NationStates Jolt Archive

The following proposal is put forward to the UN:

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

Argument: IN VIEW of ongoing debate and strife surrounding the institution of marriage;

RECOGNIZING the freedom of individuals to assemble with those they choose, and to form relationships without state interference;

RECOGNIZING that there is no single definition of marriage that will satisfy all people;

RECOGNIZING the unfairness created when there are two classes of citizens recognized in law and afforded special privileges based on their status as married or unmarried;

The UN HEREBY:

CEASES recognition of the civil joining of any persons as anything other than a personal act based on the culture of the people involved;

REQUIRES that member nations cease state-sponsored recognition of marriage, leaving the forms, ceremonies and requirements of participants wholly to the people to decide how, when, where, and why they should be "married". The state shall neither compel nor prevent anyone from marrying any person or persons in accordance with the traditions and desires of those persons.

REQUIRES that the social construct of marriage not be recognized in law, in that the participants of a marriage are still individuals and subject to all the privileges and requirements of individuals in the state. States shall cease to give special privilege or treatment to those people who consider themselves "married".

RECOMMENDS that, in order to protect children and the participants in a social marriage, that the state subject any dispute regarding a marriage to the existing laws and customs appropriate to other business partnerships in that state.
=====

This proposal is actually 2 proposals. The title refers to the actual repeal motion. The arguments above are repeated under a replacement proposal named "Get the State out of Marriage"

What this proposal seeks to remedy is as follows:

1. First and foremost, this proposal will forever end the ongoing debate about who can and cannot or should or should not be married. It leaves marriage as a totally cultural, civil institution with no basis in laws. In that way, people who wish to be married can get married, without interference by others who may not agree with their brand of marriage.

2. This proposal will eliminate the favoured status of married people, bringing equality to ALL people in the eyes of the law with respect to former pro-marriage legislation that created two classes of citizens.

3. This proposal will improve international relations by eliminating such abuses of process as "marriage for convenience" to skirt (or flout) immigration and citizenship laws.

4. This proposal will improve human rights by requiring that any organization not be compelled by law to perform marriage ceremonies that they deem inappropriate.

5. By treating a "marriage" as it would any business partnership, rights to property etc. are still maintained in a manner that has been deemed fair and equitable and is, indeed, the basis of the very economies that support us all.

We urge you to support this proposal and speed it to vote and resolution.

Peco Peconius
Emperor of Dorkium

I agree with this proposal. :)

Illegal, you cannot repeal and replace with the same proposal.

The proposal has been resubmitted, thus there is now a "repeal" and then the replacement proposal.

This proposal eliminates (or amends, depending on your point of view) the definition of marriage that is being forced on all member nations, and by extension all cultures regardless of their creed. That fact alone goes against what the UN should stand for.

The existing definition of marriage forces a view that is manifestly unfair in that it creates two classes of citizens in member nations - those that are married, and those that are not. That is an unacceptable situation in civilized nations.

This proposal augments the concept that the government should not interfere in the bedrooms of its people by ceasing government limitations and specific recognition of marriage.

RECOGNIZING the freedom of individuals to assemble with those they choose, and to form relationships without state interference;


Gee, you just argued FOR the Definition of Marriage resolution... or didn't you read it first? Because it does exactly what you are calling for.

:rolleyes:


The existing definition of marriage forces a view that is manifestly unfair in that it creates two classes of citizens in member nations - those that are married, and those that are not. That is an unacceptable situation in civilized nations.

Do point out where this exists in the resolution.

Gee, you just argued FOR the Definition of Marriage resolution... or didn't you read it first? Because it does exactly what you are calling for.

Actually, it's abit different. The DoM is statist, as it imposes a definition of "marriage" in international law upon members. This one is Anarchic, as it denies the UN, or even the member states from making a definitive definition, or exercize authority over the institution itself [left to the people].

" RECOGNIZING the freedom of individuals to assemble with those they choose, and to form relationships without state interference;"

The DoM standardizes marriage laws across nations. This statement actually sets a barrier whereby states may not "legislate" upon the institution (at all).
That means, no licensure, no marrital statutes, no governmental oversight or controls... More or less turning marriage into what is known as a "Common Law" affair (applicable between citizens, and controled much like contract law, through civil suits, via courts)... Thus it acts more as an enforcement of non-codification of the insittution by any government (UN or member)... And if different from the DoM (and in fact much more "liberal" than the DoM... since there is no restriction on said rights to the people, from ANY BODY whatsoever).

Has it been a whole month already?

Actually, it's abit different. The DoM is statist, as it imposes a definition of "marriage" in international law upon members. This one is Anarchic, as it denies the UN, or even the member states from making a definitive definition, or exercize authority over the institution itself [left to the people].

" RECOGNIZING the freedom of individuals to assemble with those they choose, and to form relationships without state interference;"

The DoM standardizes marriage laws across nations. This statement actually sets a barrier whereby states may not "legislate" upon the institution (at all).
That means, no licensure, no marrital statutes, no governmental oversight or controls... More or less turning marriage into what is known as a "Common Law" affair (applicable between citizens, and controled much like contract law, through civil suits, via courts)... Thus it acts more as an enforcement of non-codification of the insittution by any government (UN or member)... And if different from the DoM (and in fact much more "liberal" than the DoM... since there is no restriction on said rights to the people, from ANY BODY whatsoever).

Correct. The proposal would only restrict the right of theocratic nations and other states from exercising their sovereign power in defining a social construct. Which is why, despite the fact that I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed by the resolution and despise the practice of states defining social constructs, I oppose the proposal. The NSUN has taken its practice of overriding national sovereignty on domestic issues quite far enough, in my opinion, and I can't support any more proposals restricting national sovereignty in the domestic arena.