NationStates Jolt Archive

The Nation of BistroLand has recently made a new UN Proposal and asks for delegates to provide support.


Repeal "Definition of Marriage"

Require marriage to be a civil joining between a man and woman.

1)Only a man and a woman can be married.

2) All nations of the UN should be forced to follow this repeal.






Please give me support to repeal UN Resolution # 81. :)

Repeal "Definition of Marriage"

Require marriage to be a civil joining between a man and woman.

1)Only a man and a woman can be married.

2) All nations of the UN should be forced to follow this repeal.

Is that the text of your proposal?

In any case, I will support a repeal of "Definition of Marriage".

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Why? Do you have an argument, or are you basing your proposal on religious dogma alone? I am all for repealing the resolution along sovereignty arguments, but you're proposing replacing one restriction with another. It's not a "brand new" proposal. It's been tried dozens of times, and has not yet to my knowledge gained even half the support it needs to even go to a vote. You want to lift the requirement that you adhere to a particular definition of marriage you don't like? Fine. I respect that. But I will not support a repeal that changes the requirement to a definition that I do not like. If you truly want to gain the necessary support for a repeal, try a different argument; one that doesn't involve trading a restriction for a restriction. It's already been proven that you're outnumbered on the ideological stage.

Is that the text of your proposal?

In any case, I will support a repeal of "Definition of Marriage".

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Thank you very much for your vital support.

That's my text, it's short and sweet. If it doesn't pass I will try again with a more intellectual text.

Why? Do you have an argument, or are you basing your proposal on religious dogma alone? I am all for repealing the resolution along sovereignty arguments, but you're proposing replacing one restriction with another. It's not a "brand new" proposal. It's been tried dozens of times, and has not yet to my knowledge gained even half the support it needs to even go to a vote. You want to lift the requirement that you adhere to a particular definition of marriage you don't like? Fine. I respect that. But I will not support a repeal that changes the requirement to a definition that I do not like. If you truly want to gain the necessary support for a repeal, try a different argument; one that doesn't involve trading a restriction for a restriction. It's already been proven that you're outnumbered on the ideological stage.

If the proposal does not get supported. I will try again with a different argument and more intellectual argument.

Please consider the argument and possibly support it.

Thank you very much for your vital support.

That's my text, it's short and sweet. If it doesn't pass I will try again with a more intellectual text.

I would suggest that a more intellectual text would be a good idea. As the representative from Xanthal noted, the majority of the members of the United Nations are ideologically opposed to the definition of marriage that you are proposing. In addition, it is against the UN proposal rules to make new legislation with a repeal. Repeals can only get rid of earlier legislation, not make new legislation. I hope this information helps you in re-drafting your proposal. Good luck, and feel free to contact me for help with re-writing the repeal.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Please consider the argument and possibly support it."Only a man and a woman can be married" and "All nations of the UN should be forced to follow this repeal" is not an argument. It is a statement. It also attempts to mandate a new, conservative definition of marriage; something a repeal should not do anyway. I will not trade a mandate that matches my moral compass for one that matches yours, and neither will the other Alphini.

I would suggest that a more intellectual text would be a good idea. As the representative from Xanthal noted, the majority of the members of the United Nations are ideologically opposed to the definition of marriage that you are proposing. In addition, it is against the UN proposal rules to make new legislation with a repeal. Repeals can only get rid of earlier legislation, not make new legislation. I hope this information helps you in re-drafting your proposal. Good luck, and feel free to contact me for help with re-writing the repeal.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I'm guessing my current proposal will probably not pass. However, if I make a new proposal in the future with 10 or so good reason why marriege should be between a man and a woman. Could I possibly get it to became a Resolution?

I'm guessing my current proposal will probably not pass. However, if I make a new proposal in the future with 10 or so good reason why marriege should be between a man and a woman. Could I possibly get it to became a Resolution?

Even with ten or so good reasons for marriage to be between a man and a woman, I seriously doubt the proposal would be passed. As I mentioned, too many UN members are ideologically opposed to your definition of marriage, and therefore you're not likely to get sufficient support for it to pass. You will need to take a different approach.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

It sounds to me like you are trying to mandate new legislation in your repeal which you are not allowed to do under the proposal rules (as far as I know).

In any event I would never support a repeal of this resolution on that argument (or on pretty much any other) as we believe in equality of all persons no matter what their sexual preferences and also believe in protecting the rights of all individuals from any form of discrimination, including who does and doesn't have the right to marry.

Even with ten or so good reasons for marriage to be between a man and a woman, I seriously doubt the proposal would be passed. As I mentioned, too many UN members are ideologically opposed to your definition of marriage, and therefore you're not likely to get sufficient support for it to pass. You will need to take a different approach.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

What would be the different approach?

:mad: :confused: :( :headbang:

Some delegate has deleted my repeal. The battle might be lost, but the war is certanly not over. :mp5:

The Nation of BistroLand has recently made a new UN Proposal and asks for delegates to provide support.


Repeal "Definition of Marriage"

This, so far is good. After this, it goes down hill REALLLL fast

Require marriage to be a civil joining between a man and woman.

You're repealing a resolution, you can't require anything

1)Only a man and a woman can be married.

Why? What is your reasoning for this limitation? Do you have a reason? Can you explain your reason? Can you argue it in such a manner that, and I note this as important, those that do not follow the same religion as you (assuming, of course, it is a religious argument) can be convinced?

2) All nations of the UN should be forced to follow this repeal.

Illegal and why it was deleted. You must first repeal, then send through a seperate resolution that mandates it as ONLY a joining between a man and a woman. The repeal MIGHT get through with a NatSov crowd support, but they will ditch you on the second half.

Please give me support to repeal UN Resolution # 81. :)

I have yet to see an actual good non-religious argument against allowing same-sex marriages. I have seen one non-religious argument against resolution 81 that I accept, but I don't support (NatSov). If you can give me a good non-religious argument against same-sex or...well....the joining of ANY adult couple of citizens of any nation - I don't even care what species they are as long as they are able to make known their wishes - then I MIGHT support it.

Repeal "Definition of Marriage"

Require marriage to be a civil joining between a man and woman.

1)Only a man and a woman can be married.

2) All nations of the UN should be forced to follow this repeal.
Err, why exactly is it that we should? Surely, you would provide us with a bit of an argument, so that we'd know why we were to do this?

Although it's a bit of a moot point, as repeals can't call for enforcement of new standards as you do.

1) Flies in the face of existing NSUN Resolution #13.

2) Might also fly in the face of existing NSUN Resolution #54.

3) Is repugnant to the notions of civil liberties and civil rights held very dear to the good people of Discordinia.

As a wise man once said, take your social regulations and shove 'em up your ass. :sniper:

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

I have a good non-religion comment.

The argument:

For all throught, history civilization have only allowed and followed marriage between a man and a woman. Even civilazations that have nothing to do with the Christian world; for example Eskimos and native American tribes have never had same sex marriadges either.

Some delegate has deleted my repeal.
Some Moderator, you mean. Complete with the reasons it was illegal, which have been enumerated quite well in this thread.

Violation! Too much RW analysis/reference.

It's a well known fact that at least two indiginous tribes of Discordinia practiced a primitive form of same-sex marriage -- through a ritual that, according to our historians and archaeologist, apparently (though confusingly) involved the consumption of snails and throwing of bovine excrement.

Though both tribes no longer exist - it is believed they did not die of any natural cause, but that they were abducted by beings from another planet who coveted the ancient Discordinians' tattooed skins.

Suffice it to say, the good people of Discordinia will not support this proposal.

I have a good non-religion comment.

The argument:

For all throught, history civilization have only allowed and followed marriage between a man and a woman. Even civilazations that have nothing to do with the Christian world; for example Eskimos and native American tribes have never had same sex marriadges either.

IC: This is far from true. There are several documented tribes that recognized those who's preference was far from norm. Believing the concept of "marriage" as we so call it (they just simply called it a spiritual bonding) was to be between those who committed themselves to one another as if they were family, these tribes believed that these members had the full rights of any spiritually bonded couple that were of opposite genders. Various rights were granted to those who were spritually bonded, the details of which I shall not go into here.

OOC: Up until 100 years ago, only one known civilization had treated women with a level of respect that would be equivelent to citizen....and that would be the Amazons. Up until 200-300 years ago, slavery was common practice throughout the world. I note that many great Empires of the past - including the Roman and Greek held both of these policies. And yet, both are now considered dispicable. Why?

Because our opinions on the world have changed.

History has shown us some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever known and that mankind has ever committed. Don't tell me that the past justifies the present.

"Only a man and a woman can be married" and "All nations of the UN should be forced to follow this repeal" is not an argument. It is a statement. It also attempts to mandate a new, conservative definition of marriage; something a repeal should not do anyway. I will not trade a mandate that matches my moral compass for one that matches yours, and neither will the other Alphini.
a statement i support!

a statement i support!Which ultimately means nothing. There are a variety of opinions on what ought to define marriage, and what, if any, alternatives should be made available to those outside that definition (civil unions). We think it best to eliminate the standing mandate so that each nation may make whatever laws on the subject they see fit. Whether that includes homosexuals, polygamy, and non-sentients; strictly defines a union between one man and one woman; or places guidelines anywhere in-between ought be of no consequence to the United Nations.

The Nation of BistroLand has recently made a new UN Proposal and asks for delegates to provide support.


Repeal "Definition of Marriage"

Require marriage to be a civil joining between a man and woman.

1)Only a man and a woman can be married.

2) All nations of the UN should be forced to follow this repeal.

Please give me support to repeal UN Resolution # 81. :)

Illegal.... Repeals cannot introduce new law.

I'm guessing my current proposal will probably not pass. However, if I make a new proposal in the future with 10 or so good reason why marriege should be between a man and a woman. Could I possibly get it to became a Resolution?

Repealing the DOM does not mean that marriage is confined to men and women alone in all UN member-states.... Repealing the DOM means that ALL MARRITAL LAWS DEFAULT BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR STATE... The repeal of the DOM will not, in the least, effect marrital laws (or lack thereof) in my nation-state (for example).... It does not really matter HOW MANY reasons you come up with, it's a waste of breath and time....

If you want reasons I would support, it would be based upon the idea that the UN has no business legislating marriage in the first place (not that we consider marriage legislation a good thing at ANY governmental level, really)...

I have a good non-religion comment.

The argument:

For all throught, history civilization have only allowed and followed marriage between a man and a woman. Even civilazations that have nothing to do with the Christian world; for example Eskimos and native American tribes have never had same sex marriadges either.

Real life refferences.... illegal.

I have a good non-religion comment.

The argument:

For all throught, history civilization have only allowed and followed marriage between a man and a woman. Even civilazations that have nothing to do with the Christian world; for example Eskimos and native American tribes have never had same sex marriadges either.
But they have. Several native American tribes did have unions between two members of the same sex.

you going to need a reason to get 3000+ people to vote on your side, from last vote but its not going to happen, that law is going to stay, i'll make sure of that!

Ignoring the blatant illegality of this repeal text, and the fact that remove the UN requirement to legalise gay marriage, you'd have to repeal more than just 1 resolution, let's look at the arguments presented thus far against gay marriage by its opponents:

- our religious dogma says it's bad
- most of the ancient cultures we can name didn't have it

These arguments are never applied universally by the vast majority of those who use them against gay marriage - almost none of these people advocate mandating attendance at their chosen places of worship, nor do they want food their religion deems unclean banned, and they aren't advocating the reinstitution of slavery and feudal rule (and I'm sure they'd be particularly displeased with Ancient Greek sexual practices).

So what exactly is it about gay marriage that means these principles ought to apply to it, but not to most other issues?

Please note resoultion 12:
"WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."
You would have to repeal multiple resoultions and then submit a new DOM for this to work.

The nation of Caersws cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the more conservative opinions listed above. Despite curtailing some freedoms of our people (we have laws against open racism and the advocation of political parties) the nation as a whole is dedicated to protecting non-harmful freedoms such as this even where they conflict with the feelings of our representatives.

To restate, Caersws cannot and will not support legislation restricting the freedom to choose one's own parter or differentiate between the types of civil unions offered in the fronts of taxation, adoption, or benefits (Though it reserves the right to instigate separate legislation for members of a union who are pregnant or who have recently given birth).

Ignoring the blatant illegality of this repeal text, and the fact that remove the UN requirement to legalise gay marriage, you'd have to repeal more than just 1 resolution, let's look at the arguments presented thus far against gay marriage by its opponents:

- our religious dogma says it's bad
- most of the ancient cultures we can name didn't have it

May the esteemed representative of _Myopia_ explain to the assembled members here why "our religious dogma say's it's bad" is an invalid argument?

Marriage is a social convention, and as such, falls under the regulatory power of society. And if a society--Ours, for example--chooses to use its religious dogma as guidelines for those regulations, by what right does the NSUN claim the authority to override them?

May the esteemed representative of _Myopia_ explain to the assembled members here why "our religious dogma say's it's bad" is an invalid argument?

Marriage is a social convention, and as such, falls under the regulatory power of society. And if a society--Ours, for example--chooses to use its religious dogma as guidelines for those regulations, by what right does the NSUN claim the authority to override them?
The reason I feel it is an invalid arguement is because it's YOUR dogma which is all fine and good but it is not MY dogma. I would not want to have it pushed on me by having a UN Proposal which is blatantly homphobic forcing me to change my laws to outlaw gay marriage which I do wish to have in my nation. At most I would support a definition of marriage to ban marriage to a non sentient but that is all. If Marriage is defined by the UN legislation as only a man and a woman, though this seems unlikely, then i would most probably leave the UN.

May the esteemed representative of _Myopia_ explain to the assembled members here why "our religious dogma say's it's bad" is an invalid argument?

Marriage is a social convention, and as such, falls under the regulatory power of society. And if a society--Ours, for example--chooses to use its religious dogma as guidelines for those regulations, by what right does the NSUN claim the authority to override them?

Actually, my point was not so much that it is an invalid argument, but that most of those who use the argument do so inconsistently. If these people have a principle of enforcing their religious dogma on something public, why is it just a few issues to which they apply the principle?

For instance, the justification given by many Christians opposed to gay marriage is that the law should at least partially reflect Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."). So why do they not insist equally that farmers leave the edges of their fields unharvested so that travellers and the poor may gather food from these parts (Leviticus 19:9-10 - ""When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God."") - clearly this is dictating a social duty on the part of farmers so is just as subject to society's diktats as is marriage (according to your argument). Or what about Leviticus 19:19 "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff." - if society can involve itself in farming practices by legislating on genetically modified foods etc., surely this is also society's business?

Going on, shouldn't adulterers be put to death (Leviticus 20:10 ""If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.")? And Leviticus 24:16 ("He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.") makes it the duty of the community (thus, it's society's business) to stone blasphemers.

I know that quoting absurd Levitican law is an unoriginal tactic, but I have yet to hear any argument as to why enforcing one of these principles and not the rest is anything but rank hypocrisy.

EDIT: I'm not sure what religion you have in your land that disapproves of homosexuality, but the same argument can apply to your religion - do you enforce in law all of its tenets which are of societal concern?

I know that quoting absurd Levitican law is an unoriginal tactic, but I have yet to hear any argument as to why enforcing one of these principles and not the rest is anything but rank hypocrisy.
I highly doubt tha you've never heard any argument as to why enforcing one of the pricniples and not the rest is not hypocrisy, as anytime there is a discussion on this, such arguments are submitted. Unless, you've never been involved in this debate of OT vs. NT, of course. Perhaps none of the arguments you've heard have met your fancy as "adequate", but that doesn't mean they aren't arguments. Actually it doesn't even mean they're inadequate, either. Just that you don't consider them valid.

The good people of Discordinia most certainly adhere to all tenets of our national religion ... and are thus most grateful that our national religion has very few, non-intrusive tenets to begin with. Of course, we are often presented with the case of an individual who refuses to use the Discordian Document Numbering System. But because our High Priest herself is confused as to what the System is exactly or how it functions, and because the Goddess appears to be both pleased with and amused by our confusion (as might be expected), we tend not to get terribly upset.

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

I highly doubt tha you've never heard any argument as to why enforcing one of the pricniples and not the rest is not hypocrisy, as anytime there is a discussion on this, such arguments are submitted. Unless, you've never been involved in this debate of OT vs. NT, of course. Perhaps none of the arguments you've heard have met your fancy as "adequate", but that doesn't mean they aren't arguments. Actually it doesn't even mean they're inadequate, either. Just that you don't consider them valid.

Sorry, I meant I've never heard a good argument.

As to NT/OT - most anti-gay-marriage Christians I've heard use Leviticus as their primary scriptural argument, so they ought to be campaigning for the rest of Leviticus to be enforced too. As to NT-based arguments, I'm sure I could go research the NT and dig up more things that these people don't want enforced. As far as I remember (not an expert, please correct me if I'm mistaken), much of the NT homophobery is by Paul, and he wasn't too supportive of women's rights - yet you don't see nearly so many Christians campaigning to abolish sexual equality laws as you do campaigning against gay marriage. Nor do you generally see the Christian right advocating the adoption of "turn the other cheek" policies regarding, for instance, capital punishment and responses to terrorism.

I highly doubt tha you've never heard any argument as to why enforcing one of the pricniples and not the rest is not hypocrisy, as anytime there is a discussion on this, such arguments are submitted. Unless, you've never been involved in this debate of OT vs. NT, of course. Perhaps none of the arguments you've heard have met your fancy as "adequate", but that doesn't mean they aren't arguments. Actually it doesn't even mean they're inadequate, either. Just that you don't consider them valid.

Last time someone pulled that one out of his hat, Hack dropped one line from the NT (I can't remember which one) that basically said "you still have to follow the OT"

Last time someone pulled that one out of his hat, Hack dropped one line from the NT (I can't remember which one) that basically said "you still have to follow the OT"

"Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusively for them that believe in it. Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that believe in it on the supposition that they'll go there if they don't.
HBT; The Gospel According to Fred, 3:1

The reason I feel it is an invalid arguement is because it's YOUR dogma which is all fine and good but it is not MY dogma. I would not want to have it pushed on me by having a UN Proposal which is blatantly homphobic forcing me to change my laws to outlaw gay marriage which I do wish to have in my nation. At most I would support a definition of marriage to ban marriage to a non sentient but that is all. If Marriage is defined by the UN legislation as only a man and a woman, though this seems unlikely, then i would most probably leave the UN.

Esteemed delegates and representatives: Are any of you so blind as to not see the hypocricy of this stand? It is all well and good, it seems, for the NSUN to pass legislation forcing a society to violate its religious tenets under the disguise of so-called "human rights". But if that society chooses to stand up and say, "This is how Our people intend to run their affairs", they are shouted down as "oppressive".

Indeed, Our "dogma" is not the same as the esteemed representative of Tajiri_san's. But just as they wish for Us not to impose it upon them, We desire only to be free of the NSUN's "dogma".

I'm confused. Definition of Marriage allows socially conservative nations the opportunity to mitigate some of the effects of the more radical legislation such as Gay Rights. Repealing this particular resolution is not in your interests, unless you intend to undertake the laborious process of repealing every single piece of legislation that relates to this issue.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Text for Definition of Marriage.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #81

Definition of Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Vastiva

Description: 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.


Votes For: 11,904
Votes Against: 7,473

Implemented: Thu Nov 25 2004

Ok, I've seen every argument on what marriage is and what it should be. If your talking about what should be legal, or what role should the government play in such a union, the answer is simple: no marriage. No marriage in the religious meaning of the word. There should only be civil unions, carried out by government officials in courthouses, or other government estabolishments. When religion is one with government ,as we see very commonly throughout the world today and in the past, only harm can come of it. No "marriage" between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. If the couple then wants to be married, they go to a priest, or rabbi, or what have you and marry "before god" or whatever they would like.

so people who have been married for 30 40 , 50 years will now have their marriage annulled?

Governments do not legislate on Religious Marriages, but rather Civil Marriages.

Couples should be able to be married by the Justice of Peace.

forcing a society to violate its religious tenets

oops False.

I say no civil marriage, only religious marriage. What is the government doing messing with religion?

Ok, I've seen every argument on what marriage is and what it should be. If your talking about what should be legal, or what role should the government play in such a union, the answer is simple: no marriage. No marriage in the religious meaning of the word. There should only be civil unions, carried out by government officials in courthouses, or other government estabolishments. When religion is one with government ,as we see very commonly throughout the world today and in the past, only harm can come of it. No "marriage" between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. If the couple then wants to be married, they go to a priest, or rabbi, or what have you and marry "before god" or whatever they would like.

Oh please. As the son of a couple who were married in a courtroom, I don't believe for a second that you go to a rabbi or priest or whatever to be married. Marriage has for a LONG time been seperate of the church.

Civil marriage IS a civil union, and anyone who believes that marriage is religious context by default is fooling themselves. When you find out that two people are married, do you think love or God first? Most people I know would believe love first. Why are people trying to make it God?

The sheer ignorance being exhibited in this debate is frightening.

Ok, I've seen every argument on what marriage is and what it should be. If your talking about what should be legal, or what role should the government play in such a union, the answer is simple: no marriage. No marriage in the religious meaning of the word. There should only be civil unions, carried out by government officials in courthouses, or other government estabolishments. When religion is one with government ,as we see very commonly throughout the world today and in the past, only harm can come of it. No "marriage" between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. If the couple then wants to be married, they go to a priest, or rabbi, or what have you and marry "before god" or whatever they would like.

The only difference between "civil union" and "marriage" is that in the english language, the latter has greater connotations of love and commitment than the rather cold-sounding "civil union". Thus, by denying the irreligious the right to call themselves married, you are engaging in petty labelling which gives the impression that a religious "marriage" is more meaningful than an irreligious "civil union".

It is already the case, in most places, that civil and religious marriages are separated. You can go and be officially married, and thus recognised by government as a couple. You can also, generally, go to a priest/rabbi/whatever, and have a marriage ceremony "before god", without actually signing a legal document.

I say no civil marriage, only religious marriage. What is the government doing messing with religion?

It's what the government is good at. I think most governments outlawed the sacrifice of virgin women, which is the key part of some religions.

You can either have total freedom of religion, and the total freedom for all religions to carry out their sacrements as they desire, or you can have government interference.

So if a government can prevent the Faith of Klandation from sacrificing eighteen year old virgins then it can require that the same faith marry two people of the same sex.

Or it should be able to.

the Empire of Kirisubo has no problem with the original resolution that was passed.

Why repeal it?

its fair to say in most countries a civil joining is separate from a religious one.

it seems that the issue is same sex marriages rather than the repeal of the orignal resolution.

governments will always have some control over the religions their people follow but this is more concerning the laws of the land rather than a dogma.