NationStates Jolt Archive

Religious Protection Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: San Timetheos

Description: An act IMPROVING the human rights of Religious leaders and PROTECTING them from having to perform ceremonies contrary to their beliefs.

HAVING CONSIDERED Resolutions 13#, 20# & 82#

RECOGNIZING that under 13# Gay Rights and 82# Definition of Mariage, mariage between homosexuals is lawful in all UN Nations.

REAFFIRMING that under 20# Religious Tolerance all religions must be tolerated and beliefs respected.

OBSERVING that the majority of world religions forbid homosexual mariage.

The UN would therefore MANDATE that all religious leaders be granted the CHOICE whether to conduct homosexual mariage ceremonies or not.

The above proposition is NOT homophobic nor discriminative. Under this resolution homosexual civil partnership will still be legal and accepted

Please vote for this proposal, it is currently on pages 22 on the list of proposals.

Is there a need for this? After all, I don't really see anything here that cannot be said to be included in the previous time this was addressed.

Surely 'religious leaders' already have the choice over whether to conduct a given ceremony or not - except in societies that already have restricted civil rights.

If they decide not to conduct a certain ceremony it is entirely appropriate for their congregation (or eqivalent) or the state to question the reasons for this, and when this is for reasons incompatible with non-discrimination laws to hold them to account.

This sounds to me more like a 'homophobe protection act' than a religious protection act'.

I don't like the title much, but I agree with the idea. Seperation of Church and State is a good thing, and I support the Gay Marriage legalisation in NSUN nations, believing it to be a true civil rights issue. However, one cannot expect to force religious ministers to seperate the Church from it's teachings which as it stands is what the current resolutions pertaining to the matter seem to do.

However, I would add that, so this isn't circumvented, all nations must have facilities for marriages outside of a religious context for both heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Otherwise you end up with a large loophole with regards to the possibility of having nations that only marry in religious institutions and effectively banning gay marriage that way

However, I would add that, so this isn't circumvented, all nations must have facilities for marriages outside of a religious context for both heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Otherwise you end up with a large loophole with regards to the possibility of having nations that only marry in religious institutions and effectively banning gay marriage that way
And what's wrong with that, nations can already pass laws preventing government employees from performing marriage ceremonies simply because there is no resolution stating that governments have to perform any type of marriage ceremony, heck until Definition of Marriage was passed, governments didn't even have to actually recognize marriages.

oh...so the religious protection act isn't about hard looking monks in raybans requiring 'payment' to ensure your windows don't get 'accidentally' broken? We had some purple dressed Catholic cardinal muscle ready to get in the act....you know....nobody expects......

Let's see... Marriage is defined as a civil ceremony... so I would guess mariage could be defined as a religious ceremony if you like.

Oh, by the way...


The above proposition is NOT homophobic nor discriminative. Under this resolution homosexual civil partnership will still be legal and accepted

Until you manage to have repealed both #13 and #82, it'll be "Homosexual Marriage" not "civil partnerships". But I have an idea for you. Why not make it "heterosexual partnerships" and "homosexual marriages"? After all, you're not being discriminative, so it should work just fine both ways....

[/sarcasm]

Description: An act IMPROVING the human rights of Religious leaders and PROTECTING them from having to perform ceremonies contrary to their beliefs.



The People's Republic of Coquetvia objects to the usage of the term "IMPROVING the human rights of Religious leaders".

This statement gives the imputation that religious leaders deserve greater human rights than other people, and that they should be improved.

The statement can also be read to claim that religious leaders are more human than other humans, so deserve more human rights.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia is concerned by these imputations, and recommends the removal of this phrase entirely, or the correction of this phrase so that these imputations are no longer apparent.

Once one group of people appears to have greater human rights than another, the consequences to all nations and the N.S.U.N could be disastrous...

-snip-

I think if you rolled this up into other more expansive protections of religious freedoms it would work a little better. I think the sentiment is good ("the civil government can recognize whatever it wants as marriage, but that does not force religions to follow in that"), but I think it'd do better to have more meat to it. And a sidenote, "Gay Rights" doesn't actually protect gays (not practically anyway--though it does signal support), marriage or discrimination-wise I wouldn't cite it as source of protection for gay marriage.

The above proposition is NOT homophobic nor discriminative.
Hmm. Bold and CAPS? It's GOT to be true! *



* Internet Law §17.121, Section B-13 - "Shouting and proper formatting makes all arguments TRUE!"

The UN would therefore MANDATE that all religious leaders be granted the CHOICE whether to conduct homosexual mariage ceremonies or not.As marriage services are a private service, they already have that choice, just as a clothes shop can chose to chuck you out for getting it on in the changing rooms or a bar can refuse to serve you because your irritating the other customers with your incomprehensable ramblings.
I don't think many couples would really want a service by a priest who wasn't in favour of the marriage anyway, so I don't think that any legistation should be nessersary.

Okay, taking the points given, would an Act defining the distinction between "religious" and "civil" mariage be more appropriate?

I agree the civil partnerships should be made availible to heterosexuals, why do so many hetero couples have church weddings? I think it's hypocritical, just as if I were to be married in a Mosque or a Synagogue.

And by the way, it was in bold so you didn't think it was part of the proposal.
I do now see though, that it's a bit of a damp squid, bureaucratic red tape nonsense... bit like the National Systems of Tax that I opposed. So if I could remove the proposal, I would, but it'll be there til wednesday.

And by the way, it was in bold so you didn't think it was part of the proposal.

Fris was just having some fun (which I feel is well-warranted, especially since we here in the forum have a tendency to take ourselves too seriously).

I do now see though, that it's a bit of a damp squid, bureaucratic red tape nonsense... bit like the National Systems of Tax that I opposed.

I disagree that National Systems of Tax is a piece of "bureaucratic red tape". I feel it protects an important right of nations--to decide their own taxation models and levels. I'm open to civil revision, though (I now understand that it might have unintended consequences on tariff legislation--which I'd be open to changing along with any other legitimate exceptions to taxation sovereignbty needing to be added). I've read a few pretty good suggestions from _Myopia_.

So if I could remove the proposal, I would, but it'll be there til wednesday Well, until then (unless you've given up on the idea as a whole), you could re-draft it and revise any mistakes or add (as I suggested) other suggested protections of national religions. I respect whatever you want to do, it's your choice.

Okay, taking the points given, would an Act defining the distinction between "religious" and "civil" mariage be more appropriate?

Not really. It opens you up to the same problems as before. Some nations only have religious marriages.

I agree the civil partnerships should be made availible to heterosexuals, why do so many hetero couples have church weddings? I think it's hypocritical, just as if I were to be married in a Mosque or a Synagogue.

Umm, they want to? It's one of those old traditions dating back to Roman times.

And by the way, it was in bold so you didn't think it was part of the proposal.
I do now see though, that it's a bit of a damp squid, bureaucratic red tape nonsense... bit like the National Systems of Tax that I opposed. So if I could remove the proposal, I would, but it'll be there til wednesday.

You can ask a mod to delete it. Try the moderation forum.

Oh, if you wish to add your efforts to getting the National Systems of Tax resolution repealed, please do so. We really need to get rid of worthless, waste-of-space resolutions that are of questionable legality anyway.

Oh, if you wish to add your efforts to getting the National Systems of Tax resolution repealed, please do so. We really need to get rid of worthless, waste-of-space resolutions that are of questionable legality anyway.

And, if you're going to add your efforts to getting it repealed, it is important that you Not submit a repeal of your own. This may seem counterintuitive, but it's necessary. The only way for a repeal to get to quorum is through a telegram campaign, and a telegram campaign requires you to tell delegates to find your repeal through the search function (there is the option of using links, but success with those is sporadic, at best), which means that you need your repeal to be first in the list (since only the first proposal or repeal with the word you're searching for is fetched by searches, and repeals all have the same name; at the time you submit your repeal it has to be the only one).

Anyway, don't submit your own. There are others trying to submit repeals, and too many repeals clogging up the proposal list will only make it nigh unto impossible to repeal it at all (I had to wait for no other repeals of "legalize prostitution", "Education for All", and "Required Basic Healthcare" before submitting those). The best way to support a repeal attempt is to telegram for it. And that, too, needs to be done with precision and coordination.

Of course, I disagree with DLE's assertions about "National Systems of Tax", especially about the resolution's legality--after "Nuclear Armaments" by Flibbleites was unanimously ruled legal. DLE, if you have misgivings about its legality, I sincerely hope you ask the mods. I am unaware of any legal problems in the resolution at present and should I be overlooking something that makes it illegal, I would be more than happy to learn about it.

Of course, I disagree with DLE's assertions about "National Systems of Tax", especially about the resolution's legality--after "Nuclear Armaments" by Flibbleites was unanimously ruled legal.

Which is why I said "questionable legality" instead of "illegal." I maintain a list of resolutions that are only just-barely legal, to see if the rules will eventually be manipulated to fo against them. The Eon Convention, for example, was of questionable legality before the rules on what is allowed for committees changed to go against it. Ironically, the part that was questionably legal wasn't the committee.

DLE, if you have misgivings about its legality, I sincerely hope you ask the mods. I am unaware of any legal problems in the resolution at present and should I be overlooking something that makes it illegal, I would be more than happy to learn about it.

It's legal, at least for the moment. However, you might want to look it up in the search engine and see what people have said.