in getting UN resolutions passed than those who do not show up so often.

I may post quite a lot in this forumn, but I only get one vote for or against each resolution. And even if i support it and encourage others to vote for it, I can't force them one way or another, and would not consider it my place to do so.



As evidence, we quote this from the ambassador of Domnonia: "a national government is of no concern to the U.N. - only your citizens are."


This is pretty much true, from a certain point of view. The UN can not write legislations to go against a specific country or countries. It can either pass a law that affects all member nations, or it doesn't pass it at all.


The People's Republic of Miko Mono has no issue at all with whatever domestic policies, including those regarding marriage, other countries wish to follow. We ourselves point to our sterling record of human rights as evidence of our progressive values. However, we CAN NOT see why such matters have to be imposed from above?


Because the UN is more than just your nation. Even if your nation is a model of virtue, there are a lot of UN nations that are not models of virtue. And the UN has to protect everyone.

If you have a good record of human rights, then why would you object to them being re-enforced by resolutions?


This is a point that needs to be stated loud and clear: WE ARE NOT VASSELS OF THE UNITED NATIONS.


Who said we were?


On a purely practical matter, with the issue of marriage rights so contentious in many countries, do not those U.N. members who support this proposal think that it will be even more rejected by national populations if it is seen as being imposed from some nebulous international body? Would it not be better that such proposals come "up from below" as it were, so they may be implemented in an orderly fashion with popular support?


Honestly? No. If a nation is going to oppose marriage rights for its people, then most of the people would probably oppose it too. So there would be no way for it to get voted in.


As for the representative from TilEnca, what we have repeatedly expressed concerns over is the increasing signs that a small number of small countries well-adapt at the shadowy worlds of diplomacy and parliamentary maneuvering, are using the United Nations to impose on other countries their views and policies. Let us be clear on this: We are accusing such countries of legislative invasion, since they know well their militaries would be defeated by the People's Army of Miko Mono.


Have you seen the amount of work it takes to get one of these resolutions passed?

The UN is made up of (at time of posting) around thirty six thousand member nations, and two and half thousand delegates.

To bring a resolution to the floor needs (I think) about 200 delegates to support it. And to get it passed requires more member nations to vote for it than against it, which sometimes ranges in to the tens of thousands.

If you think that the conspiracy to attack your nation - to covertly conquer it through legislation - ranges to that many nations, then I am not sure of anything I can say that would convince you otherwise.

I also think that a vast majority of the member nations are capable of recognising a covert attempt to conquer their nation, and vote against it.


Invasion of any type, be it direct miltary conflict, or throguh the tentacles of resolutions, will be resisted at all cost by the People's Republic of Miko Mono. From what we have seen throughout a number of debates, there are many countries that share our view.

Then, given that membership of the UN is not mandatory, and that there are far more nations outside the UN than in it, if you find the activities of the UN and it's members so offensive, sneaky and wrong - why do you stay in it?

[QUOTE=Grand Teton]There are too few Delegates that are against same sex marriage, yet for civil liberty. Well done you.[QUOTE]

I try to not do anything in excess, and I am a conservative on social issues, but I draw my lines from my moral values.

I've added a revised version of that resolution, adding in Consensual and removing the clause about inter-specis marriage. As obviously any creature other than humans could not possibly consent to marriage

Ab-shalom and greetings;

It would be noted that such hijacking is particularly bad manners. Furthermore, the position of consensuality was already covered in the original, as discussed in this thread.

Finally, there are hundreds if not thousands of member nations in the UN which are not composed of humans. So you have managed to insult a great number of delegate nations as well in your short-sightedness and with your impulsivity.

All you have done is to weaken support for one by creating a duplicate.

If there was another way to lose respect, we would be hard pressed to discover it.

See also : http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176
The fifth "no-no" is the one you have committed.

The UN is a totally democratic body. No nation has more say than any other. While some nations (mine included) might put more effort in to commenting and posting in these forumns, that does not give them any more power in getting UN resolutions passed than those who do not show up so often.

I may post quite a lot in this forumn, but I only get one vote for or against each resolution. And even if i support it and encourage others to vote for it, I can't force them one way or another, and would not consider it my place to do so.


*clapping*

Well said, all around.

While most of our nations that have been in the UN for several months have found resolutions to vote against, if the UN really is that bad we are always free to leave and nothing less will be thought of these nations. Those of us that stay do so because we do realize that the UN is essentially democratic. Nations get out of the UN what they put into it, and the value of that is determined once again by the benefit they see it to provide.

All that said, my government does find that there is a strength in not only collecting the 130+ endorsements and thousands of votes for a resolution, but in drafting a resolution that also empowers the nations that voted against the resolution ... since we are talkinga about sovereignty, in general (meaning not always), a resolution that hands the actually process of dealing with common problems by using local solutions is a compromise. The problem is solved, but the finer details of the solution are left in the hands of the people who will be asked to finish what is started here. And that seems fair.

I'd ask anybody who is planning on wielding the "sovereignty shield" to ask themselves two questions:

1) What do you want from the UN, that you can not get from outside of the UN?

2) What is to stop somebody else from using that same "sovereignty shield" to stop you from doing exactly what you might accuse the UN of doing?

I think the answer to both questions is that sovereignty alone is not really the most important issue. It sure sounds nice and diplomatic. And there actually is some validity too it. But until you've collected 130+ Delegate endorsements and survived the experience of actually defending a UN resolution, I think that these two questions are hard to understand ...

That said, I'd like to encourage nations to focus on promoting their own ideas. There are plenty of us that find the most rewarding experience in UN active in being working with other nations, and helping them find a way solve a global problem.

With that in mind sovereignty can be a resolution author's most powerful ally. A proposal that gives local governments some authority, can be defended not just by the resolution author(s), but once passed, the local governments that developed local solutions can also explain how the next step was carried out (meaning, you are free to roleplay and explore how your society would react to whatever the UN put forth ... and that really is an aspect of the game often forgotten).

Finally, there are hundreds if not thousands of member nations in the UN which are not composed of humans. So you have managed to insult a great number of delegate nations as well in your short-sightedness and with your impulsivity.


OOC: This does not reflect on my opinion of the proposal here or any one player, but we talk about UFOs and Aliens and Elves and Ghosts. But some of us cut it out there -- that is just story telling. Newbies using the word "humans" shouldn't be taken as an insult.

Why?

The freakin category is called "Human Rights". Not "Sentinent Rights". The word is "Human".

If you can accept that human = sentinent, you should probably either:

A) let the minor little things pass and not act insulted, or

B) go to the technical forum and claim that the game designers are insulting and arrogant for naming the entire category designed to improve "Civil Rights" to be "Human Rights".

The reason I'm flagging this here, is this thread is a proposal, not a resolution. We've been encouraging people to bring proposals here for the rest of the forum to contribute ideas for as part of all the talk of "consensus" building. I hate to encourage somebody to do something and see them try their best, only to get slapped on what in reality is a technicality ... and a poorly fashioned one, since the game itself does imply through the category names and daily issues that there aren't oddles of happy robots and floating space goth bunnies finding offense at each time they aren't mentioned in the UN, but that the game is chalk full of human beings.

All that said, I'd be more than happy to lend support to going to the technical forum and building a case to change the name of "Human Rights" to "Sentinent Rights", since it is clear that even though fantasy based proposals (like the famous zombie rights proposal) are deleted by the moderators for being "unrealistic"... that many of us think of this UN as an "Intergalatic" body.


DISCLAIMER: I'll repeat this as much as it takes. This is not me attacking any individual or group of people, but I am afraid that we will alienate players who have shown exactly the thing we want ... "Fresh Blood" ... er I mean a willingness to participate and better yet ... make suggestions on rewrites of proposals in this forum.

(And yes I'm also aware that the thread it titled "Submitted" ... but if it fails to reach quroum, it can be revised.)

Furthermore, the position of consensuality was already covered in the original, as discussed in this thread.

Actually could somebody repost how it was covered / addressed ... maybe answering the consent question by itself will solve that problem.

Actually could somebody repost how it was covered / addressed ... maybe answering the consent question by itself will solve that problem.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7438593&postcount=6

and

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7445296&postcount=33

It's a national soverignty issue, already faced by Article four of the Universal Bill of Human Rights. If a nation allows consensuality, its consensual. If it does not, it is not. It cannot be "sometimes consensual" or "only for males" or any such, because of that resolution.

Again - it's up to the individual nation how to treat their people, but everyone must be treated equally. So if a nation allows consensuality, everyone gets it, and if not, no one does.

Vastiva: This is a well thought-out, well made proposal. If Black New World had not already done so, I would urge her to support this.

Marabini: As many have said, it is extremely rude and offensive to repost another person's proposal and claim it as your own. Vastiva already put forward an argument about consent. If you considered your 'addition' to be worthwhile, the polite course would be to contact Vastiva and work it out between you. Don't just steal.

The freakin category is called "Human Rights". Not "Sentinent Rights". The word is "Human".

If you can accept that human = sentinent, you should probably either:

A) let the minor little things pass and not act insulted, or

B) go to the technical forum and claim that the game designers are insulting and arrogant for naming the entire category designed to improve "Civil Rights" to be "Human Rights".



See - I have no problem accepting the phrase "human rights" as applying to the other two races (Elf and Dwarf) in my nation. This has been the policy for a long time, and I really don't complain about the use of human rights.

However I really did find the implication that only humans can consent to marriage a touch insulting - given that my husband is an Elf.


But yeah - I might ease up on this for the moment. It was just this one incidence that bugged me. I accept that everyone has "human rights" in general without the need to change it to civil, or personhood, or any other term that would just be patronising :}

MY apologies on Marabinis behalf, my region is new to the world and had no idea there were intelligent life other than humans on this world. I was under the impression it was the same as the "real" world. As for hijacking a countries proposal, that was not his intention, it was simply meant to offer an alternative. The UN is not about taking credit for policy, its about making a policies to enrich the world. As Marabini's revised one stands, and I really think the original was good. It does NOT in any way discriminate against interspecies marriages, it simply states that it must be consensual, therefore any species able to consent can get married.

Furthermore, this revised edition affords more rights to people engaged in interspecies relationships as the old one said they could get married at the discretion of the country, thereby allowing governments to discriminate against them. The revised one affords everybody the same rights!

MY apologies on Marabinis behalf, my region is new to the world and had no idea there were intelligent life other than humans on this world. I was under the impression it was the same as the "real" world. As for hijacking a countries proposal, that was not his intention, it was simply meant to offer an alternative. The UN is not about taking credit for policy, its about making a policies to enrich the world. As Marabini's revised one stands, and I really think the original was good. It does NOT in any way discriminate against interspecies marriages, it simply states that it must be consensual, therefore any species able to consent can get married.

I agree - it is not a matter of taking credit for the proposal. But if you are going to steal someone's idea and modify it to suit your own ends, it is just good manners to tell that someone, and maybe ask for their suggestions.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7438593&postcount=6

and

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7445296&postcount=33

It's a national soverignty issue, already faced by Article four of the Universal Bill of Human Rights. If a nation allows consensuality, its consensual. If it does not, it is not. It cannot be "sometimes consensual" or "only for males" or any such, because of that resolution.


First, thank you for the links. However, what I saw looked like equal rights ... it didn't clearly include the word consent. Not only have nations in the IDU debates (which I still hope you'll join -- I sent you the link yesterday) brought this point up, but it looks like a few of us participating here have as well.

This doesn't mean I'm saying that your argument isn't valid, but I am saying that you will probably have nations vote against this because the draft that was submitted, to quote one of the other nations in my region, "Reads like this proposal will allow people to marry cows, and the cows won't have any say."

Is this silly? Incredibly. Is this a reason to vote no? Not at all. And I think that you can count of the IDU to support you here.

But several of our nations would prefer it if you have the chance, to add the word consent into the proposal.

Here is the language I feel would be more clear:


DEFINES marriage as the consensual civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

The major problem I see with this though, is that this gives nations the right to refuse marriages from other states that they feel weren't consensual, like child marriages.

A way around this would be to actually add a new clause that makes it clear that consent needs to be granted.

Despite the need for human rights, there is a sound legal reason for this. Your international law is basically saying that country A must recognize marriages from country B. What if in my country a woman decided to file marriage papers to your Sultan. And what if my country's proceedure only required paperwork? Then that woman would come to your country and claim to be your Sultan's wife and demand that half of his income is hers (which may be unwise for her, as I'm guessing your courts would not agree to that).

While I don't see scenarios where any pretenders to the throne will be walking away with money via doctored marriage / divorce proceedings, I'd rather cut that argument off in the resolution text. You've already seen somebody pull the SpOoKy EVIL TeRrOrIST card on my Good Samaritan Laws resolution, and the resolution already had direct language to say, "No way, you can screen those guys yourself bub." I'd like to place some armour on your resolution so it too can stand up to repeals based on silly scenarios. :) I think just adding consent next time (if there is one) will make your proposal / resolution bullet-proof.

__

It's time to let go
Spend some time alone
Reconsider what could be done
Unbind the imagination

We're ready for a new Age of Innocence

~ faith and the muse :: shattered in aspect

Sorry to digress, but I've gotta ask this.

There was a ZOMBIE RIGHTS proposal??! Did it get quorum?

There was a ZOMBIE RIGHTS proposal??! Did it get quorum?
Yes. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=347109) No.

What is important here is the Moderator's (Unfree People's) opinion in the second post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6742368&postcount=2).

There is no doubt in my mind that had this proposal been submitted, that a warning would have been issued.

Why this is important is because the game moderators are evaluating what can be submitted based on their "Earth" frame of reference.

This doesn't mean you can't make your own nation's decisions based on the belief that zombies or elves or robots that can change into airplanes and tape casettes exist. You can. You can even talk about it.

But, I do think it is reasonable for players to look at the moderator team's zero tolerance on anything that isn't tied to Earth and forget that by following one set of rules, that they might accidently upset somebody else. In other words, I don't think the nation using the word "human" really has done anything more than what Max and Co. haven't already put into code and I brought up the zombie act (not just because it is fun), but because every now and then it helps to understand why people might do or say things.

My nation has races other than human, but for terms of the game, the moderators and the UN staff, I have no problem having them referred to as "human rights" and I generally use the term "human" to refer to all the sentient beings.

I know how complicated and insane it would get if the moderators tried to deal with and predict every potential race people might bring in to their nation.

But at the same time this game is supposed to be fun, and since I tend to RP more than not in the UN forum (whether it is meant for that or not) I do like referring to the other races in my nation :}

But to get back to this proposal, I support, endorse and favour this more than any recent resolution. I suggest everyone should ask their delegate to endorse it, then go vote for it when it comes to the floor.

MY apologies on Marabinis behalf, my region is new to the world and had no idea there were intelligent life other than humans on this world. I was under the impression it was the same as the "real" world. As for hijacking a countries proposal, that was not his intention, it was simply meant to offer an alternative. The UN is not about taking credit for policy, its about making a policies to enrich the world. As Marabini's revised one stands, and I really think the original was good. It does NOT in any way discriminate against interspecies marriages, it simply states that it must be consensual, therefore any species able to consent can get married.

Furthermore, this revised edition affords more rights to people engaged in interspecies relationships as the old one said they could get married at the discretion of the country, thereby allowing governments to discriminate against them. The revised one affords everybody the same rights!

Ab-shalom and greetings.

Foremost, we note Marabini's inability to take responsibility for himself and his actions.

Secondly, the difference in the editions is intent. In the original, Nations Soverignity remains over the issue, but it must be decided fully one way or the other - they may force everyone to marry, or they may force no one to marry. This takes into account the various Theocracies and Dictatorships and whatnot.

The revised removes the issue of National Soverignty, and replaces it with a human rights ideology of "everyone has the right to choose". This overlooks the outlooks of such governments.

As for the "The UN is not about taking credit" bit, should it become policy for other nations to crib all proposals by Marabini and resubmit them with slightly modified wording? Inasmuch as we are human (well, most of us), the "thrill" of having a proposal which one wrote voted into queue is part of the thrill of being in the UN.

It is with regret that Vastiva notes Marabini is incapable of understanding the emotional states of others, and has demonstrated not once but twice now a complete and utter lack of basic human respect and honor.

This is therefore noted, and our national and international policies will be modified accordingly.

I fully support this proposal and commend Vastiva on a job well done. Usually loopholes are horrible, but Vastiva's arguments have commedable sealed them. Good show.