NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Definition of Marriage"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #81


Proposed by: Siaka

Description: UN Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZES: The United Nations has overstepped thier authority by dictating what constitutes legal marrage in member nations. This resolution "Definition of Marriage" denies a soverign nation the right to determine within thier own borders what constitutes legal marriage and ignores a nations customs, traditons, and religious beliefs on the matter.



I wish i could have posted this earlier but the current problems w/ the forums delayed this.

Customs, traditions, and religious beliefs touch on all kinds of things. Why do they get precedence in this particular case?

We believe that sapient beings deserve the freedom to marry despite what bigotries the local populace might have concerning interracial or homosexual marriage. Whether those bigotries have existed for a long time, or have been enshrined in religious dogma, doesn't change how wrong it would be to deny them that freedom.

The core of the argument is the UN oversteping thier authority by forcing other's belifs upon a nation. By dictating what and who can marry in one's borders they are denying the nation's right of maintaining its internal affairs and soverginty.
Before someoone says "I should resign from the UN" I do belive the UN does good for the world, but in cases where they try to tell a nation who can do what in thier own borders concerning non criminal or destructive international crimes is oversteping the UN's mandate.
Un should stick to issues of international relevence ie items that affect the world as a whole. Marriage is a local concern. The UN must take in consideration a local's traditons , customs ,and belifs. To ignore them is infact a refusal of nations independence and we wind up becoming a Dictatorship of the Majority under the guise of the UN.

The core of the argument is the UN oversteping thier authority by forcing other's belifs upon a nation. By dictating what and who can marry in one's borders they are denying the nation's right of maintaining its internal affairs and soverginty.
Before someoone says "I should resign from the UN" I do belive the UN does good for the world, but in cases where they try to tell a nation who can do what in thier own borders concerning non criminal or destructive international crimes is oversteping the UN's mandate.
Un should stick to issues of international relevence ie items that affect the world as a whole. Marriage is a local concern. The UN must take in consideration a local's traditons , customs ,and belifs. To ignore them is infact a refusal of nations independence and we wind up becoming a Dictatorship of the Majority under the guise of the UN.

I don't quite concur on this issue. While I think their should be levels of sovereignty. All UN resolutions have the potential of impacting a nation's sovereignty. Thus, I do not think that "sovereignty" should be considered a single issue when it comes to legislation.

The DOM may overstep bounds, but it does raise an issue regarding individual rights. Which is as importnant, if not more so, than National Soveriegnty.

The argument is of course, that national traditions, and culture, should not be an excuse for denial of a persons rights. And I agree with that view point. And that national sovereignty was no excuse for denial of rights to people as individuals.

And in marriage, as with any other social and legal institution, has certain protections, which should be honored accross borders. So this does make it international in scope.

I would more support a resolution which required other nations to recognize marrital contracts, and unions in the law of other states.... Should such become a matter of legislation of this body, I would then consider repeal of the DOM. Untill such time, I will not support any repeal of the DOM.

The core of the argument is the UN oversteping thier authority by forcing other's belifs upon a nation. By dictating what and who can marry in one's borders they are denying the nation's right of maintaining its internal affairs and soverginty.
Before someoone says "I should resign from the UN" I do belive the UN does good for the world, but in cases where they try to tell a nation who can do what in thier own borders concerning non criminal or destructive international crimes is oversteping the UN's mandate.
Un should stick to issues of international relevence ie items that affect the world as a whole. Marriage is a local concern. The UN must take in consideration a local's traditons , customs ,and belifs. To ignore them is infact a refusal of nations independence and we wind up becoming a Dictatorship of the Majority under the guise of the UN.

We prefer a "dictatorship of the majority" which protects individual's rights and freedoms against bigots and authoritarians to tyrannies by local majorities which violate the rights and freedoms of local minorities.

We don't believe that states have rights, as such. Their only legitimacy is derived from their protections and provisions of rights and freedoms on behalf of citizens. When they fail in this duty, they lose their legitimacy, and so they don't deserve sovereignty.

The core of the argument is the UN oversteping thier authority by forcing other's belifs upon a nation. By dictating what and who can marry in one's borders they are denying the nation's right of maintaining its internal affairs and soverginty.
Before someoone says "I should resign from the UN" I do belive the UN does good for the world, but in cases where they try to tell a nation who can do what in thier own borders concerning non criminal or destructive international crimes is oversteping the UN's mandate.
Un should stick to issues of international relevence ie items that affect the world as a whole. Marriage is a local concern. The UN must take in consideration a local's traditons , customs ,and belifs. To ignore them is infact a refusal of nations independence and we wind up becoming a Dictatorship of the Majority under the guise of the UN.

*first card* (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/9943/readthestickies5la.jpg)

*second card* (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)

*third card* (http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg)

Nuff said?