NationStates Jolt Archive

UNDERSTANDING that the issue of Homosexual Rights under the laws of UN member nations is a valid one, we the Republic of Daiokura believe that a more socially equitable resolution to this problem can be found in our body of law.

SEEING Resolution 12 as an egregious infringement on the rights of religions worldwide, we have prepared our proposal in advance of this appeal to repeal.

THEREFORE we humbly request that Resolution 12 be repealed in preparation for our proposal to provide our solution.


In response to the few less than kind responses we have recieved over this, we wish to assure this body that our proposal is not 'haha god h8ts f4gs' or anything of its ilk. For your concideration, our future proposal is below.

UN MARRIAGE ACT
To eliminate government-caused discrimination against religious sects and less common unions.

"Wheras it can be stated that resolution twelve infringes on the rights granted to religious sects around the nations of the UN,

"Wheras said resolution infringes upon the rights of nations that specifically define 'marriage' as an institution joining one man and one woman,

"Wheras said resolution causes civil upheval in nations not conserning themselves in the joining of two individuals,

"Knowing that the spirit of resolution twelve is social equality for homosexual joinings of all applicable types,

"Committing ourselves to re-granting full freedom of religion back to the various religious sects around the world,

"Understanding that marriages in any religion are joinings in the eyes of a Deity,

"Understanding that any particular deity cannot be consulted directly on this issue,

"Understanding that many nations have rule of law determining the separation of religion and government,

"Therefore resolving that the institution of marriage is to be under the sole jurisdiction of the various religious sects of the world, never to be infringed upon by any state, regional, or UN mandate, resolution, and/or law,

"Denying that any secular government has any right to marry two individuals,

"Understanding that not all people choose to subject themselves to any religion,

"Requiring the states of the UN to civilly join two people regardless of sexual orientation, age, race, or disability,

"Understanding that these arrangements can recreate the gulf of social inequity,

"Commanding that nations under jurisdiction of the UN must treat marriages and civil joinings without specific regard, granting the same civil, economic, medical, legal and parental rights status to both,

"Recognizing the single difference between a marriage and civil union is that a religious institution has recognized the joining in the eyes of their Deity, as well as the state, wheras those civilly joined are recognized only by the issuing nation

"Therefore granting religious sects the proprietary right to marry two persons, setting forth to nations the task of protection of the rights of joinings not endorsed by religious institutions, and setting forth equal secular footing for joinings of both natures.


We are aware that our proposal may have offended far more liberal nations.
We hope this clarification aleviates their concerns.

The Praetor reseats herself, and takes on an expresson akin to a poker face.

Unfortunatly, you haven't seen Resolution 81: Definition of Marriage (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680061&postcount=82).

Plus there is the fact that no resolutions forces religious institutions to marry anyone. Common Law marriage has been in existence for centuries, and does not require any religious element.

On a side note - your repeal resolves to do something - but the ONLY active clause of repeals is....the repeal. You cannot ammend or resolve any new action in a repeal

For starters, as Enn says, you will need more than one repeal before you can submit the text above. Secondly, _Myopia_ is not happy with the notion of "civil unions" for non-religious persons. In our culture, and I suspect in many others, the label "marriage" has very strong connotations, which are distinctly more romantic than the rather dull-sounding "civil union". Since today's religions did not invent the concept of marriage and hold no right to claim sole ownership of it, we see no reason to surrender the term "marriage" to them and settle for "civil unions". This amounts to little more than a statement that religious marriages are more worthy than non-religious ones - discrimination by labels (especially since in your proposal marriage is not simply an additional label conferred by a church on couples who have civil unions - it appears to be an entirely separate institution). It is clear that even many advocates of this policy feel that "marriage" suggests a more special relationship than "civil union", since they seem so eager to reserve it only for themselves (the argument that marriage is historically religious is irrelevant, because if/when religions invented marriage, this language didn't even exist).

No UN legislation requires that religious institutions be made to perform any type of marriage, so religions are in no way suffering from an infringement of rights.

If the UN was to pass this, it would effectively be a tacit agreement by this body that religious marriages existing under a deity are "better" than non-religious ones - and we feel strongly that no governmental body should take positions on matters of theology.

(Sorry, all of that was kind of disjointed. Hope my various points come across properly)

Finally, your proposal doesn't take into account the fact that many nations allow marriages involving more than two people.