NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted a proposal to the UN to repeal the resolution making same sex marriage legal in all nations, which is a major violation and insult to many cultures and religions which entirely make up some nations. This issue should be left to individual nations, and I urge all you UN Delegates to approve this proposal so it may come to be voted on. Thank you.

Consul Brad, The Republic of Ustria

On a side note, it is considered polite to post a link to and perhaps even the text of your proposal on these forums. While right now it's not too bad, I've seen days where there will be over 20 pages of proposals to go through. When you have situations like that, the average person is not interested in parsing through all that text.

*sighs*

There's probably a dozen cards people are going to throw around but....

Resolutions 12, 80 and 81 are amongst the many that have already done this. Your proposal will be deleted for redundancy. Same Sex marriages are already legal in all UN nations.

Eh? You're saying repealing Def of Marriage is illegal? Surely that can't be true?

Ustria: Please post the text of your repeal.

I'm sorry, forgive me for not posting my resolution here. I'm a bit new to this. Anyways, here it is!



Repeal "Definition of Marriage"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #81


Proposed by: Ustria

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

Argument: RECOGNIZES that homosexuals should have equal rights to heterosexuals in the business world and social life.

HOWEVER, some cultures and religions do not permit the marriage of a man to another man, or a woman to another woman.

RESPECTS these cultures and religions, and the UN should not force countries in which these cultures are predominant to allow such ceremonies to be performed.

There is at least one other resolution (Gay Rights) you would have to repeal in order to stop there being gay marriages in your nation, as well as a number of others which it would help to repeal.

How is marriage not part of 'social life'?

we have gay marriages in Kirisubo and our citizens have had that right for a generation.

since we also believe that a nation has the sovereign right to set its own laws and destiny we will give this serious consideration once i've had a chance to look over the original resolution and the repeal text.

In the Empire, there are two forms of marriage. One is essentially a civil business contract that requires either the validation by a judge or by any person temporarily deputized by the Empire to execute the contract, plus two witnesses, due to the significant legal impact of the contract. The contract can be voided either by the consent of both parties or by the courts, and upon dissolution, distribution of common assets proceeds as prescribed by Kriovalian law.

The second is not within the purview of the state, and instead consists of any religious or non-religious cultural ceremony in which two people pledge themselves to one another for a given period of time. As there are no legal ramifications of this type of marriage, the Imperial government does not regulate it, and I see nothing to indicate that the United Nations could interfere in its being carried out.

Thus, it is the Imperial government's strong suggestion that one simply recognize civil marriage in terms of contractual agreement between two persons (or more, if a nation chooses), and leave religious and cultural ceremonies to be regulated by those wishing to perform them.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

Argument: RECOGNIZES that homosexuals should have equal rights to heterosexuals in the business world and social life.
Agreed. Social life includes dating and marriage. One could even argue that the "business world" involves those economic benefits that many nations bestow upon legally married couples.

HOWEVER, some cultures and religions do not permit the marriage of a man to another man, or a woman to another woman.

This isn't really an operative clause, but that's just nitpickiness on my part. Anyway...

Agreed again. There are two situations I can think of that your scenario would occur in. I've taken the liberty of offering solutions to accompany those situations:

1) A nation is a theocracy. The religion its government operates under does not allow same-sex marriages. Solution: Theocracies who value strict adherance to their doctrine should not be part of an international organization that has power over many of the laws of the individual state.

2) A nation is not a theocracy, but some of the religions/cultures that exist within the nation's boundaries do now allow same-sex marriages. Solution: The state needs to create a distinction in policy between religious marriages and civil marriages, as Krioval has explained in more detail.

RESPECTS these cultures and religions, and the UN should not force countries in which these cultures are predominant to allow such ceremonies to be performed.

The UN isn't requiring any such ceremonies to be performed. A same-sex couple submitting a form so that the government will recognize their civil marriage is not a ceremony. The government isn't forcing the Church of Ustria to carry out a mass unifying the couple in holy matrimony, it is merely recognizing the right of the couple to be recognized as just that, a couple, and The-Republic sees nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. Social life includes dating and marriae. One could even argue that the "business world" involves those economic benefits that many nations bestow upon legally married couples.

See, I see marriage as both social and economic. If you're giving complete equality in both spheres, then I can't see how you can justify "you can put a ring on his finger because he puts his finger in your ring" as being different.

This isn't really an operative clause, but that's just nitpickiness on my part. Anyway...

You don't have operative clauses in repeals. Well, you have one: it begins 'repeals...'. So no, you're right: this isn't an OC at all. If it were, the proposal would be illegal.

Agreed again. There are two situations I can think of that your scenario would occur in. I've taken the liberty of offering solutions to accompany those situations:

I disagree. If those cultures do not permit it, then why would members of that culture want to do something they were opposed to? It sounds to me like he's generalising about 'cultures', and in fact not allowing for that there will be differing opinions within them.

1) A nation is a theocracy. The religion its government operates under does not allow same-sex marriages. Solution: Theocracies who value strict adherance to their doctrine should not be part of an international organization that has power over many of the laws of the individual state.

And if they feel that membership of an international organization on the scale of the UN is in their diplomatic, economic and military interest, they should expect to be shafted? No. We should cater for the fact that theocracies exist; banning them is no worse than attempting to ban the unholy scourge of communism.

2) A nation is not a theocracy, but some of the religions/cultures that exist within the nation's boundaries do now allow same-sex marriages. Solution: The state needs to create a distinction in policy between religious marriages and civil marriages, as Krioval has explained in more detail.

Agreed. Which leaves one wondering as to the whole basis of the repeal.

The UN isn't requiring any such ceremonies to be performed. A same-sex couple submitting a form so that the government will recognize their civil marriage is not a ceremony. The government isn't forcing the Church of Ustria to carry out a mass unifying the couple in holy matrimony, it is merely recognizing the right of the couple to be recognized as just that, a couple, and The-Republic sees nothing wrong with that.

Agreed.

And if they feel that membership of an international organization on the scale of the UN is in their diplomatic, economic and military interest, they should expect to be shafted? No. We should cater for the fact that theocracies exist; banning them is no worse than attempting to ban the unholy scourge of communism.
We do cater to the fact that theocracies exist: we vote, and democracy prevails. If the theocracies are numerous enough, or organized enough, then they should be able to affect legislation. Now, I'm not against national sovereignty, but I do believe that two consenting adults should be able to enter into a civil union regardless of national policy. The UN allows me to work for the rights of individual citizens in other nations. If a theocracy wishes to disallow ceremonies of matrimony between same-sex couples, then that's fine, but they should give all the same economic benifits.

Description: UN Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
No thank you.

Argument: RECOGNIZES that homosexuals should have equal rights to heterosexuals in the business world and social life.
Is that all? What's so fundamentally wrong with them that they don't get equal rights in all aspects of life? Is this the legislative equivalent of 'no offence but…'?

HOWEVER, some cultures and religions do not permit the marriage of a man to another man, or a woman to another woman.
At the end of the day I think the rights of individuals trumps that of cultures.

RESPECTS these cultures and religions, and the UN should not force countries in which these cultures are predominant to allow such ceremonies to be performe
Again I think individual rights are more important then the will of cultures.

Like others have said before; to stop gay marriage being protected you need more then one repeal. We will fight that.

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

Perhaps it's time to point this out:

Definition of Marriage is the only thing protecting Heterosexual Marriage.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/moraldecency.jpg

In the Empire, there are two forms of marriage. One is essentially a civil business contract that requires either the validation by a judge or by any person temporarily deputized by the Empire to execute the contract, plus two witnesses, due to the significant legal impact of the contract. The contract can be voided either by the consent of both parties or by the courts, and upon dissolution, distribution of common assets proceeds as prescribed by Kriovalian law.

The second is not within the purview of the state, and instead consists of any religious or non-religious cultural ceremony in which two people pledge themselves to one another for a given period of time. As there are no legal ramifications of this type of marriage, the Imperial government does not regulate it, and I see nothing to indicate that the United Nations could interfere in its being carried out.

Thus, it is the Imperial government's strong suggestion that one simply recognize civil marriage in terms of contractual agreement between two persons (or more, if a nation chooses), and leave religious and cultural ceremonies to be regulated by those wishing to perform them.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

Thank you, that will save me time. 100% behind Krioval on this.

where was that 'not this again' card...... Ustria, not only has this been tried a million times before, and failed, when it comes up, it always recieves strong resistance. whilst we respect your position, this can be seen as forcing morals on other nations.

where was that 'not this again' card...... Ustria, not only has this been tried a million times before, and failed, when it comes up, it always recieves strong resistance. whilst we respect your position, this can be seen as forcing morals on other nations.

Uh...how is removing a resolution that enforces a particular morality 'forcing' anything on anyone? If you agree with the resolution, then keep its provisions on your statute books, and don't worry about the repeal. He's not forcing his morality on any other nations.

Uh...how is removing a resolution that enforces a particular morality 'forcing' anything on anyone? If you agree with the resolution, then keep its provisions on your statute books, and don't worry about the repeal. He's not forcing his morality on any other nations.
yeah, point. its just that this is the umpteenth time this has come up, and i am probably not the only one which would wish it would go away

yeah, point. its just that this is the umpteenth time this has come up, and i am probably not the only one which would wish it would go away

The fact that a repeal has been presented demonstrates that, however large that bloc, there are also others who do wish to repeal. What I think is a better argument against repealing is that without repealing other resolutions, you still can't ban gay marriage, so it's a rather pointless one to start with; I don't think a repeal enforces any morality, but rather lessens moral enforcement.

I have submitted a proposal to the UN to repeal the resolution making same sex marriage legal in all nations, which is a major violation and insult to many cultures and religions which entirely make up some nations. This issue should be left to individual nations, and I urge all you UN Delegates to approve this proposal so it may come to be voted on. Thank you.

Consul Brad, The Republic of Ustria

The only insult I can see is the denial of basic human rights stemming from prohibiting otherwise loving, mature, proper couples from expressing their love and committment to one-another, through the institution of marriage. I would regard this as a human rights issue, because some values should be universal, one of them being recognition of homosexuality as a natural orientation, with its practitioners entitled to the right of being treated as equal citizens/subjects/etc.

Furthermore, what would be achieved through repealing this resolution? If, as I believe you are, be motivated by religious or moral objections to homosexuality, consider this: Would you rather that they live in sin as an un-married couple.

Therefore Compadria opposes this repeal proposal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The fact that a repeal has been presented demonstrates that, however large that bloc, there are also others who do wish to repeal. What I think is a better argument against repealing is that without repealing other resolutions, you still can't ban gay marriage, so it's a rather pointless one to start with; I don't think a repeal enforces any morality, but rather lessens moral enforcement.
and that has been the argument every other time. its like about once a month, if not more frequently, that this one comes up, and then people reply 'you have to repeal res X, Y and Z as well' and not long after, someone else tries to repeal it without seeing the previous argument. someone had an idea in another thread to make sure people read the proposal before voting on it... maybe there should be something to make sure people research something if it has tried to be repealed before....

Marriage is a governmental thing, not a religous one. Also, it should be a nation's choice on how marriage is done

Marriage is a governmental thing, not a religous one. Also, it should be a nation's choice on how marriage is done

I believe that the majority of the United Nations would disagree with your statements, ambassador.

~ 高原 (Takahara)

Leave monogamist gays alone.

The fact that a repeal has been presented demonstrates that, however large that bloc, there are also others who do wish to repeal. What I think is a better argument against repealing is that without repealing other resolutions, you still can't ban gay marriage, so it's a rather pointless one to start with; I don't think a repeal enforces any morality, but rather lessens moral enforcement.

But weekely (or every other weekly at least) there are proposals in the queue to ban gay marriage outright in every nation. But with this in place those proposals will not get a hearing because they are illegal.

Once this, and the other resolution, is/are gone, who knows what would happen?

I believe that the majority of the United Nations would disagree with your statements, ambassador.

~ 高原 (Takahara)

I agree it's a governmental thing, and to some extent I agree it is up to a nation how the ceremony and so forth are performed.

What I disagree with is the idea that it should be limited to only certain couples who fulfill certain criteria.

I don't see marriage as a government thing or a religious thing. I see it as a private thing, or contract, between two consenting adults who make the decision to formalise their relationship. All the government or religion do is recognise the union and in the governments case, give the partners certain legal benefits (depending on how the nation works).

I'm sure I read somwhere that the Definition of marriage resolution doesn't force gay marriage on nations, it just states that a nation can't discriminate in what marriages it recognises and what marriages it doesn't. So if you allow hetro couples to marry, you can't discriminate and say same sex couples can't, same as you can't say mixed race people can't marry, or short people can't marry tall people, or members of one religion can't marry members of another ect. Its a case of recognise one, recognise all.

I'm sure it also doesn't force religions to perform marriage ceremonies for gays or anyone else, but only covers the civil aspects of marriage.

I won't support a repeal of this resolution. Not just because I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but because I do have a problem with discrimination.

The-Republic']Agreed. Social life includes dating and marriage. One could even argue that the "business world" involves those economic benefits that many nations bestow upon legally married couples.



This isn't really an operative clause, but that's just nitpickiness on my part. Anyway...

Agreed again. There are two situations I can think of that your scenario would occur in. I've taken the liberty of offering solutions to accompany those situations:

1) A nation is a theocracy. The religion its government operates under does not allow same-sex marriages. Solution: Theocracies who value strict adherance to their doctrine should not be part of an international organization that has power over many of the laws of the individual state.

2) A nation is not a theocracy, but some of the religions/cultures that exist within the nation's boundaries do now allow same-sex marriages. Solution: The state needs to create a distinction in policy between religious marriages and civil marriages, as Krioval has explained in more detail.



The UN isn't requiring any such ceremonies to be performed. A same-sex couple submitting a form so that the government will recognize their civil marriage is not a ceremony. The government isn't forcing the Church of Ustria to carry out a mass unifying the couple in holy matrimony, it is merely recognizing the right of the couple to be recognized as just that, a couple, and The-Republic sees nothing wrong with that.


Besides, in my nation there is no such thing as a civil marriage, as it has been outlawed. Therefore, only Catholic/Christian holy matrimonies are available. So even though the UN forced me to accept homosexuals rights in marriage, they still are unable to marry because no church will allow this. ;)

Furthermore, this is also quite impossible in my nation, due to the fact, that there are no homosexuals that reside within our region, much less our nation and borders. All HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS are shipped off to special designated high-security island where they call home. They are free to do as they please there. They are also allowed to submit paperwork and to try and become citizens of other regions that allow perverted life-styles. ;)

In a nutshell: There are always simple solutions for anything in this simple-minded game. There are always ways around any proposals and resolutions for any nation that disagrees with them. ;)

One a final note: I will definately be voting IN FAVOR of this repeal. Either way, it does not nor ever will effect my holy, moral and glorious nation. It could however, help other nations in becoming moral and rightgeous as well.

GOD bless!

Besides, in my nation there is no such thing as a civil marriage, as it has been outlawed. Therefore, only Catholic/Christian holy matrimonies are available. So even though the UN forced me to accept homosexuals rights in marriage, they still are unable to marry because no church will allow this. ;)

If you've found a way to get round this resolution, then I'm sure you recognise that other, like-minded nations to yourself, will have found a way. Why therefore are you bothering to submit a repeal?

Furthermore, this is also quite impossible in my nation, due to the fact, that there are no homosexuals that reside within our region, much less our nation and borders. All HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS are shipped off to special designated high-security island where they call home. They are free to do as they please there. They are also allowed to submit paperwork and to try and become citizens of other regions that allow perverted life-styles. ;)

You're quite the model of enlightenment aren't you :rolleyes: .

In a nutshell: There are always simple solutions for anything in this simple-minded game. There are always ways around any proposals and resolutions for any nation that disagrees with them. ;)

I refer back to my first point.

One a final note: I will definately be voting IN FAVOR of this repeal. Either way, it does not nor ever will effect my holy, moral and glorious nation. It could however, help other nations in becoming moral and rightgeous as well.

GOD bless!

If 'moral and righteous' means bigoted and narrow-minded, then yes, I'm sure this repeal will be quite suited to achieving your purpose.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Besides, in my nation there is no such thing as a civil marriage, as it has been outlawed. Therefore, only Catholic/Christian holy matrimonies are available. So even though the UN forced me to accept homosexuals rights in marriage, they still are unable to marry because no church will allow this. ;)

Furthermore, this is also quite impossible in my nation, due to the fact, that there are no homosexuals that reside within our region, much less our nation and borders. All HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS are shipped off to special designated high-security island where they call home. They are free to do as they please there. They are also allowed to submit paperwork and to try and become citizens of other regions that allow perverted life-styles. ;)

I can find loopholes in your loopholes. For example:

- If you have a high-security island, I assume you or someone in your region imposes the security; necessarily, it is part of someone's territory. Therefore, at least one country in your region contains a strong homosexual community, which is commendable.

- If you have outlawed civil marriage, it means there is no reference within your law to whether people are married or not - for example, homosexuals have no different treatement from heterosexuals in adoption, since in the eyes of the law everyone is single. If on the other hand, you do recognise religious marriage as a legal concept, then it is also a civil marriage, and you would be forced to recognise that contract for homosexuals as well, for compliance.

In a nutshell: There are always simple solutions for anything in this simple-minded game. There are always ways around any proposals and resolutions for any nation that disagrees with them. ;)

I agree that there is an aura of simple-mindedness in this thread, but I don't think it comes from the game itself.

One a final note: I will definately be voting IN FAVOR of this repeal. Either way, it does not nor ever will effect my holy, moral and glorious nation. It could however, help other nations in becoming moral and rightgeous as well.

Best wishes for your self-righteous and intolerant nation. You might find that the easiest way to avoid compliance with all resolutions in the UN is something called a "back door." You open it and leave.

GOD bless!

The national headquarters of Opus Gay in Fonzoland extend their best wishes in return. (OOC: I couldn't resist the RL reference.)

All HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS are shipped off to special designated high-security island where they call home. They are free to do as they please there.

I suggest you take a look at some other passed resolutions, which prevent discrimination against homosexuals:

(my bolds)

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12

Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: 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.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

Sexual Freedom



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2538

Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003

Universal Freedom of Choice



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tactical Grace

Description: Aware that sometimes, all choices we face are an illusion, but nonetheless strongly believing that as humans, we are entitled to make them ourselves,

Reiterating that freedom of choice is a defining element of our very humanity and the inalienable right of all humanity,

Alarmed that there are those among us who seek to limit our ability to choose, including but not limited to political, educational and consumer choice,

Further alarmed that individuals can be influenced and their ability to decide limited through cultural conditioning,

Deeply disturbed that the practice of subliminal advertising appears to erode the fundamental human trait of free will,

Noting with concern that in the wider world, the populations of entire nations repeat non sequitors issued by the State and remain in profound ignorance of the world around them,

Recalling the Resolution "Universal Bill of Rights" and Articles 1, 2 and 3 in particular,

Approving of past Resolutions restricting personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency,

Stressing that humanity has an innate curiosity about the world, and welcoming all efforts to permit this curiosity to reach its full potential,

1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society;

2) Strongly encourages leaders to imagine how different the world could be, if from an early age, people were free to exercise genuine choice in what they read, watched and learnt;

3) Recognises that the most basic human characteristic is that of curiosity - the ability to wonder, ask questions, and seek answers, and affirms its belief that no State should limit its people's freedom to do this;

4) Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document;

5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies,

b) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State,

c) The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services, and does not mandate the creation of private health and education sectors in nations where provision of public services is a State monopoly, while the right of the State to later deregulate nationalised services, or choose not to do so, remains unaffected;

6) Declares a moratorium on the use of subliminal advertising pending independent internationally-coordinated research into its effects on the capacity of individuals and wider society to make rational decisions.

Votes For: 9314

Votes Against: 8213

Implemented: Fri Mar 26 2004

Rights of Minorities and Women



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category : Human Rights
Strength : Strong
Proposed by : Amsterdam Junior

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

Votes For : 12,055

Votes Against : 6,998

Implemented : Sat Nov 20 2004

Freedom of Conscience



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
Proposed by : Ecopoeia

Description : We, the United Nations, recognise that freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some member states persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely express beliefs or thoughts that are not state-approved.

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from detaining prisoners of conscience in the future.

2) DEFINE a ‘disappearance’ as an instance when a person has been taken into custody by government authorities or by an armed political group, when this person’s whereabouts and wellbeing are kept secret without the full, informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in question; and accordingly

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘disappeared’ person.

3) CONDEMN extrajudicial executions by governments, killings caused by the unnecessary use of lethal force by law enforcement officials and killings of civilians in direct or indiscriminate attacks by governments or armed political groups.

Votes For : 9,892

Votes Against : 4,179

Implemented : Wed Aug 3 2005

Not all of these are binding, but together I'd say they make it thoroughly illegal to do what you claim to be doing. Especially that last resolution, as confining them to this high security island definitely constitutes imprisonment.

When looking at marriage, the government in Lucida Sans sees it as two parts of a whole: the legal aspect, including a civil union and things such as being able to see a dying husband in the hospital; as well as the cultural, or religous aspect, which concerns being married in a church. Therefore, we issue only civil unions. The word "marriage" does not appear anywhere in our legal system because it carries too many religious connotations. If a man and a woman want to get married, they apply for a civil union, and then carry out whatever sort of cultural ceremony they please on their own accord. The system works the same way for homosexuals.

We suggest, therefore, that nations look at this as an issue of civil rights. If it is culturally unacceptable for homosexuals to engage in a union, the culture will decide that. The resolution(s) in question do not in any manner force your government to force churches to marry gays.

Respectfully,
Sam Taylor (Prime Minister of Lucida Sans)

I suggest you take a look at some other passed resolutions, which prevent discrimination against homosexuals:

Not all of these are binding, but together I'd say they make it thoroughly illegal to do what you claim to be doing. Especially that last resolution, as confining them to this high security island definitely constitutes imprisonment.
i was wondering if what they were doing was illegal, because it does seem to violate those passages. whilst they can adopt that aproach in accordence with the resoluion in question, they still violate others in the process

Besides, in my nation there is no such thing as a civil marriage, as it has been outlawed. Therefore, only Catholic/Christian holy matrimonies are available. So even though the UN forced me to accept homosexuals rights in marriage, they still are unable to marry because no church will allow this. ;)

Furthermore, this is also quite impossible in my nation, due to the fact, that there are no homosexuals that reside within our region, much less our nation and borders. All HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS are shipped off to special designated high-security island where they call home. They are free to do as they please there. They are also allowed to submit paperwork and to try and become citizens of other regions that allow perverted life-styles. ;)

In a nutshell: There are always simple solutions for anything in this simple-minded game. There are always ways around any proposals and resolutions for any nation that disagrees with them. ;)

One a final note: I will definately be voting IN FAVOR of this repeal. Either way, it does not nor ever will effect my holy, moral and glorious nation. It could however, help other nations in becoming moral and rightgeous as well.

GOD bless!

You, sir, have successfully proven that organized religion is dangerous. I suggest you leave the UN immediately as you obviously have no concern for the policies which membership entails.

To reemphasize what someone else has already said, what you are doing is the opposite of moral or holy. Denying your civilians civil rights and imprisoning them, in effect completely disallowing them membership in your society because of your biggotry and judgement is disgusting. My administration and I suggest a different idea: allow us to move all your homosexuals to our country where they can be treated as equals. We will pay for all the moving expenses.

Telegram to follow,
Sam Taylor (Prime Minister of Lucida Sans)

In seconding the argument of Lucida Sans, could I add that The Republic of Compadria would welcome any Barvinian homosexuals seeking refuge from the intolerant policies of their home country.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

TLA, and probably other nations, would willingly accept these political prisoners as well, or atleast help in the migration of them from Barvinia. We will also remove out embassy from Barvinia, as we no longer want diplomatic communications after the migration process has been finalises

good day to you all

To The Lynx Alliance and Compadria:

We motion that if in three days the situation with the homosexuals of Barvinia is not dealt with properly, by either a drastic change in policy in compliance with UN resolution, we start a UN motion to enforce its regulations on Barvinia, which seems to think it can eschew the laws of its organization.

respectfully,
Prime Minister Sam Taylor of Lucida Sans

We'll accept Barvinia's homosexuals...ACCEPT THEM IN THE FACE!

Seriously though, shouldn't this go in NationStates/International Incidents? It's not really a UN matter, but just RP.

There is at least one other resolution (Gay Rights) you would have to repeal in order to stop there being gay marriages in your nation, as well as a number of others which it would help to repeal.I would just like to point out that this is a weak argument against a Repeal of Definition of Marriage. People wanting to outlaw homosexual marriage need to start somewhere with their repeals, and one is as good as any other.

We'll accept Barvinia's homosexuals...ACCEPT THEM IN THE FACE!What does this mean?

Seriously though, shouldn't this go in NationStates/International Incidents? It's not really a UN matter, but just RP.Really? A thread about the Repeal of a UN Resolution doesn't belong in the UN Forum?

Really? A thread about the Repeal of a UN Resolution doesn't belong in the UN Forum?

The repeal discussion seemed to have dissolved into condemnation of Barvinia's social policies. I'm all for discussing a repeal of "Definition of Marriage", but I don't think that the extraneous bits are UN stuff. If he's actually shipping them to an island or whatever, then he's not in compliance. That's maybe the basis for an RP, but it's not a UN discussion, because it's not something the UN recognises. Mods have said before that, to an extent, one can't non-comply; his deportation of homosexuals is clearly in breach of several UN resolutions. If he wants to do that, fine, and if others are going to accept refugees, good luck to them, but it doesn't seem to have any relevance to a discussion of a repeal of a proposal which Barvinia has stated is irrelevant in his nation anyway.

To The Lynx Alliance and Compadria:

We motion that if in three days the situation with the homosexuals of Barvinia is not dealt with properly, by either a drastic change in policy in compliance with UN resolution, we start a UN motion to enforce its regulations on Barvinia, which seems to think it can eschew the laws of its organization.

respectfully,
Prime Minister Sam Taylor of Lucida Sans
OOC: is that 3 NS days, or 3 RL days? (1 RL day = 1 NS year)

OOC: is that 3 NS days, or 3 RL days? (1 RL day = 1 NS year)

ooc: haha i forgot i'm sorry
however time is allowed to be slowed down due to incidents in rp (see sticky in "international incidents" pertaining to "fluid time"), so we'll say six months NS time which is 2 days real life time.

sorry for the unclearness, but i am totally serious about this, and i need as much support as possible.

We will gladly participate in this struggle against Barvinia, both by providing temporary homes in The-Republic for the ostracized homosexuals, and by sending negotiators and diplomats to deal with the Barvinian officials in charge of this atrocity. However, seeing as the Barvinian military budget is 100 times our GDP (source: NSEconomy), we will be unable to lend military assistance should the need arrive.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The-Republic']However, seeing as the Barvinian military budget is 100 times our GDP (source: NSEconomy), we will be unable to lend military assistance should the need arrive.

Gorgias, military assault would be a last measure in this situation. If escalation of our diplomacy would lead us to that point, the UN would be called in as a whole. even with their generous GDP, they should hardly be able to defend against an entire UN-backed army. However, should we risk being hasty, I feel no need to delve deeper into this extremely unlikely situation.

I wish war not to come of this, but if it does, we will win.

Gorgias, military assault would be a last measure in this situation. If escalation of our diplomacy would lead us to that point, the UN would be called in as a whole. even with their generous GDP, they should hardly be able to defend against an entire UN-backed army. However, should we risk being hasty, I feel no need to delve deeper into this extremely unlikely situation.

I wish war not to come of this, but if it does, we will win.

On what authority would "the UN...be called in as a whole"?

Then I can assure you that you have The-Republic's full backing.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

On what authority would "the UN...be called in as a whole"?

A vote could be taken and armies from different armies of the UN would be dispatched. We have plenty of volunteers already.

However, I must reiterate: war is a last measure. The country in question would first be sanctioned and extensive diplomacy would occur before war.

A vote could be taken and armies from different armies of the UN would be dispatched. We have plenty of volunteers already.

However, I must reiterate: war is a last measure. The country in question would first be sanctioned and extensive diplomacy would occur before war.

No, a vote couldn't be taken. Such a proposal would be illegal.

A vote could be taken and armies from different armies of the UN would be dispatched. We have plenty of volunteers already.
This is not going to happen. The UN does not have an army, nor does it have command over other's armies. If you want to organize a coalition and do this yourselves, you can. But it cannot be done under UN auspices.

I would just like to point out that this is a weak argument against a Repeal of Definition of Marriage. People wanting to outlaw homosexual marriage need to start somewhere with their repeals, and one is as good as any other.
I just thought it would be good for the proposer to know about the others, as they had not then commented on said resolutions.

But I see your point - my words could have been read as being condescending when they weren't meant to be. My bad.

Sexual Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6)
Gay Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=11)
The Universal Bill of Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25)
Universal Freedom of Choice (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=52)
Rights of Minorities and Women (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=79)
Definition of Marriage (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80)
Discrimination Accord (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=98)
The Sex Education Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=117)

My point is that for anyone wishing to discriminate against homosexuals, yes you have to start somewhere, and Definition of Marriage is probably as good a target as any. But, realistically, if you're that implacably opposed to homosexuality, maybe the UN isn't for you? There are too many resolutions to overcome, and too many people - myself included - who will fight attempts to repeal, and repropose legislation in the event repeals do pass. I have no time for people whose insecurities spill over into discrimination based on sexuality, but I accept your right to your opinion; I just don't think it's one you'll be able to voice in national legislation if you remain part of the UN.

To The Lynx Alliance and Compadria:

We motion that if in three days the situation with the homosexuals of Barvinia is not dealt with properly, by either a drastic change in policy in compliance with UN resolution, we start a UN motion to enforce its regulations on Barvinia, which seems to think it can eschew the laws of its organization.

respectfully,
Prime Minister Sam Taylor of Lucida Sans

We think that the Barvinian's should not be recipients of any military action, regardless of their actions in this regard, yet we agree that they should be censured. Compadria has withdrawn their ambassador from Barvinia and expelled theirs, as well as frozen non-essential trade agreements with their region.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

After some review we have realized that it would be impossible to openly wage war. We apologize sincerely for this rash call for assault, it is simply that our country values civil rights too seriously to allow this to happen.

For now we are intent upon finding a non-violent way around this problem and would be in great debt to any allies.

Respectfully,
The Lucida Sans Administration

Eh. I'll see what we can do about it.

That, or we'll just annex the island or something.


- UN Gnome in Charge of Resolution Enforcement and Homoerotic Fantasies
"When I think about you, I touch myself."

After some review we have realized that it would be impossible to openly wage war. We apologize sincerely for this rash call for assault, it is simply that our country values civil rights too seriously to allow this to happen.

For now we are intent upon finding a non-violent way around this problem and would be in great debt to any allies.

Respectfully,
The Lucida Sans Administration

:(

I'd just got together a unit of my most combat hardened homosexuals ready to assist in any assault.

Maybe next time lads :D

Rose looked out her window at the departing Hirotian soldiers. She couldn't quite be sure but it sounded like they were saying

Ooh get her! Whoops, I've got your number ducky, you couldn't afford me dear, two three. I'll scratch your eyes out! Don't come the Brigadier bit with us dear, we all know where you've been, you military fairy. Two, three, one, two, three, four, five, six. Whoops! Don't look now girls, the man has just minced in with that jolly colour Sergeant, two three. OOOOH!

Can't we go to war? Form a coalition of the willing? It'll be fun!

And anyway, my defence budget is 5.46 times the size of Barvinia's. Should be easy enough...

Can't we go to war? Form a coalition of the willing? It'll be fun!

And anyway, my defence budget is 5.46 times the size of Barvinia's. Should be easy enough...

Purely out of interest, how did you calculate that?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

With either Sunset's (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php) or ThirdGeek's (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/) calculator.

My (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=the+most+glorious+hack) defense budget, for instance, is zero. If you just want the raw percentages, you can just use the XML Feed (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi).

With either Sunset's (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php) or ThirdGeek's (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/) calculator.

My (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=the+most+glorious+hack) defense budget, for instance, is zero. If you just want the raw percentages, you can just use the XML Feed (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi).

I think I know now where my combat hardened homosexuals can invade.....;)

I used Sunset. And the calculator thingy on my thingymawhatchamacallit.

OOC: is that 3 NS days, or 3 RL days? (1 RL day = 1 NS year)

Where was that ratio established? If it's correct then I may have to recalculate my various nations' current levels of technology...

Ratio's are non-standardized. Some people RP 1day = 1year (in which case, I think we have ludicrously inefficient governments). Other's RP 1 day = 1 month or 1 day = 1 day. It's yet another RP "define the world as you want".

Ratio's are non-standardized. Some people RP 1day = 1year (in which case, I think we have ludicrously inefficient governments). Other's RP 1 day = 1 month or 1 day = 1 day. It's yet another RP "define the world as you want".


Thank you for the explanation.

I do believe I'm not the only person getting a massive headache from all this... In which case I find myself saying that no matter how many resolutions and/or repeals are made over this matter, there will always be those who want to reverse whatever decision there may be at the time. That being the case, how exactly, if you get your repeal, do you propose to make some sort of decision on this topic that everyone is going to fully agree on? I really don't think it can be done.

I think I know now where my combat hardened homosexuals can invade.....;)Heh. I'm a protectorate, so invade at your own risk (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=gmc+military+arms)...

Can't we go to war? Form a coalition of the willing? It'll be fun!

And anyway, my defence budget is 5.46 times the size of Barvinia's. Should be easy enough...


By all means, invade my region! If so, the following would most likely happen:

1) Arnburg ejects all unwanted nations that move there. He is very good at monitoring and determining this quite quickly and accurately. Or.....

2) You win the invasion. All nations except the founder (Arnburg) get ejected and spend a day in the "Rejected Realms", while in turn, Arnburg ejects all of the invaders, password protects his rigion and TG us with the password and
we all return to the way things were. Or.....

3) We defend the invasion. No further explanation necesary! Or.....

4) Nation States goes bankrupt. Or.....

5) You blow up and send Christian Utopia into oblivion. In which case, Arnburg will just create a new Christian region and will pick up where he left off. Or.....

6) Insert your own warped outcome!

Have a nice day!

By all means, invade my region! If so, the following would most likely happen:
*snip*

ooc: I think you minsunderstood. They are RPing war, not region crashing.

So am I, in a way! ;)

You blow up and send Christian Utopia into oblivion

Really? My ruler is a Catholic and that sounds nothing like a Utopia. The attitude of the Barvinia nation worries the Cuation government and thus all Cuation diplomats will be withdrawn today and if yours are not withdrawn in 24 hours, your own diplomats will be arrested for treason. Cuation will not trade with anyone of your region

We request that you send over those you have arrested/exiled/punished for being a different sexuality to those, like us, who are willing to take them from you

Sun Loyalds
Diplomat to the UN