NationStates Jolt Archive

Marriage Across Borders

Category: [Pending: Human Rights?]
Strength: [Pending: Mild?]
Proposed By: [Pending: Tekania]

RECOGNIZING that marital rights can be denied to those immigrating or entering as refugees into another member-state.

NOTING previous resolutions by these United Nations to secure the rights and responsibilities of citizens of our member-states regarding marriage and/or other such civil unions.

UNDERSTANDING the importance of the rights and responsibilities conveyed and/or incurred upon spouses in marriages and/or other such civil unions.

We, the member-states of these United Nations hereby resolve to the following:

I. Licenses and/or other such civil contracts acquired and/or granted to or by the citizens of any member-state, pursuant to marriage, civil union or any such like form or function, bringing persons into civil and/or marital union must be honored by all other member-states within the scope of the following provisions:
A. If the citizen is granted immigration rights, entering into the receiving state, all normal rights, responsibilities or other such duties granted to the citizens of said receiving state shall be transferred in total to the existing marital union acquired under the laws of the originating state, regardless whether the parties to the marriage are applicable under the laws of the receiving state.
B. If the citizen is under visa, passport, or in any way legally visiting the receiving state, though not resident, all rights pursuant to legal identification and visitation rights pursuant to hospitalization and/or penal confinement shall be granted as if the marriage were legal under the provisions of the receiving state’s own laws. However, no fiscal rights or responsibilities are requisite to such rights, and left to the determination of the receiving state.
C. If either party was a citizen of the receiving state at the time of the marriage in the originating state, no requisite is upon the receiving state for acceptance, recognition and/or honoring of the marriage as a conveyance of said rights between each spouse.
D. All civil licensure, contract, or other such documentation provided, or created under the provision of the originating state must bear the signatures of each and/or all spouses; along with the signatures of at least (but not limited to) two witnesses who were present at the time of the signing of the document by the spouses, but may not be the spouses themselves.
II. Annulment, dissolution or any other such ending of the marital union by the receiving state, acquired or granted under the laws of the originating state is restricted under the following:
A. In the case of a naturalized citizens, the receiving state may not annul, dissolve, or in other such way put an end to the civil union or other such like unless by the consent of at least one direct party to the marriage.
B. In all other cases, the receiving state shall have no rights to annul, dissolve, or in any such other way put an end to the marriage acquired legally under the provisions of the originating state.


Suggestions, comments, etc.

ok, lets say the couple crossed the border into Kirisubo.

We wouldn't have any problem with them. theres already local laws to cover same sex marriages.

it may also be a good idea to check if any other UNR covers this.

There's no way the people of Cluichstan would ever support this. Under this proposal, if someone from Nation X, where citizens are allowed to marry their pet gerbils, should move to Cluichstan, we would be required to honor that "marriage" and extend all rights thereof to that person and his "spouse." No offense to my esteemed colleague from Tekania, but that's absolutely ludicrous.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

There's no way the people of Cluichstan would ever support this. Under this proposal, if someone from Nation X, where citizens are allowed to marry their pet gerbils, should move to Cluichstan, we would be required to honor that "marriage" and extend all rights thereof to that person and his "spouse." No offense to my esteemed colleague from Tekania, but that's absolutely ludicrous.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

How did the Gerbil sign the contract, license, or other such document, as required under provision 3?

How did the Gerbil sign the contract, license, or other such document, as required under provision 3?

Um...with a pen? :(

Either way, it's not within the UN's purview to force one nation to accept another's definition of marriage and grant the rights thereof based upon said definition, plain and simple.

Um...with a pen? :(

Either way, it's not within the UN's purview to force one nation to accept another's definition of marriage and grant the rights thereof based upon said definition, plain and simple.

Why? The current proposals asks us to accept the justice of another country in our borders, so why not accept the marriage licence of another nation in our borders?

Why? The current proposals asks us to accept the justice of another country in our borders, so why not accept the marriage licence of another nation in our borders?

Because my country shouldn't be forced to accept it.

Because my country shouldn't be forced to accept it.

But - as I said - the current proposal forces me to accept the justice of another nation within my borders. So if their justice is good enough to force on me, why not their marriage licence?

And quite honestly your country should grow up and stop living in the dark ages.

Um...with a pen? :(

And hense, the bomb drops upon your argument...



Either way, it's not within the UN's purview to force one nation to accept another's definition of marriage and grant the rights thereof based upon said definition, plain and simple.

And there it is, the REAL argument! One wonders why you even joined the United Nations. Was it to troll, or did your leaders have a lapse in judgement and reasoning capacity when they joined?

And hense, the bomb drops upon your argument...

Not on the whole argument, just the example.

And there it is, the REAL argument! One wonders why you even joined the United Nations. Was it to troll, or did your leaders have a lapse in judgement and reasoning capacity when they joined?

Cluichstan joined to address issued that should be addressed by an international body, not petty things that can be handled on the national (or even lower) level.

And quite honestly your country should grow up and stop living in the dark ages.

For the edification of my esteemed colleague, Cluichstan permits homosexual marriage. The point was that we don't believe that, just because we accept it, other nations must.

I like this. Am all for ideas that extend protection to people from a governments oppression and discrimination, especially when that government isn't their own. It is something that crosses borders too, so this is something the UN should look at.

For the edification of my esteemed colleague, Cluichstan permits homosexual marriage. The point was that we don't believe that, just because we accept it, other nations must.

Then, on that point at least, you have my respect. And an addition to the answer - "then other nations should grow up" :}

Not on the whole argument, just the example.

The example was an attempt at an argument, and was shot down...


Cluichstan joined to address issued that should be addressed by an international body, not petty things that can be handled on the national (or even lower) level.

And the honoring and recognition of peoples legal unions while abroad, is not an international concern? This resolution merely REQUIRES that existing legal contracts, obtained to enter people into union within one state, be honored by other states for those traveling across borders... Thus, it is INTERNATIONAL in scope, because such an issue CANNOT be handled at a national level alone. How am I to ensure that my citizens marrital unions are to be honored when they are abroad with national laws? National laws only exist within the jurisdiction of the nation which passed them. Since this deals with people crossing borders, it's international in scope.

In any case, I do not recognize the Ambassadore from Cluichstan; I am here to listen to recommendations and alterations to the draft.

The opposition can hold its tongue untill such time as the thing enters proposal stages.... You're wasting valuable space.

I think it is very well written, and falls in line with the other two resolutions without modifying them or appending/amending them at all.

It's good!

I would suggest getting a mod to give it a look-over - you don't want to submit it, then get a warning for a House-of-Cards violation or somesuch.

Otherwise, it's a good way of covering (albeit only just) new ground for proposals.

Given that all UN nations' marriage laws are nearly identical under Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage, this act is purely unnecessary. When nations are bound by international edict to recognize within their own borders all civil unions of two persons (excluding limitations on the age of those who can marry), why would they refuse to accept any such unions performed in other nations?

This legislation may be useful in the event that Resolution #81 is repealed, but not now.

And there it is, the REAL argument! One wonders why you even joined the United Nations. Was it to troll, or did your leaders have a lapse in judgement and reasoning capacity when they joined?*ahem* ... Speaking of trolling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9798339&postcount=47) ....

The only problem I can see with the act maybe is that a nation may seek to avoid following a national law within their borders by having an airplane, moving to another nation to marry, and then arrive back. While marrying giberls may be impossible, incest may be supported by this act.

But I accept it, and the problem I raised up is very minor indeed, and can be resolved with national laws being amended to account for this.

Given that all UN nations' marriage laws are nearly identical under Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage, this act is purely unnecessary. When nations are bound by international edict to recognize within their own borders all civil unions of two persons (excluding limitations on the age of those who can marry), why would they refuse to accept any such unions performed in other nations?


But in my nation we don't stop people getting married because they are different sexes, but we do stop them getting married if they don't follow the marriage ritual - they need witnesses and so forth.

And, it follows, that if Hyrule has a marriage ceremony that requires killing a dragon and forging a stream, then they might not accept we are married because we did not follow that ritual.

They would not be able to stop us marrying in Hyrule, provided we slay a dragon and forge a stream, but they would not have to accept we are married until we do.

(I am guessing "full faith and credit" would be the US version of this, though I am not an expert on US law, obviously).

But in my nation we don't stop people getting married because they are different sexes, but we do stop them getting married if they don't follow the marriage ritual - they need witnesses and so forth.

And, it follows, that if Hyrule has a marriage ceremony that requires killing a dragon and forging a stream, then they might not accept we are married because we did not follow that ritual.That is an example of stretching too far to find potential problems. Except in this case, it's reaching to find support.


As I'm reading this, since every reasonable coupling is already enshrined in UN law, I see no need for this. I don't know if it's enough to kill this thread (it may just be useless as opposed to illegal), but it's pretty damn close.

Given that all UN nations' marriage laws are nearly identical under Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage, this act is purely unnecessary. When nations are bound by international edict to recognize within their own borders all civil unions of two persons (excluding limitations on the age of those who can marry), why would they refuse to accept any such unions performed in other nations?

Definition of parties applicable to the marriage [DoM, #81] has nothing to do with this resolution. This deals with creating international mandate for all UN members to accept and honor the legal licensure and procedures from other member-states regarding people who are already married.

The resolution does not define marriage, nor does it deal with applicable parties, nor particularly protect one single gender or ethnic group... Nor does it particularly rely upon any particular previous resolution.

Why? The current proposals asks us to accept the justice of another country in our borders, so why not accept the marriage licence of another nation in our borders?
Why? Because justice in one country is not justice in another country. Citizens of a country have a right whether to decide if mother daughter marriages shouild be recognized in their country (unless this, too, is protected under DoM, I forget). It's a miscarriage of the democratic process. If a law is enacted in an area, it needs to be under that area's democratic consent. Otherwise its little more than a UN dictatorship.

Why? Because justice in one country is not justice in another country. Citizens of a country have a right whether to decide if mother daughter marriages shouild be recognized in their country (unless this, too, is protected under DoM, I forget). It's a miscarriage of the democratic process. If a law is enacted in an area, it needs to be under that area's democratic consent. Otherwise its little more than a UN dictatorship.

Sorry - I meant the current proposal at vote - Diplomatic Immunity. It basically says that within your nation there will be little bits of the country that don't follow your rules of justice. Instead they follow the justice of another country that you have no control over.

If that is acceptable to so many people (which it looks like it will be, since it is going to pass) then why is the idea of getting someone to accept that Mr Smith is married to Mr Jones in another country so hard?

We agree that no nation should be forced to endure the definition of marriage which might be claimed in another nation.

We are actively working for the repeal of the present Resolution #81 on the 'definition' of marriage, which is all-too-loose.

This resolution, which would force us every nation to accept the defintion of any other nation, regardless of the conflicts it might cause in their legal system, is rife for abuse.

Example:

Nation TaxSchemersRUS decides to create marriage between weathly billionaires and hamsters.

After a honeymoon timed in miliseconds, they divorce the hamster, and in the divorce proceedings leave them with all the liabilities and debts they owe.

The hamster, not speaking English very well, and with a poor lawyers, accepts the divorce uncontested.

The hamster's lawyers then declares bankruptcy.

The billionaire walks away with a clean balance sheet.

With this provision, you need to allow those sorts of marriages in your country.

And with the present definition of Resolution #81, this sort of "marriage" is possible and tolerable.

We would urge nations to be more prudent in their creation of international resolutions which define this sort of domestic law.

We would also urge nations to encourage, but not mandate, the recognition of forms of marriages of other cultures.

In the best sense, it is quite cosmopolitan and civilized.

However, unfettered, it becomes a means to outrightly abuse legal systems.

-snip-

We do not care... This is a DRAFT... You can decide your acceptance when such point is actually reached.

Untill this, you will be treated as spam.

The people of Cluichstan note that the representative of Tekania appears unable to reply to the statements of another representative without resorting to hostility and flaming.

Tekania,

NO. It has nothing to do with Listneisse's judiciary.

Because you are entitling every other UN member nation, no matter how antithetical to your own, psychotic, clownish or contrarian, to be able to pass laws which have jurisdiction and authority in your nation.

Do not blame Listeneisse for this kind of foolishness. We are strenuously arguing against it.

It is not (just) our laws from Listeneisse, but all other member nations', who you shall have to deal with.

We find that this sort of law, well-meaning and idealistic to begin with, is hardly ever looked at from its ludicrous but obvious wrongful application.

There are many nations in the world who will abuse marriage laws. Give them an inch, and they'll take their 50% of communal property.

Replace the hamster in the example with stooge or willing conspirator, and it has the same effect.

You are hereby mixing your legal system with the legal systems of other nations. Your tax law, your probate law, your divorce law, your child custody laws -- all revolve around marriage laws.

For our purposes, we in Listeneisse do not want to hinge all our family structure on the whims of the darkest, wierdest, wildest and or blithely empty minds the UN has to offer.

Are there reasonable nations whose marriage customs we would respect and honor? Yes.

But we don't wish to honor and have to cater to all of them.

The people of Cluichstan note that the representative of Tekania appears unable to reply to the statements of another representative without resorting to hostility and flaming.

They actually have to make a valid statement [and not create fake strawmen]; if they expect my civility to return.

As soon as Listeneisse [or you for that matter] add something constructive; you'll see the hostility evaporate. Untill then, for each worthless word that comes from your mouth, it will increase. Neither you nor Listeneisse are welcomed in this thread.

I have already layed out the intents, and am looking for critisism to alter the existing text and form compromise. And rules were already layed out about WHAT would be accepted in this thread.... Feel free to oppose a PROPOSAL... This is not even a proposal yet!

As such, you and Listeneisse are not providing any usefull information. Persuant to the motification of this [DRAFT]. So civility is out the window.

I do not CARE whether or not you or Listeneisse supports this or not... Neither of your voice matters to the future submission of this draft...

As I stated before, when this is SUBMITTED, feel free to campaign against it all you like... Untill then, shut up, and butt out... You're wasting valuable space that could be used to alter and refine the draft... Your voice means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and will in no way effect when or IF the draft actually become a proposal.... Got it? You're no welcomed here.

Just further proving my point...

An issue that might be a problem is that of bigamous or communal marriages. Whilst I wouldn't support the argument that nations which have moral objections to the notion that love might be shared between more than 2 people should be allowed to discriminate against such marriages purely on the basis of their moral code, there might well be serious practical problems if people in such a marriage were to move into a nation where the laws and economic practices simply were not structured to accomodate them.

-meaningless spam-

This is over... both of you are ignored, for spamming my thread.... You are no longer welcomed into any thread created by me....

DRAFT
SUBMITTED
PROPOSAL
AT VOTE

Learn what those mean....

Tekania,

We are not mocking your ideals, or the desire to respect the different forms of marriage which might be found in different nations. We sincerely hope to encourage nations to recognize different marriage customs, which may not be their own, and respect and honor them.

However, remember that for every idealist, there is also an opportunist, a zealot, a cynic, a fool, and a pragmatist.

You have to protect the idealist from the acts of the others in what you propose, and convince the pragmatist that this has a value they can quantify.

Right now, this is a highly risky proposition from a legal point of view, because it is rife for abuse. It is mandating that all UN nations cater to the most-outlandish member of the community without limitation.

Also, and quite seriously, though this is a rare example, there are cultures that do permit marriage to a dead person. (Who obviously cannot provide a signature.)

The marriage is between the deceased and a person who can claim they had been close in life. It is used in societies to honor such longstanding relationships, to give the survivor a chance to be allowed to gain widow or widower benefits, or simply to commit their hearts and souls to someone they love and miss.

All joking aside, such unions do exist, but would be forbidden by your proposal.

This is why we caution and urge the UN -- the world body -- to not force-fit all societies to adopt the same marriage customs and practices, but to uphold each independent society's individual right to honor marriage as they see fit.

Leave with states latitude to uphold their own marriage laws as they see fit.

There can be some convention of marriage practices that can be shared. There can be bodies of legal information shared so that it is easier to recognize marriages from one nation to another.

But it is dangerous to permit any one nation to foist its own internal system on all other UN member nations unilaterally.

What might be legal in TaxSchemersRUS (thus conforming to your provision #1) might not quite cut the mustard in Listeneisse or Tekania. And if it is a blatant abuse of your local law, you cannot do anything about it.

Do not undercut your own government's ability to police itself.

Again, we urge you to think through abuses of the system, and ensure that there are provisions to allow for local jurisdiction to prevail.

One last thing: You are sort of missing the concept of a democracy by calling us spammers.

While you are free to not read what we have to post, and you are certainly free to not respond, you are not free to tell us to leave a thread on a topic proposed before the UN for open debate and vote. We may not agree with you, but that does not give you the right to stop democratic debate.

I shall ask you to remember what a democracy is, thank you.

This is over... both of you are ignored, for spamming my thread.... You are no longer welcomed into any thread created by me....

DRAFT
SUBMITTED
PROPOSAL
AT VOTE

Learn what those mean....

Civility
Courtesy
Etiquette
Intelligence
Maturity
Open-mindedness

Learn what those mean.

OOC: "My thread" indeed... :rolleyes:

Despite that I relenquished my UN membership some eons asgo, I feel maybe I should point out one very important arguement... the need for consent. After all, when its two adults consenting, it is very different than if two underage kids decided to marry, as most nations would require parent consent and define minors as not having the ability to sign a contract, thus nulling the marriage once the two in question are back in their homeland.

Even if they are legally married, marriage is a legally binding contract and if the country from when the two came don't recognise minors as having the ability to sign a contract, then it would mean that it is null and void, does it not?

Or... another situation, a minor and an adult? Sure the adult can consent, but the minor doesn't have that right because under almost any juridiction they aren't considered age of majority.

The only way to overcome this is to allow for a provision that gives consent from the parents should they not reside in the nation, under whose jurisdiction the marriage takes place.

I'm only bringing this up because marriage in a civil sense is really a legal binding contract and regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, et cetera, and requires that both parties consent and are able to legally sign a contract without parental or guardian permission.

With this provision, you need to allow those sorts of marriages in your country.


Ok - given your whole arguement is that you desire national sovereignty, the fact you can chose to allow or not allow the above situation is the most ludicrious example I have ever heard.

Despite that I relenquished my UN membership some eons asgo, I feel maybe I should point out one very important arguement... the need for consent. After all, when its two adults consenting, it is very different than if two underage kids decided to marry, as most nations would require parent consent and define minors as not having the ability to sign a contract, thus nulling the marriage once the two in question are back in their homeland.

Even if they are legally married, marriage is a legally binding contract and if the country from when the two came don't recognise minors as having the ability to sign a contract, then it would mean that it is null and void, does it not?

Or... another situation, a minor and an adult? Sure the adult can consent, but the minor doesn't have that right because under almost any juridiction they aren't considered age of majority.

The only way to overcome this is to allow for a provision that gives consent from the parents should they not reside in the nation, under whose jurisdiction the marriage takes place.

I'm only bringing this up because marriage in a civil sense is really a legal binding contract and regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, et cetera, and requires that both parties consent and are able to legally sign a contract without parental or guardian permission.


The resolution provides for age to be a factor on which a marriage can be rejected.

There is one question I would like to raise regarding the proposal.

If a couple legally married say from the Central Republic X moved to New Poitiers, where their marriage is not recognised because it does not fall into the category of accepted religious ceremonies of New Poitiers, what do you mean by "lose all rights associated with their legally obtained marriage?"

New Poitiers is all for diversity, we are not a secular nation, we believe firmly in the tolerance of diverse ceremonies. But before I pledge my support in this proposal, I would like to be clear on what the proposal proposes.

New Poitiers is all for diversity, we are not a secular nation, we believe firmly in the tolerance of diverse ceremonies. But before I pledge my support in this proposal, I would like to be clear on what the proposal proposes.

The people of Cluichstan respectfully submit that, perhaps, my esteemed colleague from New Poitiers misunderstands the meaning of "secular."

OOC: Not trying to be an ass here, mate, just a bit confused at to what you meant here, that's all. :)

The people of Cluichstan respectfully submit that, perhaps, my esteemed colleague from New Poitiers misunderstands the meaning of "secular."

OOC: Not trying to be an ass here, mate, just a bit confused at to what you meant here, that's all. :)

I understand "secular" to be an adjective whereby the person in question has no religious belief. This is only true of a small minority of the people of New Poitiers.
We accept all religions, and whereas we do not force Religion and Spirituality on our esteemed citizens, our profile clearly states our clear government investment on the subject, and a recent government survey found that around 79% of New Pictaviens (the people of New Poitiers) attend religious worship once a week or more.

OOC: I do accept you maybe were confused to my slightly ambigous wording. For that please accept my profuse apologies.;)

But the government of New Poitiers is secular then, right?

Complete Redraft:


Marriage Across Borders

Category: [Pending: Human Rights?]
Strength: [Pending: Mild?]
Proposed By: [Pending: Tekania]

RECOGNIZING that marital rights can be denied to those immigrating or entering as refugees into another member-state.

NOTING previous resolutions by these United Nations to secure the rights and responsibilities of citizens of our member-states regarding marriage and/or other such civil unions.

UNDERSTANDING the importance of the rights and responsibilities conveyed and/or incurred upon spouses in marriages and/or other such civil unions.

We, the member-states of these United Nations hereby resolve to the following:

I. Licenses and/or other such civil contracts acquired and/or granted to or by the citizens of any member-state, pursuant to marriage, civil union or any such like form or function, bringing persons into civil and/or marital union must be honored by all other member-states within the scope of the following provisions:
A. If the citizen is granted immigration rights, entering into the receiving state, all normal rights, responsibilities or other such duties granted to the citizens of said receiving state shall be transferred in total to the existing marital union acquired under the laws of the originating state, regardless whether the parties to the marriage are applicable under the laws of the receiving state.
B. If the citizen is under visa, passport, or in any way legally visiting the receiving state, though not resident, all rights pursuant to legal identification and visitation rights pursuant to hospitalization and/or penal confinement shall be granted as if the marriage were legal under the provisions of the receiving state’s own laws. However, no fiscal rights or responsibilities are requisite to such rights, and left to the determination of the receiving state.
C. If either party was a citizen of the receiving state at the time of the marriage in the originating state, no requisite is upon the receiving state for acceptance, recognition and/or honoring of the marriage as a conveyance of said rights between each spouse.
D. All civil licensure, contract, or other such documentation provided, or created under the provision of the originating state must bear the signatures of each and/or all spouses; along with the signatures of at least (but not limited to) two witnesses who were present at the time of the signing of the document by the spouses, but may not be the spouses themselves.
II. Annulment, dissolution or any other such ending of the marital union by the receiving state, acquired or granted under the laws of the originating state is restricted under the following:
A. In the case of a naturalized citizens, the receiving state may not annul, dissolve, or in other such way put an end to the civil union or other such like unless by the consent of at least one direct party to the marriage.
B. In all other cases, the receiving state shall have no rights to annul, dissolve, or in any such other way put an end to the marriage acquired legally under the provisions of the originating state.

I do not CARE whether or not you or Listeneisse supports this or not... Neither of your voice matters to the future submission of this draft...

As I stated before, when this is SUBMITTED, feel free to campaign against it all you like... Untill then, shut up, and butt out... You're wasting valuable space that could be used to alter and refine the draft... Your voice means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and will in no way effect when or IF the draft actually become a proposal.... Got it? You're no welcomed here.What about a moderator? Do you care what he thinks (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9813690&postcount=20)?:

As I'm reading this, since every reasonable coupling is already enshrined in UN law, I see no need for this. I don't know if it's enough to kill this thread (it may just be useless as opposed to illegal), but it's pretty damn close.

We agree that no nation should be forced to endure the definition of marriage which might be claimed in another nation.

We are actively working for the repeal of the present Resolution #81 on the 'definition' of marriage, which is all-too-loose.

This resolution, which would force us every nation to accept the defintion of any other nation, regardless of the conflicts it might cause in their legal system, is rife for abuse.

Example:

Nation TaxSchemersRUS decides to create marriage between weathly billionaires and hamsters.

After a honeymoon timed in miliseconds, they divorce the hamster, and in the divorce proceedings leave them with all the liabilities and debts they owe.

The hamster, not speaking English very well, and with a poor lawyers, accepts the divorce uncontested.

The hamster's lawyers then declares bankruptcy.

The billionaire walks away with a clean balance sheet.

With this provision, you need to allow those sorts of marriages in your country.

And with the present definition of Resolution #81, this sort of "marriage" is possible and tolerable.

We would urge nations to be more prudent in their creation of international resolutions which define this sort of domestic law.

We would also urge nations to encourage, but not mandate, the recognition of forms of marriages of other cultures.

In the best sense, it is quite cosmopolitan and civilized.

However, unfettered, it becomes a means to outrightly abuse legal systems.

International TaxSchemersRUS Inc. do not like this slander against our business. Marrying hamsters to rich businessmen has been a right enjoyed in many nations around the world, and it should be accepted by the UN as a legal and pratical marriage. Many a rich person has been taunted due to their marriage to hamseters, causing them much anguish. We support this amendment to recognize hamster/rich businessman unions and we hope that it will become a more widespread and accepted tradition.

What about a moderator? Do you care what he thinks (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9813690&postcount=20)?:

Actually, in this case... No, I do not....

Since this has nothing to do with enshrining any particular forms, or parties to marriages under UN law. And does nothing to even attempt to define applicable parties to any particular marriage in any particular state or states (present national and international law does that just fine...)

Is not covered, or handled by any previous resolution.

And addresses only the issue of the conveyance of proper rights regarding already existing marriages (and not new ones) in present national and/or international marrital legislation...

No previous resolution lays out a system, or application for the conveyance, allowance, or requirements of rights persuant to existing marriages in transfer from any particular state... They only define, or enshrine, rights persuant to actually ENTERING a marriage.... But do not necessitate rights persuant TO the marriage, nor proper recognition of the existing marriage (or transfer of licensure and contract to new jurisdiction)...

Ahem (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450344).

Simmer down folks.

Ahem (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450344).

Simmer down folks.

Bravo!

Honestly guys, drafts are just that - drafts. They are meant to be on here to:
A) Seek consultation on possible improvements
B) Test the waters to see what level of support there is to such a draft.

At least those are the reasons I post my drafts. Whatever reasons you guys post them, those are what I seek to do with any draft that I see.

If a nation does not agree with one of my drafts, then I'd expect them to say so, and leave it at that. I'm a firm believer in keeping quiet if I'm incapable of saying anything positive - it doesn't always work that way, but I try. :)

I know when I post a draft it's unlikely it will be supported by everyone who lurks on here, so I'm not going to get upset by the occassional objection - it's water off a ducks back. Nation A says they'll never support it - fine if nation B, C and D like it then I've got a broad consensus and the UN can vote on the proposal as they like :)

Secondly, I like to be open minded about comments and suggestions when I post a draft, and I'd like to feel that if I am submitting positive suggestions or observations that they will be listened to and actioned upon in an equally positive manner. Otherwise, what is the point of posting drafts on here? Why would nations submit drafts if they are incapable of accepting positive suggestions?

I appreciate governments who take the time out to post drafts on here - I feel it generally makes for better proposals. But if those who comment can't say anything positive, it puts governments off submitting drafts in the future.

Seriously guys and gals, play nicely, kiss and make up :)

And finally, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all ;)

Quick thought though - what's wrong with gerbils marrying? I'm sure there must be worlds out there with fully sentient gerbils with the capacity to speak and protest against this organisations descrimination of their kind. Heck, there were arguements about elves not being covered in resolutions, so why not gerbils? If a gerbil is talented enough to write, I imagine it's talented enough to get married :D

Yes I am making fun of you guys. Honestly some of you guys are soo overdramtic.

But the government of New Poitiers is secular then, right?

If I might observe for the edification of my esteemed colleague from Cluichstan, if the government of New Poitiers were secular, then the investment of Religion and Spirituality would be non-existant. As it happens it is a medium-sized proportion of our budget. The people of New Poitiers elected us, we represent them.

Ah, very good. Thank you for the clarification.

The resolution provides for age to be a factor on which a marriage can be rejected.
Given the nice and vague wording of this draft proposal, I couldn't decipher wherein this restriction comes into play. Please provide the passage, otherwise, it is one of many flaws which would make it unfavoubrable by nations who might besides that small point, vote in favour...?

Given the nice and vague wording of this draft proposal, I couldn't decipher wherein this restriction comes into play. Please provide the passage, otherwise, it is one of many flaws which would make it unfavoubrable by nations who might besides that small point, vote in favour...?

You are absolutely correct... There is none.. Nor would there be... Nor would I add one... This has little to do, but create some form and function of jurisdictional responsibilities over marrital rights.... Partial (in the case of those travelling (or visiting) other states legally); and Complete (in the case of those being naturalized as citizens into the new state)...

To all:

What this effectively does is:
1. Within immigration, once a person is naturalized as a citizen of a particular state; the state is required to recognize any and all existing marrital contracts (that meet the minimum criteria listed in Article I-D); and they are to be provided equal rights and benefits as would be given to any form of legal marrital (or civil) union in your own state.
2. Within those visiting foreign states, the state must grant a party bearing the same legal licensure (or the like, once again meeting the criteria of Article I-D), who is a legal and valid visitor (under the appropriate documentation as such required by your state, or international laws); that they be afforded VERY specific rights and benefits persuant to their marriage (such as familial rights associated with legal defense, and penal and hospital visitations; as may normally be restricted in applicability).
3. It allows for specific restrictions on applicability (as far as marriages that might be made outside of the scope of national law upon her citizens); namely a person temporarily leaving one state, to visit, and marry within another. (Article I-C)


Article II is related, but much shorter, and limited. Effectively it deals with what would be abuse of power by national leaders.

1. Article II-B deals with those legally visiting. While the state must accept marriages with the minimum provided criteria (in I-D); the state has been given no actual jurisiction over the marriage... It still is a marriage created by laws which are foreign to their state, and effectively the marrital document is the legal property of the foreign state (not subject to the laws of this state). So a government (or leader) may not create law or decree, dissolving the license or contract (as such would be effectively a breech of jurisdictional rights).
2. II-A deals with naturalized citizens of the state. While the contract pre-existed, the contract is effectively transferred to state jurisdicton. However... To protect the interest of said party; the state is restricted from dissolving the marriage without anyone IN the marriage's consent. I.E. so a despot cannot naturalize a foreigner, and then declare his marriage anulled. (Basically, abuse of power).

There may be some worry over immigrants who may hide previous marriages, during naturalization. This can be handled at state level. Just make the revelation of previous legal documents persuant to such mandatory during the process... If they lie about them, it can add effective grounds to revoke their status, and deport them... Easy as cake... (I won't add this in here; no point, the state is not restricted upon how it is to handle it's immigration policies). Also, there is no requirement for the state to naturalize anyone. A state theoretically could deny naturalization based upon discrimintory practice of existing marriages... There is no legal restriction based upon such.

Is there a pressing need for this resolution?

Is there really a problem with people crossing borders and not having their partners recognized that hasn't already been addressed? And if so, in the places this happens, do they really want to travel there?

Suggested friendly amendment:

II.
A. In the case of naturalized citizens, the receiving state may not annul, dissolve, or in other such way put an end to the civil union or other such like unless by the consent of at least one direct party to the marriage.

(Take out "a" before naturalized)

As for II.B., here you might find something more contestable, but let us put forward the case:

Overseas Divorces

Allow nations to grant and recognize divorce decrees of foreign nationals, with full faith and credit, so long as 1) at least one of the parties of the marriage obtains domicile in the nation where the divorce is conducted, 2) all parties of the marital union recieve adequate notice, and 3) so long as the state wherein the marriage was constituted recognizes divorce. Allow nations wherein the marriage is registered the right to question, contest and hold invalid such divorces if they are not satisfied regarding adequate notification or proper domicile in the foreign country.

This allows overseas nationals the right to obtain local divorce in whatever country they are in without having to change citizenship or return to their home nation.

It seems to me this legislation is nothing more than an attempt at amending Resolution #81. It: 1) Proposes a stronger definition of marriage (likely because Listeneisse pointed out that Res 81 neglected to include consent as part of the definition), and 2) moves to enforce the definition of marriage where Res 81 simply "defines" the act.

Consequently, in our view, this proposal is borderline illegal. We would strongly recommend that you support the repeal of Resolution #81 and then propose replacement legislation (which would include both the definition of marriage and your enforcement measures) instead of trying to amend it.

Or you could adopt our view, which is that the United Nations should not be legislating on marriage anyway. Repeal #81 and enough of this nonsense.

It seems to me this legislation is nothing more than an attempt at amending Resolution #81.

It isn't a ammendment...


It: 1) Proposes a stronger definition of marriage (likely because Listeneisse pointed out that Res 81 neglected to include consent as part of the definition),

It does not propose any definition of "marriage", "civil union" or any similtude to the construction of such... Where you get that idea, I have no idea.


and 2) moves to enforce the definition of marriage where Res 81 simply "defines" the act.


First there would need to be a definition. There is none... The only thing it enforces, if very particular rights towards the recognition of marrital unions upon very specific situations, providing very specific protections.


Consequently, in our view, this proposal is borderline illegal. We would strongly recommend that you support the repeal of Resolution #81 and then propose replacement legislation (which would include both the definition of marriage and your enforcement measures) instead of trying to amend it.

I don't support the repeal of Res #81, it's a fine Resolution... I'd repeal Gay Rights long before Res #81, simply because Res. #81 would make a fine NatSov resolution, in the absense of Gay Rights.


Or you could adopt our view, which is that the United Nations should not be legislating on marriage anyway. Repeal #81 and enough of this nonsense.

I don't support your view.... It's not well constructed. Nor consistent. NatSov is not an absolute in my book.

Could the representative from Tekania offer response to the suggested amendments offered by the Kingdom of Listeneisse?

*snip*
Or you could adopt our view, which is that the United Nations should not be legislating on marriage anyway. Repeal #81 and enough of this nonsense.

The people of Cluichstan couldn't agree more.

Could the representative from Tekania offer response to the suggested amendments offered by the Kingdom of Listeneisse?

They are under review at present...

EDIT: I-A is easy.... II-B is going to take some thought to slide into... [though not sure about full implimentation as such; my slight NatSov leanings tend to dislike the idea of allowing states to shirk the jurisdictional authority of another state... And make legal declarations upon the laws of another state... And creating a system whereby one state must recognize the decisions of a foreign court; does not sit well in my stomach...]

It isn't a ammendment [sic]...Keep reading.

It does not propose any definition of "marriage", "civil union" or any similtude to the construction of such... Where you get that idea, I have no idea.Oh, I don't know; maybe from your proposal itself?:

D. All civil licensure, contract, or other such documentation provided, or created under the provision of the originating state must bear the signatures of each and/or all spouses; along with the signatures of at least (but not limited to) two witnesses who were present at the time of the signing of the document by the spouses, but may not be the spouses themselves.As already noted, this proposal seems to add a consent clause that was left out of Res #81.

First there would need to be a definition. There is none... The only thing it enforces, if very particular rights towards the recognition of marrital unions upon very specific situations, providing very specific protections.Of course there's a definition; it's outlined in Res #81, and this act seeks to enforce it.

Therefore, this is practically an amendment to #81.

I don't support the repeal of Res #81, it's a fine Resolution... I'd repeal Gay Rights long before Res #81, simply because Res. #81 would make a fine NatSov resolution, in the absense of Gay Rights. ... I don't support your view.... It's not well constructed. Nor consistent. NatSov is not an absolute in my book.I'm not gonna touch this. I may have mentioned national sovereignty elsewhere, but not on this thread.

I would also add that it is indeed curious that amidst the recent furor over #81 Definition of Marriage, with opponents arguing that it lacks a consent clause and thus allows all sorts of unconventional unions, and "proponents" arguing that it only defines marriage and doesn't compel nations to do anything about it, suddenly a proposal comes along that does include a consent clause and does compel nations to recognize unions performed in other nations. "Not an amendment," huh?

That said, we have dispensed with this matter, and wish not to discuss it further. This will be our last post on this thread. Thank you.

Keep reading.

Oh, I don't know; maybe from your proposal itself?:

As already noted, this proposal seems to add a consent clause that was left out of Res #81.

That's not a definition, nor is it ammending any new clause to #81. That is dealing with the construction and minimal information that is to be contained within civil marrital (or contractual marrital) documents, for the purpose of authenticity verification for the purpose in change of venue or civil jurisdiction of the union.


Of course there's a definition; it's outlined in Res #81, and this act seeks to enforce it.

Therefore, this is practically an amendment to #81.


Three is no such thing as "practically" an ammendment; it either is one, or it isn't. For something to "Ammend" something else; it must change the previous operations of that which it is ammending.

This does not change the definition of the legal term "marriage". => No amendment.


I'm not gonna touch this. I may have mentioned national sovereignty elsewhere, but not on this thread.

I would also add that it is indeed curious that amidst the recent furor over #81 Definition of Marriage, with opponents arguing that it lacks a consent clause and thus allows all sorts of unconventional unions, and "proponents" arguing that it only defines marriage and doesn't compel nations to do anything about it, suddenly a proposal comes along that does include a consent clause and does compel nations to recognize unions performed in other nations. "Not an amendment," huh?

That said, we have dispensed with this matter, and wish not to discuss it further. This will be our last post on this thread. Thank you.

Compels in very specific cases, namely, in smaller aspects of those visiting a state, and in complete aspects for those naturalized... No, it's not an amendment, and merely because the illiterate want to continually act like fools, and read things into resolutions WHICH ARE NOT THERE... Does not change the fact that this IS NOT an AMENDMENT, as it changes no definition of the term, absolutely no part of the DoM.

#81 -> "Marriage == Civil Union"

This one -> Process and requirements for recognition of civil unions between differing states, with clause of jurisdictional authority of those unions.

To declare this as an amendemnt of Res #81; would be as ridiculous as trying to claims the following are amendments of one another:


Murder is defined as the unlawfull killing of one person by another.


Murder casses shall be tried under the jurisdiction wherein the murder took place. Minimum Evidentiary requirements shall include the following: [list of requirements]