NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Definition of Marriage"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #81
Proposed by: Listeneisse

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

Argument: We, the United Nations,

DECLARING United Nations Resolution #81, "Definition of Marriage," lacks a sufficient definition of marriage: it fails to note what marriage is, what it is for, and, most importantly, what does not and should not constitute a marriage,

UPHOLDING marriage is an institution whose purpose, legal standing and foundations have naturally evolved to mean different things in different cultures, requiring more careful and clarified articulation,

EXPRESSING regretfully it does not permit any nation nor religion the right to further limit or define for itself what constitutes a lawful civil marriage or sacred marriage ceremony, violating both national sovereignty and freedom of religion,

NOTING Resolution #81 lacks any stated provision or guarantee marriage must be a knowledgeable and consensual act of the individual,

FURTHER NOTING it does not guarantee any personal freedoms or rights, nor delineate any responsibilities that come with marriage,

CONCERNED its loose and debatable terminology tacitly requires all member nations to recognize practically any relationship that is styled "a marriage" performed in any other member nation, no matter how egregious this might impact their own nation's laws and community standards, which can encourage and lead to purposeful fraud and abuses of marriage law by persons taking advantage of this resolution's broad and nebulous definition,

RECOGNIZING the broad and vague language of Resolution #81 fails to expressly uphold the rights of nations to control marriage law, which impacts many aspects of family, property, tax, insurance, probate, immigration, contract and liability law (among other legal effects),

DESIRING to avoid member nations having to recognize all worst possible abuses of the term made possible by Resolution #81, without possibility of appeal or relief,

CONCERNED that its minimalistic terminology supercedes stronger pre-existing local definitions of marriage, which greatly damages and erodes the legal status and subsequent welfare of individuals, especially women and children,

DESIRING to provide one or more replacement Resolutions with more precise definitions and delineations addressing more fully the issues cited above,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #81.

As of today, Friday, 21 Oct 2005, this resolution can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=definition%20of%20marriage) if you are a delegate and would like to support it reaching quorum.

We thank the delegate from James_xenoland who got in there before we even had a chance to approve our own submission!

Approvals: 2 (James_xenoland, Listeneisse)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

[Edit: We have put in a link that will keep pointing to the proposed resolution as it moves up. We thank Hirota for their kindness in showing the method to put such a link in place.]

As of today, Friday, 21 Oct 2005, this resolution can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=54) if you are a delegate and would like to support it reaching quorum.

It will slide further in the queue over the days ahead; we;ll do our best to keep the link updated, but if you fail to spot it, search up a bit further.

We thank the delegate from James_xenoland who got in there before we even had a chance to approve our own submission!

If you ask nicely, I'll show you how to do a URL to your proposal which won't need to be updated.

I disagree with every one of your points, except for the first line.

Oh - hold on. The first line says "We, The United Nations", so it would be done in my name as well.

Okay - I disagree with every one of your points.

But as I have already spent most of my life (so it seems) arguing about this, that is all I have to say.

I disagree with every one of your points, except for the first line.

Oh - hold on. The first line says "We, The United Nations", so it would be done in my name as well.

Okay - I disagree with every one of your points.

But as I have already spent most of my life (so it seems) arguing about this, that is all I have to say.

Heh, you disagree with a lot of things, although I admire your eloquence and how you do still manage to write in a positive manner. :)

ooc : Hirota,

Could you <operative emphasis="nice">please</operative> TG me with how to do a link without having to update? I would be very appreciative.

You have our support. Good luck with your campaign.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Thank you very much, Ambassador.

we fully agree that #81 could be better written, and love and esterel will support repeal based on a larger project including a new draft as replacement

but sorry:

"violating freedom of religion"

#81 don't impose any religion to do anything nor restrict religion freedom anywhere

we hope this repeal will be classified as illegal



UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #81
Definition of Marriage


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.

we fully agree that #81 could be better written, and love and esterel will support repeal based on a larger project including a new draft as replacement

but sorry:

"violating freedom of religion"

#81 don't impose any religion to do anything nor restrict religion freedom anywhere

we hope this repeal will be classified as illegal


Sssssshhhh...don't nitpick. I just want it repealed.

Sssssshhhh...don't nitpick. I just want it repealed.

i'm ok with you we are in favour of a repeal
but even if they are not law, we cannot accept denigration in the text of repeals

The people of Cluichstan respectfully submit that we are simply more interested in the results than in the semantics involved in achieving them.

The people of Cluichstan respectfully submit that we are simply more interested in the results than in the semantics involved in achieving them.
As is The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The people of Cluichstan respectfully submit that we are simply more interested in the results than in the semantics involved in achieving them.


Love and esterel don't think it's legal to have a false and disparagingly argument in the text of a repeal

Honest Mistakes violation

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't

The people of Cluichstan respectfully submit that we are simply more interested in the results than in the semantics involved in achieving them.

And the people of Pallatium respectfully submit that "the ends justifies the means" is a logical fallacy, and has been the cause behind some of the most horrific and hideious crimes in history.

But that doesn't mean it is always wrong.

But that doesn't mean it is always wrong.

That is a debate for a different thread.

But that doesn't mean it is always wrong.

anyway we don't care, false arguments are illegal

EXPRESSING regretfully it does not permit any nation nor religion the right to further limit or define for itself what constitutes a lawful civil marriage or sacred marriage ceremony, violating both national sovereignty and freedom of religion,

To me that says there is a loophole in this resolution (caused by it's vagueness) that would allow churches to be forced to marry someone they don't want to.

The original resolution does not specify whether it is talking about opening up marriages preformed and recognised by the state or church.

Personally I couldn't care less what any church that I don't attend thinks about my marriage only that the government allows me to marry whoever I want.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

To me that says there is a loophole in this resolution (caused by it's vagueness) that would allow churches to be forced to marry someone they don't want to.

The original resolution does not specify whether it is talking about opening up marriages preformed and recognised by the state or church.

Personally I couldn't care less what any church that I don't attend thinks about my marriage only that the government allows me to marry whoever I want.


#81 don't ask churches or any religion to celebrate marriage they don't want
Churches always can marry who they want

#81 only defines marriage, it does nothing else, it's why i favour a repeal

=> We think legislation is an important topic, even for repeal, and we oppose the use of false and disparagingly arguments in UN legislation

#81 don't ask churches or any religion to celebrate marriage they don't want
Churches always can marry who they want

#81 only defines marriage, it does nothing else, it's why i favour a repeal
Your church is not forbidden to celebrate only marriage between people with eight from 1m70 and 1m80

Who does it define marriage for? As a UN resolution the answer would be the member nations but it could be argued that, as the resolution places no restrictions in this area, religious organisations are also subject to this definition.

We're as secular as they come but we recognise that religions like to place (sometimes) unfair restrictions on it's members. As long as no one is forced to follow a religion it shouldn't be a problem.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

as the resolution places no restrictions in this area, religious organisations are also subject to this definition.

Then, all resolutions who defines something violates freedom of religion?

Without an example of these definitions I could not say either way.

I can say that the original resolution does not limit were the definition should be applied.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I can say that the original resolution does not limit were the definition should be applied.
you mean:
=> every resolution should say that they are not to be applied on religious matter?
#81 limit nothing and violate nothing (apart from the age limit)

Religion don't have the duty to marry everyone who aks them to be married, they can choose, the only limit is that they will not be able to marry people under the age defined by article One of the Child Protection Act

you mean:
=> every resolution should say that they are not to be applied on religious matter?

No. I mean a resolution that's soul purpose is to define should tell us what context the definitions should be applied too.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

#81 only defines marriage, it does nothing else, it's why i favour a repeal



Its a resolution called "Definition of Marriage" that - in your words - defines marriage and does nothing else.

I would call that a fantastic resolution that should be protected at all costs - simply because it does what it says it will do, and doesn't try to do anything it doesn't do.

Its a resolution called "Definition of Marriage" that - in your words - defines marriage and does nothing else.

I would call that a fantastic resolution that should be protected at all costs - simply because it does what it says it will do, and doesn't try to do anything it doesn't do.

But the UN has no business defining marriage in the first place.

you mean:
=> every resolution should say that they are not to be applied on religious matter?
#81 limit nothing and violate nothing (apart from the age limit)

Religion don't have the duty to marry everyone who aks them to be married, they can choose, the only limit is that they will not be able to marry people under the age defined by article One of the Child Protection Act

But the resolution does say that if the government sets down standards for what is a marriage, then they must abide by those standards for every couple that meets them, whether the couple are the same sex, religion, whether they marry in a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.

No. I mean a resolution that's soul purpose is to define should tell us what context the definitions should be applied too.



i agree with you, it's why i will favour a repeal, but it's not telling us where freedom of religion is violated

But the UN has no business defining marriage in the first place.


i don't disagree with you, maybe we the UN can authorize marriage regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color.... without defining it, i have no pb wih that

But the resolution does say that if the government sets down standards for what is a marriage, then they must abide by those standards for every couple that meets them, whether the couple are the same sex, religion, whether they marry in a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.

Does it mean that since #81 was passed: Catholics churches, synagogues, mosque … had married same sex couples?

Of course not

Does it mean that since #81 was passed: Catholics churches, synagogues, mosque … had married same sex couples?

Of course not

But they don't have to!! That is my exact point!!

Churches can decide who they chose to marry, and who they don't. I don't really give a flying monkey if any church can't grow up enough to accept the world is changing. If the Religious Tolerance resolution means anything then it means that I have to accept the fact there are some religions that are bigoted, homophobic, racist and generally childish. And I am happy to do that.

Because it doesn't matter.

What matters is that my sister and her partner when they marry, and my partner and I when we married, had a civil ceremony that fit the laws of my nation, and so we are officially recognized as married by The UN, because of this resolution.

We fail to see the importance of the UN recognising a marriage.

The UN doesn't. It forces the member nations too.

By allowing one group to marry and another not to the government is making a comment about what type of people it sees as desirable. This is what I, and my country, want to prevent.

It doesn't mean I like the way 'Definition...' is written.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The UN doesn't. It forces the member nations too.

By allowing one group to marry and another not to the government is making a comment about what type of people it sees as desirable. This is what I, and my country, want to prevent.

It doesn't mean I like the way 'Definition...' is written.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World
This ties in fully with the Ennish view of this resolution.

Plus, having the quote allows me to ask about 'Rose'. Where's Des and Giordano? Did he really get abducted by aliens?

The UN doesn't. It forces the member nations too.


See - this is why I should let you talk for me more often. That is what I meant by "recognized by the UN". It just didn't come out that way :}

Repeal "Definition of Marriage" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=48)

As of this day, we are making progress.

Approvals: 17
Status: Lacking Support (requires 111 more approvals)

We thank the UN Delegates who have already given their support to this resolution, and hope that we may find others of a like mind for it to achieve quorum.

In answer to the violation of religious beliefs, there are some religions that believe parties of a wedding should be of the same faith to be wed of that faith. Moreover, they often wish to limit recognized marriages to only two persons.

The present resolution does not, for instance, limit a person from coming home from overseas with a second wife, or a harem of men. Which may certainly shock the local parson, never mind the existing spouse. It makes no limitation on foreknowledge or consent of the other marriage partners, which can violate their religious beliefs. Nor does it require or even allow the state to grant its permiss to the union, which might be whole or partly theocratic.

I'd put that all down as a violation of religious beliefs, thank you.

"Allow anyone to marry anyone" sounds nicely libertarian and democratic. We certainly would like to see more marriage, and more successful marriages, than less.

However, it sounds more libertine and debauched to others, and leads to other legal nightmares if conducted questionably or entirely unregulated.

SLI Sector:

"We support this resolution and hope it reaches quorom. I will talk to my regional delegate about supporting the resolution."
---
International TaxSchemersRUS Inc.:

We are against this resolution. This resolution shall destroy a legit and totally legal business like us, creating a loss of jobs and a rise in unemployment. It will also decrease the economy of the countries we deal with.

But most importantly, rich billionaries will never be able to marry their gerbils...how sad!

We ask all sane citizens not to accept this repeal.

We also ask all billionares with debts to consider sending us a TG about arranging a marraige with a gerbil today! Remember, a gerbil is not just a loyal pet, it is also a loyal spouse!

In answer to the violation of religious beliefs, there are some religions that believe parties of a wedding should be of the same faith to be wed of that faith.

What if some religions believe parties of a wedding should be of the same skin color to be wed of that faith?

Then the UN would not able to allow people with different skin color to marry?, as the UN would then violate some religious beliefs!

=> please, i hope you will delete any reference to violation of religious belief in your next repeal of #81, this is a lie

It should be remembered that this repeal does not intact laws banning any form of marriage. It will, however, allow us to write a better definition - with limitations - that doesn't include non-consensual marriage.

Hopefully this will still protect inter-racial and inter-faith marriages as well as marriage between people of different (sentient) species.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Hopefully this will still protect inter-racial and inter-faith marriages as well as marriage between people of different (sentient) species.


i hope not, it will violate my religious beliefs;)

This is an updated draft of a proposed replacement. Please discuss what you feel are its merits and weaknesses, to make it as strong as possible before submission.

We, the United Nations,

DESIRING to create a common definition of marriage all member nations may adhere to without unduly impinging upon societal laws and customs while balancing the rights of individuals and religious communities,

DECLARES marriage as the union of private individuals which, for purposes of the state, grants various customary and legal statuses, rights and responsibilities, including (but not limited to) forms of address, naming and personal expression, domestic partnership and cohabitation, sexual relations, parental authority over children (if any), and applications to business, tax, contract, property and probate law,

REQUIRES marriage take place between consenting legal adults (even if the marriage was arranged or contracted by others),

AFFIRMS each nation's right to maintain laws regarding marriage, such as (but not limited to) granting or withholding specific status, rights and responsibilities associated with the union of marriage, setting the number of permissible simultaneous partners, requisites of exogamy or endogamy, the entry into or ending of marriage based on life status (alive or dead), relations between species and entities beyond human, laws of separation, annulment, divorce and post-marriage relations, and to allow local laws regarding marriage practices so long as they conform to all UN Resolutions,

ENCOURAGES nations recognize each others' marriage practices, and grant legal recognition to individuals married by foreign laws, so long as those practices abide by UN Resolutions,

PROHIBITS nations from enacting laws limiting or requiring marriage on the basis of the individual’s ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, age (other than requiring adulthood), gender, sexual orientation, fertility, or other physical attributes not directly related to health and safety,

UPHOLDS the rights of each state to set forth its own proceedings for civil marriage, such as who may perform a wedding and under what circumstances, and requisites such as personal identification, personal background checks, establishing residency, personal counseling, testing for health purposes, public witness, and formal licensing,

REQUIRES states permit each religious community to maintain its own definition and practice of marriage customs and ceremonies in accord with its faith, which it may apply to members of its denomination, and which may differ from those of the state,

RECOGNIZES states may confer legal recognition upon marriages performed by religious ceremony, or withhold recognition if those practices contradict national or local law, and may require a civil marriage irrespective of a religious marriage ceremony,

UPHOLDS the rights of religious leaders to conduct marriage ceremonies, and if the state so grants, to simultaneously serve in the role of actor for the state in the conduct of civil marriage,

UPHOLDS the rights of each state to recognize or not, as they so deem fit, a common law marriage, wherein a verbal or written contract is made between partners, without a religious ceremony or civil marriage license.

Whether the above is submitted as one resolution, or two with some clear delination of component parts, it is far more complete and clear than the current definition given by Resolution #81.

We look forward to your thoughts to improve it.

Should Def. of Marriage be repealed, I will be supporting your proposed replacement. That does not mean I'll support the repeal, though.

One observation: it would seem the repeal-replacement idea hasn't filtered fully out. Some delegates have commented that it is ridiculous to get rid of a piece of legislation and then replace it a month later. They are here only considering the spirit of the law, not the letter. Nonetheless, I suggest that if you do choose to go for a repeal-replacement, you try your best to inform delegates during the repeal process of your intentions. Noting such ideas in the repeal text may not be enough in and of itself.

Indeed, we had done so during an earlier repeal effort for Resolution #81; the above was taken from that earlier thread.

Yes, there is no guarantee that if #81 is repealed we will have a replacement, but that is our hope.

Who does it define marriage for? As a UN resolution the answer would be the member nations but it could be argued that, as the resolution places no restrictions in this area, religious organisations are also subject to this definition.

We're as secular as they come but we recognise that religions like to place (sometimes) unfair restrictions on it's members. As long as no one is forced to follow a religion it shouldn't be a problem.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

NSUN resolution must be specific, where the resolution is silent, NAtional laws reign.... Such, unless DoM actually SAID that it was taking an action agaisnt anything other than the State... It simply isn't.

Any other interpretations is merely false attempts to appeal to the base emotions of people to garner support for repeal.

The UN doesn't. It forces the member nations too.

By allowing one group to marry and another not to the government is making a comment about what type of people it sees as desirable. This is what I, and my country, want to prevent.

It doesn't mean I like the way 'Definition...' is written.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Actually, no it doesn't.

Since the "civil standard" in the DoM, is not set. The only state which is forced to recognize the marriage is within the civil jurisdiction wherein the marriage took place.

No other member-state is required to recognize anything... Simply because the marriage was not "civil" within those state's legal jurisdictions....

And there is not present precedent to necesitate any state to recognize the legally constituted marriages that occur in another state...

In answer to the violation of religious beliefs, there are some religions that believe parties of a wedding should be of the same faith to be wed of that faith. Moreover, they often wish to limit recognized marriages to only two persons.


And? This resolution does not prevent the faiths from recognising that. The people can chose to follow that faith, and that belief, but the resolution neither requires them to or not require them to.


The present resolution does not, for instance, limit a person from coming home from overseas with a second wife, or a harem of men. Which may certainly shock the local parson, never mind the existing spouse. It makes no limitation on foreknowledge or consent of the other marriage partners, which can violate their religious beliefs. Nor does it require or even allow the state to grant its permiss to the union, which might be whole or partly theocratic.


And this is a good thing. Because in those religions where polygamy is acceptable, they will still be recognised as married by The Nation, and in those religions where polygamy is unacceptle, no one will do it anyway.

So why do you have issues with this?

The resolution makes no comment on faith or religion - it just says that if two people fit the criteria for being married, the nations must recognize them as such.


I'd put that all down as a violation of religious beliefs, thank you.


Then I say you are misguided, and enacting dangerous legislation under a false and misleading basis.


"Allow anyone to marry anyone" sounds nicely libertarian and democratic. We certainly would like to see more marriage, and more successful marriages, than less.


On one thing we agree.


However, it sounds more libertine and debauched to others, and leads to other legal nightmares if conducted questionably or entirely unregulated.

It is NOT unregulated. Nothing in the resolution says the nation can not regulate marriage. Nothing says you can not tax, draw up contracts, put boundries and so forth on marriage. It just says that the tax, the contracts, the boundries must be applied equally to ALL couples, regardless of creed, colour or gender or any other criteria that a nation can use to interfere with the lives of those it morally disapproves of.

This is an updated draft of a proposed replacement. Please discuss what you feel are its merits and weaknesses, to make it as strong as possible before submission.



Whether the above is submitted as one resolution, or two with some clear delination of component parts, it is far more complete and clear than the current definition given by Resolution #81.

We look forward to your thoughts to improve it.

It does nothing that the current resolution doesn't, except allow nations to be discriminatory and bigotted and enshrine those loathsome abilities in law.

Unsurprisingly I feel that supporting it would not be an option.

It does nothing that the current resolution doesn't, except allow nations to be discriminatory and bigotted and enshrine those loathsome abilities in law.

Nations have that right, and "loathesome" is relative.

Nations have that right, and "loathesome" is relative.

Nations should not have that right, and if "loathsome" wasn't relative the UN wouldn't exist.

ooc : Hirota,

Could you <operative emphasis="nice">please</operative> TG me with how to do a link without having to update? I would be very appreciative.

I'll do both, use a URL of this:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=

And add key words at the end - in this case marriage.

If you have additional words, (such as definition), then you can seperate each with a %20.

Thus we get:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=definition%20of%20marriage

Sadly, you cannot include repeal in the search string.

It does nothing that the current resolution doesn't, except allow nations to be discriminatory and bigotted and enshrine those loathsome abilities in law.

Unsurprisingly I feel that supporting it would not be an option.
I believe your own loathesome bigotry is reflected by such statements.

People, and responsible nationstates, wish to have a reasonable and clear definition of marriage, affirming their rights, protecting their beliefs, and not destroying their laws.

You are apparently satisfied to prevent that.

As of tonight, only 35 nations have supported the repeal. It shall expire on this Monday. We are likely going to resubmit it.

If there are any actual suggestions to edit or amend the proposal before resubmission, other than simple "I won't vote for it!" distractions, please post them below.

The present resolution guarantees no specific limitations to what marriage is or isn't.

But by its loose and imprecise definition of marriage, it prevents UN nations from clearly making their own determination of what constitutes the definition of marriage and leaves highly questionable any international rights or recognitions for the married persons.

I believe your own loathesome bigotry is reflected by such statements.

People, and responsible nationstates, wish to have a reasonable and clear definition of marriage, affirming their rights, protecting their beliefs, and not destroying their laws.

You are apparently satisfied to prevent that.

You know what? You are right. Wanting to let people marry despite the wishes of the homophobes, the racists, the religious right, the "I am holier than thou" brigade, the "moral majority" who believe they know what is best for everyone is clearly a bigotted thing to do.

Letting two people be married just because they are in love - what was I thinking?

Letting the racists whims of a nation dictate that two of it's people can't marry just cause they have different colour skin - obviously something that should be supported and glorified.

Ensuring that people can be free to marry regardless of race, creed, colour, sexuality, gender, just because someone wrote a book that says it's a bad thing - not something worth fighting for.

Cause obviously letting individuals have the choice who they marry, as opposed to governments, is a loathsome and bigotted thing. I don't know what the hell I was thinking fighting for human rights and human dignity and freedom of choice all this time.

Glory, glory, I have seen the light. Who will join me in a chorus of "who gives a crap about human rights as long as we can feel good about our own prejudices"?


WILLOW: Sarcasm accomplishes nothing, Giles.
GILES: It's sort of an end in itself.

As of tonight, only 35 nations have supported the repeal. It shall expire on this Monday. We are likely going to resubmit it.


You don't think that since you didn't get support, there might be a reason?


But by its loose and imprecise definition of marriage, it prevents UN nations from clearly making their own determination of what constitutes the definition of marriage and leaves highly questionable any international rights or recognitions for the married persons.

By its loose definition it puts ALL the power in the hands of the government you wish to hand the power to. So why are you trying to fight it?

You don't think that since you didn't get support, there might be a reason?

I'm sure Enn, myself, Mikitivity, Ecopoeia, TilEnca (with whom you claim connections), Texan Hotrodders, and almost every resolution author who has had to resubmit a proposal prior to its passage would disagree with you. I do so vehemently.

I'm sure Enn, myself, Mikitivity, Ecopoeia, TilEnca (with whom you claim connections), Texan Hotrodders, and almost every resolution author who has had to resubmit a proposal prior to its passage would disagree with you. I do so vehemently.

I get the idea. I just think that in this case the lack of support is not due to people not knowing about it, or a lack of campaigning, but to people rejecting it cause it's wrong.

I get the idea. I just think that in this case the lack of support is not due to people not knowing about it, or a lack of campaigning, but to people rejecting it cause it's wrong.
And I'm saying you have not [a] good reason, except that you feel it's wrong, to differentiate [this] proposal from those many, many before it that have been resubmitted. I mean, I don't mean to carry on, or swat at gnats, but it's a miscarriage of scientific thought. There's no control/experimental group. There're no objective researchers. It's just unsupported by data.

And I'm saying you have not [a] good reason, except that you feel it's wrong, to differentiate [this] proposal from those many, many before it that have been resubmitted. I mean, I don't mean to carry on, or swat at gnats, but it's a miscarriage of scientific thought. There's no control/experimental group. There're no objective researchers. It's just unsupported by data.

(grin) Yeah. I know that. I was just voicing an opinion :}