NationStates Jolt Archive

It does look like the proposal is going to pass. I'm not sure how many repeal attempts are underway; I know of at least one. But I don't especially intend on giving up this argument yet. Also, please forgive me for disagreeing with the proposal: I know that in the view of those who support the proposal, that is a thoughtcrime, and I should not be allowed to think that such a proposal is a bad idea.

Firstly, let's reconsider what this proposal actually does. Does it give a 'right to divorce'? Yes. Does that mean anything? No. Divorce 'may' happen. For those terrible rogue nations that aren't as good as Love and esterel, is there then any actual obligation to grant divorces? No, there is not. The court can still reject the claim. It's quite legal, under this resolution, for courts not to grant divorces, even where domestic abuse has been proven. In fact, if the husband takes his slipper off during the court hearing and starts whacking the family about a bit for shits and giggles, the courts still don't have to grant a divorce. He could eat one of his children; still no guarantee of a divorce. I'm sure those women locked in abusive relationships, beaten and raped by their husband, with children forced to watch on, will be fucking overjoyed to know that "Oh, thanks to the efforts of Love and esterel, we now have a 'right'!" The proposal does jackshit to help them: it's still in the hands of the judge.

Why is this so? Well, actually, it's quite a good thing. The proposal can't demand that divorces be granted, because it can't take into account the circumstances of the case in the way the court can. Yes, it can't take into account the circumstances of the case in the way the court can. You are trying to bulldoze your way into cases which you actually acknowledge you can't judge. That's irresponsible, and pointless. It is ironic that in trying to help out these poor souls who can't be bothered to stay around for five minutes because life should be all unremitting sunshine, you're actually creating the potential to have them suffer more, as if their divorce application is denied, they have to suffer that humiliation, whilst returning to a spouse who now knows their intentions. Doesn't sound too happy to me.

We have the admission that there are mistakes in the draft: the co-author, who at the beginning of the drafting debate said "the longer we debate this, the better it will become", now tells us that the editing was sloppy poor, and even that there are clauses that are rendered utterly irrelevant because their terms are not defined. Sloppy draftwork isn't a problem in itself, except that once more it highlights the lack of respect shown for the NSUN by the authors, who through their actions show themselves to be more keen on getting their opinions up in lights than actually helping anyone by composing effective legislation. And yet we hear from them that the NSUN should operate as a world government: a government that just passes any old laws they happen to agree with, nevermind what they actually do. Hail the birth of the enlightened utopia!

This is, of course, overlooking one of the main failings of the resolution: they missed out preambulatory clause I, 'BELIEVING that children are little bastards who should be traded as currency between selfish parents and who are not entitled to any form of representation in divorce legislation, because they don't really matter: it's all about the parents'. Determining access on the grounds for divorce is capital nonsense. NONSENSE. The only consideration in such proceedings should be what will be in the future interest of the child. The authors have now twisted their words to try to show that 'regularly' can mean five minutes a year; as such, they have admitted that it is perfectly possible to deny very good parents really regular access to their children, on any whim of the state. They have enshrined the right of people to see children who should not be seeing children. And, unable to rebut this accusation, they attempt to drag those who protest at such short-sightedness off into idle distraction.

The final, brutal stab in our heart, though, came with some stunning admissions. Reading the proposal, and thinking about the motivations of its authors, some of us thought that they were showing cultural insensitivity, and that they were failing into account the idea that other societies were no worse than theirs. We no longer think that; we know it. According to those supporting the proposal, polygamous or polyandrous relationships are inferior to monogamous ones. This is then reflected in the fact that such 'subhumans' are not given any rights in the proposal, whilst those in monogamous relationships are entitled to a divorce if they moan for three months about a stain on the carpet, and are entitled to regular access to their children even if they at the time are holding the severed head of baby, a blood-spattered axe, and a small pot of vaseline. Some of us rejected this, believing that those in polygamous/polyandrous relationships were entitled to just the same rights as those in monogamous ones. We were then slapped down by the supporters of the proposal who, after lying to us and then accusing us of lying, demonstrating how supporters of the proposal really are on a high enough moral standpoint to dictate how the rest of us should live, that we are not allowed to think anything they disagree with.

This, it seems to me, lies at the heart of the problem with the approach to the proposal. The supporters believe that they are better, and cannot conceive of any cultures than their own being of any worth. To them, those who do not adopt what would probably operate fine as social policies within their own countries are committing a thoughtcrime. We are not allowed to disagree with them, because to do so shows us up as amoral savages. This then translates into the practical failings of the proposal. Simply, it is impossible for an unaccountable, immovable sheet of international of law to take into account the possible permutations and complexities of divorce proceedings. I admit, to the authors, that it is very, very hard. Some might think they needn't thus have tried.

Gruenberg casts its vote AGAINST the proposal.

I agree with Gruenburg. I am against this proposal. This resolution is just too binding and too authoritative. If a country wants to pass legeslation to this extent on mariages and divorses, it has the power to. However, it is out of the authority of the NSUN to mandate such strict terms. I am against this resolution.
Mojohojo

they are not mandatory, it's to limit arranged marriage for immigration reasons, and also to let nations prevent, if they want, 1day las vegas style marriage-divorce to happpen in their nation

For immigration reasons? Where does that argument come from now? This resolution doesn't do anything against "fake marriages" since you actually will not be able to expel the illegal immigrant while he/she is still married.

Also, instead of 1-day marriages, we know have three month-marriages. That's of course much better -you'll have to live together with a person you married in a casino while drunk for at least three months, even though you hate that person. Where's the efficiency in that?

For immigration reasons? Where does that argument come from now? This resolution doesn't do anything against "fake marriages" since you actually will not be able to expel the illegal immigrant while he/she is still married.

Also, instead of 1-day marriages, we know have three month-marriages. That's of course much better -you'll have to live together with a person you married in a casino while drunk for at least three months, even though you hate that person. Where's the efficiency in that?

Oesling:

your nation doesn't have to legislate about the 3 months, as our clause 1.6 states:

-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

Hello all UN nations,
I am currently avaiting acceptence into the United Nations but I thought I should get involved early. I urge all nations to vote for the right to divorce. I think Divorce should be allowed for the following reasons:
These are possibilities during marriage
1. A spouse could be abusive to not only the other spouse but also children could be at risk.
2. Economically the marriage is not working out and it would improve life if marriage was ended.
3. It would also possible reduce madness of spouses' urg to kill the other spouse, which means not ONLY life, but also the contiuation of taxes being payed which mean sthe governemtn does not lose money.
I think divorce SHOULD be allowed, and I urge everyone to vote YES on the resolution. Thank you for listening.

- Johannes B., leader of the Holy Republic of Deumanland

We would like to point out that the chief failure of this proposal lies in omission of the rights of children, namely their right to a unified family. Because children are unable to defend themselves against parents who may wish unwisely to divorce (for personal and selfish reasons, perhaps), Our nation has laws restricting the process to ensure that the childrens' voice is heard in it.

This proposal claims to be a "human rights" resolution, but We put it to the assembled representatives and delegates here: How are the human rights of the children of divorce protected by this? Are We to "grant" a right to one segment of Our population, only to deny it to another?

This proposal infringes on the rights of children. For that reason, if no other, it should be voted down.

We would like to point out that the chief failure of this proposal lies in omission of the rights of children, namely their right to a unified family. Because children are unable to defend themselves against parents who may wish unwisely to divorce (for personal and selfish reasons, perhaps), Our nation has laws restricting the process to ensure that the childrens' voice is heard in it.

This proposal claims to be a "human rights" resolution, but We put it to the assembled representatives and delegates here: How are the human rights of the children of divorce protected by this? Are We to "grant" a right to one segment of Our population, only to deny it to another?

This proposal infringes on the rights of children. For that reason, if no other, it should be voted down.

Come on, that amounts to a back-flip with a double summersault... You have made it abundantly clear that this is NOT your major concern with the proposal: you would deny the very idea of a "right to divorce," irrespectively of the welfare of the children.

Anyway, as I stated before, I agree with your current opinion.

It does look like the proposal is going to pass. I'm not sure how many repeal attempts are underway; I know of at least one. But I don't especially intend on giving up this argument yet. Also, please forgive me for disagreeing with the proposal: I know that in the view of those who support the proposal, that is a thoughtcrime, and I should not be allowed to think that such a proposal is a bad idea.

Firstly, let's reconsider what this proposal actually does. Does it give a 'right to divorce'? Yes. Does that mean anything? No. Divorce 'may' happen. For those terrible rogue nations that aren't as good as Love and esterel, is there then any actual obligation to grant divorces? No, there is not. The court can still reject the claim. It's quite legal, under this resolution, for courts not to grant divorces, even where domestic abuse has been proven. In fact, if the husband takes his slipper off during the court hearing and starts whacking the family about a bit for shits and giggles, the courts still don't have to grant a divorce. He could eat one of his children; still no guarantee of a divorce. I'm sure those women locked in abusive relationships, beaten and raped by their husband, with children forced to watch on, will be fucking overjoyed to know that "Oh, thanks to the efforts of Love and esterel, we now have a 'right'!" The proposal does jackshit to help them: it's still in the hands of the judge.

Why is this so? Well, actually, it's quite a good thing. The proposal can't demand that divorces be granted, because it can't take into account the circumstances of the case in the way the court can. Yes, it can't take into account the circumstances of the case in the way the court can. You are trying to bulldoze your way into cases which you actually acknowledge you can't judge. That's irresponsible, and pointless. It is ironic that in trying to help out these poor souls who can't be bothered to stay around for five minutes because life should be all unremitting sunshine, you're actually creating the potential to have them suffer more, as if their divorce application is denied, they have to suffer that humiliation, whilst returning to a spouse who now knows their intentions. Doesn't sound too happy to me.

We have the admission that there are mistakes in the draft: the co-author, who at the beginning of the drafting debate said "the longer we debate this, the better it will become", now tells us that the editing was sloppy poor, and even that there are clauses that are rendered utterly irrelevant because their terms are not defined. Sloppy draftwork isn't a problem in itself, except that once more it highlights the lack of respect shown for the NSUN by the authors, who through their actions show themselves to be more keen on getting their opinions up in lights than actually helping anyone by composing effective legislation. And yet we hear from them that the NSUN should operate as a world government: a government that just passes any old laws they happen to agree with, nevermind what they actually do. Hail the birth of the enlightened utopia!

This is, of course, overlooking one of the main failings of the resolution: they missed out preambulatory clause I, 'BELIEVING that children are little bastards who should be traded as currency between selfish parents and who are not entitled to any form of representation in divorce legislation, because they don't really matter: it's all about the parents'. Determining access on the grounds for divorce is capital nonsense. NONSENSE. The only consideration in such proceedings should be what will be in the future interest of the child. The authors have now twisted their words to try to show that 'regularly' can mean five minutes a year; as such, they have admitted that it is perfectly possible to deny very good parents really regular access to their children, on any whim of the state. They have enshrined the right of people to see children who should not be seeing children. And, unable to rebut this accusation, they attempt to drag those who protest at such short-sightedness off into idle distraction.

The final, brutal stab in our heart, though, came with some stunning admissions. Reading the proposal, and thinking about the motivations of its authors, some of us thought that they were showing cultural insensitivity, and that they were failing into account the idea that other societies were no worse than theirs. We no longer think that; we know it. According to those supporting the proposal, polygamous or polyandrous relationships are inferior to monogamous ones. This is then reflected in the fact that such 'subhumans' are not given any rights in the proposal, whilst those in monogamous relationships are entitled to a divorce if they moan for three months about a stain on the carpet, and are entitled to regular access to their children even if they at the time are holding the severed head of baby, a blood-spattered axe, and a small pot of vaseline. Some of us rejected this, believing that those in polygamous/polyandrous relationships were entitled to just the same rights as those in monogamous ones. We were then slapped down by the supporters of the proposal who, after lying to us and then accusing us of lying, demonstrating how supporters of the proposal really are on a high enough moral standpoint to dictate how the rest of us should live, that we are not allowed to think anything they disagree with.

This, it seems to me, lies at the heart of the problem with the approach to the proposal. The supporters believe that they are better, and cannot conceive of any cultures than their own being of any worth. To them, those who do not adopt what would probably operate fine as social policies within their own countries are committing a thoughtcrime. We are not allowed to disagree with them, because to do so shows us up as amoral savages. This then translates into the practical failings of the proposal. Simply, it is impossible for an unaccountable, immovable sheet of international of law to take into account the possible permutations and complexities of divorce proceedings. I admit, to the authors, that it is very, very hard. Some might think they needn't thus have tried.

Gruenberg casts its vote AGAINST the proposal.

(OOC: I quote Gruenberg's post in its entirety because it must be read.)

The people of Cluichstan tip their turbans to our Gruenberger friends for the finest argument against this proposal yet.

For immigration reasons? Where does that argument come from now? This resolution doesn't do anything against "fake marriages" since you actually will not be able to expel the illegal immigrant while he/she is still married.

Also, instead of 1-day marriages, we know have three month-marriages. That's of course much better -you'll have to live together with a person you married in a casino while drunk for at least three months, even though you hate that person. Where's the efficiency in that?

Firstly, about your point on immigration reasons: If the immigrants are illegal or classified as such, then you can still legally expel them even if married, if you can prove that they undertook their marriage purely for immigratory purposes (or so I was under the impression).

Also, the three month limit simply sets the time up until divorce, you haven't got to live with that person during that time.

I hope this answers some of your concerns.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

(OOC: I quote Gruenberg's post in its entirety because it must be read.)

The people of Cluichstan tip their turbans to our Gruenberger friends for the finest argument against this proposal yet.

I remember a wonderful speech by The-Republic in close competition. If anything, there are a few pearls amidst all the mud.

Sure, don't worry. I am just trying to establish my reputation as a snob... ;)

OOC: I am also ESL by the way, AND I had to google it to know what it means! :blush:

Very important to do, obviously.

kill the clueless people... :confused: :mp5:

Very important to do, obviously.

kill the clueless people... :confused: :mp5:

Dear Virdigria, welcome! Now, what do you mean?

Come on, that amounts to a back-flip with a double summersault... You have made it abundantly clear that this is NOT your major concern with the proposal: you would deny the very idea of a "right to divorce," irrespectively of the welfare of the children.

It is Our concern for the rights of children that leads Us to conclude that divorce is not a fundamental right, though. Divorce affects far more than the two married people involved. This proposal fails to consider these people's rights, which is why it should be voted down.

In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed — they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

Oh please - Swiss army knives are so useful!!!!

--------------------

OOC: Forgottenlands, make up your damn mind. Either roleplay or talk about game mechanics. Of course the game mechanics don't allow for interpretation of anything. That is obviously not what I'm talking about here.

I am talking about the RP implementation of the actual wording of UN law, and considering that you continue to haggle over it in this thread demonstrates you understand fully what I'm talking about.

In RL, legislative intent and the express intent of the authors is a critical factor in the determination of what a law really means. I am trying to add that layer of nuance to the game here. If you don't recognize that this is true in RL either, you need to read more law.

You are THICK.

I have yet in this ENTIRE debate to talk about Gameplay. I ignore gameplay effects completely because they are so COMPLETELY outside UN regulation it is rather insane. The effects of this resolution on your nation from a gameplay perspective: pretty freaking close to zip. This entire debate - from NatSov, to micromanagement, the very text of the resolution, religion, EVERYTHING is completely and totally a RP issue. The issue of who interprets laws and what the importance of interpretation is is completely an RP issue. So let's be absolutely clear here - I'M TALKING, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TALKING, ABOUT RP.

Legislative Intent is something dealt with by the judicial branch. Our judicial branch just so happens to be the same branch as our executive branch - the moderators. The moderators don't give a rats ass about legislative intent. They have made this EXPLICITLY clear in there time here. We don't care how you implement it in your nation so long as your follow what it says. We care when it comes down to here. And when it reaches the floor, legislative intent is absolutely irrelevant - the moderators are all that matters in determining legality and - in your case - duplication or contradiction of passed resolutions. Everything beyond that is irrelevant to legislative intent. The VAST majority of the UN haven't even read the passed resolutions so they wouldn't know what the heck you're talking about to begin with - which, BTW, just so happens to be the reason why the moderators do their very best to steer clear of allowing contradictions and duplications reach quarom - because half the time the contradicition or duplication will be passed with flying colors.

--------------------------------

Is there any particular reason why the resolution fails to take into account the feelings of the child in this matter?

As this is written, the child may be forced to see a parent they do not wish to see against their will.

Is this the intent of the authors?

I'd be concerned about the influence of a parent on a child in such a case, and thus refuse to concern myself with such an issue. Add on the child hesiation on the matter could make it so that the number of visits is limited - as LAE suggested, perhaps as low as once a year.

------------------------------

To the states that would use their voting power to force their mores on other members of the United Nations, you are violating the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

Doesn't exist

Matters such as those currently up for vote are matters of internal law and culture ONLY. Matters of divorce are held dearly by the government and citizens of the Most Serene Republic of Hualien. We are offended that some nations would see fit to impose their standards of morality on our small nation. We respect human rights and we respect the right to divorce. However, the resolution as it is currently written is an affront to the people of Hualien who take the institution of marriage seriously and as such, believe that divorce should be the last resort. Our government has mandated certain steps, including counseling, that must occur before a divorce is granted. If this measure passes, we will have to consider withdrawing from the United Nations as this organization does not follow the will of its charter, but rather the emotionality of its members.

*nods* There's always a few

Article 2, Clause 1 of the UN Charter states, "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. " Resolutions such as this are a blatent infringement on our sovereignty. If you want to pass these laws in your own country, have at it. However, you have no right to force your standards on others.

As I said, the charter does not exist, so making up words in a non-existant charter is rather infuriating.

---------------------------------

We would like to point out that the chief failure of this proposal lies in omission of the rights of children, namely their right to a unified family. Because children are unable to defend themselves against parents who may wish unwisely to divorce (for personal and selfish reasons, perhaps), Our nation has laws restricting the process to ensure that the childrens' voice is heard in it.

This proposal claims to be a "human rights" resolution, but We put it to the assembled representatives and delegates here: How are the human rights of the children of divorce protected by this? Are We to "grant" a right to one segment of Our population, only to deny it to another?

This proposal infringes on the rights of children. For that reason, if no other, it should be voted down.

Y'know - as much outrage as this might produce, I honestly don't give a damn about that situation. I wrote this resolution so that no state has the power to force two people into a relationship they don't want to be in, I wrote clauses making it so that one of the people in the relationship can't have the power over the other to force them to remain in the relationship, I SURE as hell am not going to let a child have that power - especially since children are notoriously some of the most self-centered people on the planet. I don't blame them, but I'm not putting their judgement ahead of others.

It is Our concern for the rights of children that leads Us to conclude that divorce is not a fundamental right, though. Divorce affects far more than the two married people involved. This proposal fails to consider these people's rights, which is why it should be voted down.

Absolutely correct. Divorce does effect others than the couple. But forcing that couple to remain in that relationship effects them to. I honestly don't give a damn if it effects others outside the relationship, I'm not going to let your government bind that couple together until death do them part if they don't want to be bound.

A thought: it has been pointed out before that "Definition Of Marriage" does not entail consent.

If someone is granted a divorce, and if a nation's marriage laws further do not require consent, then is there anything to stop the partner instantly remarrying them?

A thought: it has been pointed out before that "Definition Of Marriage" does not entail consent.

If someone is granted a divorce, and if a nation's marriage laws further do not require consent, then is there anything to stop the partner instantly remarrying them?

I have yet to understand where the lack of consent conclusion came from. List and I got into a few unresolved arguments about them - but I can't remember why they never quite got finished.....

I have yet to understand where the lack of consent conclusion came from. List and I got into a few unresolved arguments about them - but I can't remember why they never quite got finished.....

The lack of consent conclusion comes from the fact that "Definition of Marriage" does not contain any reference to consent being required. And, we're going by letter of the law, right? (If other resolutions do, I retract the claim.) However, if not, then nations who oppose this resolution can surely remove the need for consent, and thus immediately grant the left partner married status again.

The lack of consent conclusion comes from the fact that "Definition of Marriage" does not contain any reference to consent being required. And, we're going by letter of the law, right? (If other resolutions do, I retract the claim.) However, if not, then nations who oppose this resolution can surely remove the need for consent, and thus immediately grant the left partner married status again.

But the thing is that his comments fail to address reality checks. Basically, he just declares such things to be true. But as far as I can tell, it looks like it deals with contractual marriage - since it can only possibly deal with marriage by law - thus meaning that consent seems to be default. At some point you've gotta look at what is claimed to be loopholes and go "is this an actual realistic application?" DLE got called on it during Reformatia's drafting of Bio-Weapons ban - she was going on and on about various loopholes and finally after he closed a huge load of them, she goes on about a few more but the community came back and went "are you freaking crazy?" You can't just make claims 'cause there's gotta be some level of reality applied to it.

But the thing is that his comments fail to address reality checks. Basically, he just declares such things to be true. But as far as I can tell, it looks like it deals with contractual marriage - since it can only possibly deal with marriage by law - thus meaning that consent seems to be default. At some point you've gotta look at what is claimed to be loopholes and go "is this an actual realistic application?" DLE got called on it during Reformatia's drafting of Bio-Weapons ban - she was going on and on about various loopholes and finally after he closed a huge load of them, she goes on about a few more but the community came back and went "are you freaking crazy?" You can't just make claims 'cause there's gotta be some level of reality applied to it.

This seems to me to be emblematic of all the faults of this proposal. Once more, you reveal your view that everyone should be 'normal', where the norm is your value system. Yes, it is a fairly extreme interpretation. But is there anything preventing people from passing wacky laws? No, there's not. And different cultures will treat ideas such as contract law in different ways. I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that there will be those who have fundamentally paradigms to you. Working with them is a good thing; assuming you can see everything from their perspective is mistaken. In those societies in which marriage is of little importance - such as my own - there may well be the view that consent isn't required. Of course, the natural progression is that statuses wouldn't be afforded nearly as many rights as a consentual marriage, but that doesn't mean such 'thin' unions cannot exist.

I don't think you - in the broad sense of those supporting this proposal - are capable of catering for the complexities of marriage or divorce law, and I think in part that stems from the fact you are unwilling to acknowledge alternate thought systems. What you deride as completely unrealistic and wanky may not be so, given a couple of different axioms and a few twists and turns of history. To Gruenbergers, is it conceivable that people could discriminate based on sexuality? No. But then, we have a cultural heritage which means it's unlikely it would even occur to most Gruenbergers to think that. Are there homophobes in the world? Of course there are.

Interpretations have to be realistic. 'Realistic' means that they have to correlate to what would actually happen. Given how confined "Definition of Marriage" is, it is impossible from that to draw many conclusions about marriage in specific member states. I do not, then, see how it is possible for you to make such sweeping assumptions about the basis of divorce. You can't know all the conditions involved. You speak of an absolute right to break free of a contract, but you don't know what that contract actually entails. I'm not even being critical: I'm genuinely mystified. How is it possible from "Definition of Marriage" to extrapolate the terms of a right to divorce?

-Lori Jiffjeff, Acting Ambassador to the UN

(Also:
those supporting the repeal have suggested that those in polygamous relationships are inferior
the Nazis said various groups were inferior
==>those supporting the repeal are Nazis

-Sori Jiffjeff, her 8-year old son, who's still mildly pissed that children aren't considered worthy of consideration by this resolution, and are 'self-centred bastards', and is as such making crude crayon drawings of the authors doing bad things.)

*mutters*

Meh - knew you'd bite - wish I'd been smart enough to check the facts first - just realized I better double check them.

What you are suggesting is that someone can be forced against their will to consent to something when they have not broken any law or are under suspicion of breaking any law. Knowing the intent of enough of the resolutions, I'm sure that's breaking one of the more powerful resolutions (Freedom of Conscious, UHR, perhaps others, not sure yet). I'll get back to you however.

What you are suggesting is that someone can be forced against their will to consent to something when they have not broken any law or are under suspicion of breaking any law. Knowing the intent of enough of the resolutions, I'm sure that's breaking one of the more powerful resolutions (Freedom of Conscious, UHR, perhaps others, not sure yet). I'll get back to you however.

Ok, between OC5 of #53, "Universal Freedom of Choice", the second blah of #68, "Ban Trafficking in Persons" and OC5 of #91, "The Sex Industry Worker Act" probably conspire to mean that for such an interpretation to hold, you have to wank palm-bleedingly hard. It's still not explicitly banned, though. Nonetheless, i concede this as a minor derailment, which should be taken only as an indication that there are always some flaws in every case, and not an especial condemnation of this proposal.

Let's get back to the real, serious debate: why do you hate children so much?

Ok, between OC5 of #53, "Universal Freedom of Choice", the second blah of #68, "Ban Trafficking in Persons" and OC5 of #91, "The Sex Industry Worker Act" probably conspire to mean that for such an interpretation to hold, you have to wank palm-bleedingly hard. It's still not explicitly banned, though. Nonetheless, i concede this as a minor derailment, which should be taken only as an indication that there are always some flaws in every case, and not an especial condemnation of this proposal.

Let's get back to the real, serious debate: why do you hate children so much?

I don't hate children, I just hate how people keep throwing them around as a trump card. While I think they deserve a bit of extra protection for fairly obvious reasons, I don't believe that gives them any rights over any other person. I consider the parents to be the primary people effected by a divorce, the kids as the secondary, and everyone else I consider to be irrelevant. Since I consider kids to be the secondary, I don't put their rights above that of the parents unless the parents infringed upon their right or are at risk of infringing upon those rights (the latter I screwed up on - shush).

I don't hate children, I just hate how people keep throwing them around as a trump card. While I think they deserve a bit of extra protection for fairly obvious reasons, I don't believe that gives them any rights over any other person. I consider the parents to be the primary people effected by a divorce, the kids as the secondary, and everyone else I consider to be irrelevant. Since I consider kids to be the secondary, I don't put their rights above that of the parents unless the parents infringed upon their right or are at risk of infringing upon those rights (the latter I screwed up on - shush).

With all due respect to the representative from the Forgottenlands, their wrong-headed attitude towards children in troubled marriages perfectly demonstrates the fatal flaw in this resolution.

It is because children have little voice in society and are dependent on their parents that their rights must be considered first and foremost. After all, the parents are adults and can fend for themselves. The child has no such defense or support, and thus must rely on the State to safeguard their interests.

With all due respect to the representative from the Forgottenlands, their wrong-headed attitude towards children in troubled marriages perfectly demonstrates the fatal flaw in this resolution.

It is because children have little voice in society and are dependent on their parents that their rights must be considered first and foremost. After all, the parents are adults and can fend for themselves. The child has no such defense or support, and thus must rely on the State to safeguard their interests.

Pfft. That gives them no more right to refuse to see the parent or for any other member of society to not let them see the parent if the parent wants to see them. Are you saying that a parent has no right to know his/her own children? Even if he is of no direct risk to the child, but merely considered a risk because people do not believe in what he believes? I have a strong suspicion you would make it so that a ground for refusal of visitation rights is as minor as not following your own religion - and that SIMPLY will not stand. Unless there is a direct PHYSICAL risk to the child or the child has suffered abuse from the parent, I see absolutely no reason to grant them any more protection or to feel that they have any right to trump the parent's right to see his/her own daughter. If you are concerned about custody, I noted in the very first post that this resolution doesn't even touch the matter. However, if you are worried about visitation rights, I refuse to say that the child is given any more rights than any adult is.

I have a question as well... what if your nation doesn't even allow people to get married? Meaning that their belief system doesn't have a formal ceremony or union between two people? Isn't it pretty ham-fisted of the United Nations, a body that is supposed to support the beliefs of all the nations involved, to say that there has to even be such a thing as marriage? And does this marriage- union between two people (or does it have to be? Again, this is another point of debate) as stated before grant rights to the children?

I'm shocked that this proposal is being so widely accepted. In fact, it appals me so much that I might actually resign from the U.N. upon its passing. Dumnorixia does not want to be part of a governing body that ignores the thought of differing beliefs and value systems, and I certainly can see that the majority feels that whatever may be 'normal' for them should be 'normal' for everyone else.

I have a question as well... what if your nation doesn't even allow people to get married? Meaning that their belief system doesn't have a formal ceremony or union between two people? Isn't it pretty ham-fisted of the United Nations, a body that is supposed to support the beliefs of all the nations involved, to say that there has to even be such a thing as marriage? And does this marriage- union between two people (or does it have to be? Again, this is another point of debate) as stated before grant rights to the children?

This resolution doesn't deal with forming of marriage or regulating. If you don't recognize marriages, you don't need to worry about dissolving them. The effect is zero - with exception to the civil union clause.

I'm shocked that this proposal is being so widely accepted. In fact, it appals me so much that I might actually resign from the U.N. upon its passing. Dumnorixia does not want to be part of a governing body that ignores the thought of differing beliefs and value systems, and I certainly can see that the majority feels that whatever may be 'normal' for them should be 'normal' for everyone else.

If a belief system tries to force those in marriage to remain in marriage, I don't welcome that belief system as it means you expect your own citizens to follow your government's belief system. I don't accept that. I don't care what governmental belief systems are, I care about the beliefs held by the individual. If the individual wants to get a divorce, then I say let them. If they don't want one, I say fine. If they don't believe it to be right, then they don't need to have one - but that doesn't mean they can force others not to have one. THAT is why, IMO, it is so widely accepted.

Are you saying that a parent has no right to know his/her own children?

We are saying that parents do not have the right to break up their marriages without first taking into account the effect it will have on the children of that marriage. The child's welfare is the parents' responsibility and one that they cannot abdicate for any reason. To safeguard the child's right that their parents exercise that responsibility, the State has the right and duty to intervene in matters of divorce.

This resolution says nothing about the rights of the child, and denies the State the ability to safeguard them in matters of divorce. It thus leaves them defenseless in the case of selfish and uncaring parents.

We are saying that parents do not have the right to break up their marriages without first taking into account the effect it will have on the children of that marriage. The child's welfare is the parents' responsibility and one that they cannot abdicate for any reason. To safeguard the child's right that their parents exercise that responsibility, the State has the right and duty to intervene in matters of divorce.

This resolution says nothing about the rights of the child, and denies the State the ability to safeguard them in matters of divorce. It thus leaves them defenseless in the case of selfish and uncaring parents.

Ah - wish you'd quoted the relevant quote to avoid confusion, but that aside......

The parents I see as the primary concern of a divorce, not the children. Despite the fact that children may be put in a worse condition after the divorce than they were before the divorce, I honestly don't care about the motives of the parents for having the divorce (nor do I believe it is the state's right to interfere in the matter), and I DEFINATELY don't believe that the child has any right to interfere with the divorce.

Despite a child's dependance upon his/her parents, the people most affected by marriage is unquestionable the married couple. Unmarried couples have had children, couples have married with children from previous relationships to bring to it, some marriages have both positive and negative impacts upon the children and these experiences of the children are completely unrelated to the couples, and could be related to the child's own history, personal issues with one or both of the parents, etc. Basically, I see a marriage to be completely seperate to its effect upon the children involved in the marriage - but there is a direct correlation to the opinions of the couple married and their opinions towards each other - similarly, when the reverse occurs. For that reason, they are the primary in a marriage, not the children, and their right to end the marriage as they see fit I put far, far, FAR above any opinion or concern regarding the child.

A thought: it has been pointed out before that "Definition Of Marriage" does not entail consent.

If someone is granted a divorce, and if a nation's marriage laws further do not require consent, then is there anything to stop the partner instantly remarrying them?

Though the current resolution was not pressing enough to merit the attention of Ambassador Katzman, his assistant Casandra Thonberger had almost fallen asleep during the UN debates on marriage when the Gruenberg representative made mention of the "Definition of Marriage" resolution. She had remembered reading somewhere what the Mikitivity position on that resolution was and so jumped out of her chair and started digging through the Ambassador's notes. First she looked through the CCSM voting records and noticed a conditional yes. Thinking to herself that this might be important she flipped through all CCSM briefs on domestic marriage until she found a folder tabbed "International Marriage Laws". The folder was empty with the exception of a small note, "Cross filed under uber important international meddling." She smirked, and then raised her placard to address the assembly when it was her turn.

While waiting to speak, she thumbed through the "Defintion of Marriage" resolution. Finally after minutes of listening to several other ambassadors debate the merits of divorce and welfare for children, her turn to address the assembly arrived.

"Fellow ambassadors and diplomats, my government wanted to reiterate the question raised by Gruenberg concerning the interaction of this resolution with the previous "Definition of Marriage" resolution. Though my government voted in favour of that previous resolution, it did so with some reservations. Gruenberg is correct that the previous resolution did not adequately address consent, and feels that this current resolution and that previous one bear closer re-examination. Given that my government wasn't thrilled with the previous resolution, we would certainly be open to discussions about a possible repeal and replacement related to that issue, though my government still to this day does not understand why marriages, civil unions, and related issues are being discussed by this body.

Before I cast my government's vote (which currently is leaning towards absention), we'd invent proponents and opponents of UN based marriage laws to feel free to discuss your positions with us." Smiling she walked back to her table wondering if the Ambassador would be pleased with her declaration of neutrality.

From the Daily Hualien Newspaper

There was a spirited debate in the Chamber of the Faiths, the upper body in the Legislature of the Most Serene Republic that includes representatives of the major religious groups in the country. In a spirit of the Chamber resolution passed by a large majority, the members strongly urged withdrawal from the United Nations should the current resolution on divorce pass. As Representative Tanme Rue pointed out, "it isn't as if this is the first time that the members of the United Nations have sought to impose its mores on the more spiritual nations of the world." This resolution is not binding on the executive leadership of the Most Serene Republic, but a recent public opinion poll shows that more than 3/4 of the citizens favor withdrawal if the current resolution is passed. There was no comment from the executive as of press time.

I have a question as well... what if your nation doesn't even allow people to get married? Meaning that their belief system doesn't have a formal ceremony or union between two people? Isn't it pretty ham-fisted of the United Nations, a body that is supposed to support the beliefs of all the nations involved, to say that there has to even be such a thing as marriage? And does this marriage- union between two people (or does it have to be? Again, this is another point of debate) as stated before grant rights to the children?

No one is saying there has to be such a thing as marriage, merely that if you permit marriage, you should also permit a right to divorce. Thus, if you don't have a tradition of marriage in your country, then this resolution will have very little impact on your citizens.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

No one is saying there has to be such a thing as marriage, merely that if you permit marriage, you should also permit a right to divorce. Thus, if you don't have a tradition of marriage in your country, then this resolution will have very little impact on your citizens.

Of course, if you have a tradition of marriage that's inferior to those of the traditions of Love and esterel and Compadria, your people are not granted the same rights as them. So, in a different way, it has very little impact.

Of course, if you have a tradition of marriage that's inferior to those of the traditions of Love and esterel and Compadria, your people are not granted the same rights as them. So, in a different way, it has very little impact.

To quote yourself from earlier in the debate, concerning this post:

I am not dignifying (it) with a comment

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

Meh, I can flip-flop: it's really just a question of how cheap I can be. Then the snotty high road seemed the best approach; since no one's bothered trying to rebut it, I thought I might as well turf it up again.

Firstly, about your point on immigration reasons: If the immigrants are illegal or classified as such, then you can still legally expel them even if married, if you can prove that they undertook their marriage purely for immigratory purposes (or so I was under the impression).

Also, the three month limit simply sets the time up until divorce, you haven't got to live with that person during that time.

I hope this answers some of your concerns.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Concerning immigration: the resolution doesn't seem to deal at all with immigration and doesn't say that you can legally expel illegal immigrants. That's why we were surprised that the representative from Love and estereel used the immigration argument.

Concerning 3 months: while during the three months you don't have to live with your spouse, you are still legally married to him/her. So you are not allowed to marry another person (except if polygamy and polyandry are allowed in your country) until the three months period / or six months period, if your spouse doesn't want to divorce / before being able to marry another person.

L
Secretary to the Grand Duke of Oesling

Pfft. That gives them no more right to refuse to see the parent or for any other member of society to not let them see the parent if the parent wants to see them. Are you saying that a parent has no right to know his/her own children? Even if he is of no direct risk to the child, but merely considered a risk because people do not believe in what he believes? I have a strong suspicion you would make it so that a ground for refusal of visitation rights is as minor as not following your own religion - and that SIMPLY will not stand. Unless there is a direct PHYSICAL risk to the child or the child has suffered abuse from the parent, I see absolutely no reason to grant them any more protection or to feel that they have any right to trump the parent's right to see his/her own daughter. If you are concerned about custody, I noted in the very first post that this resolution doesn't even touch the matter. However, if you are worried about visitation rights, I refuse to say that the child is given any more rights than any adult is.

[Bolding ours.]

Are we to understand that the honorable representative doesn't care about psychological damage to children? And can we assume that, if a child who is old enough to make reasoned decisions decides he or she does not want to see the parent, he or she will be forced to anyway? The child's rights are to be automatically "trumped" by the parent's?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

There have been UN issues that were none of their business before, but this takes the cake. What's next, is the UN going to tell nations how to process their cheese????

Concerning immigration: the resolution doesn't seem to deal at all with immigration and doesn't say that you can legally expel illegal immigrants. That's why we were surprised that the representative from Love and estereel used the immigration argument.

I never claimed the resolution gave or recognised such powers, merely that I was under the impression that they would exist, regardless, in many countries and could be used for the means I suggested.

Concerning 3 months: while during the three months you don't have to live with your spouse, you are still legally married to him/her. So you are not allowed to marry another person (except if polygamy and polyandry are allowed in your country) until the three months period / or six months period, if your spouse doesn't want to divorce / before being able to marry another person.

I fail to see the problem.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

There have been UN issues that were none of their business before, but this takes the cake. What's next, is the UN going to tell nations how to process their cheese????

I have considered proposing a "Food Standards Act" to ensure food quality, assuming it doesn't already exist.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

There have been UN issues that were none of their business before, but this takes the cake. What's next, is the UN going to tell nations how to process their cheese????

OOC: As funny as this is going to sound, I once had a resolution that was to reduce beer tarriffs, but it was in fact based on the desire to also have a beer purity law similar to the German Beer Purity law from hundreds of years ago. ;) Give it time ... heck I remember Vastiva once was wanting to create a Cheese resolution.

The way I like to look at things is: if you can't put forth a convincing argument (for say 50% of the UN Delegates) that your idea has an international focus and would be of benefit for unilateral cooperation, then instead of using the UN to accomplish your ends, the daily issues are worth trying once.

That said, in the time since the game began in 2002, there have only been a few (less than 300) daily issues that have been accepted. So I don't fault players for wanting to have an idea brought to the attention of a larger audience. Ideally, NationStates would have a few more moderators and they could help increase the number of daily issues. I got bored with them so long ago, that I simply dismiss all but a few cherry picked issues.

Greater Boblandia has been following the... discussion concerning this resolution very closely. After long consideration, we move to vote against this resolution.

While the goal of this resolution seems laudable, at least on the surface, it is, in fact, an act of absolute cultural imperialism. For some reason, the authors of this resolution consider a contract such as marriage (more specifically, the ability to nullify such an arrangement) to be on par with the right of a person to have access to the resources required to sustain life. Furthermore, they go on to make the assumption that this entirely societal construct operates in the same fashion across all borders. This resolution does not even entertain local cultural considerations on marriage, despite the inalterable fact that marriage is entirely a societal construct in the first place.

Like it or not, there are places where the UN has no moral right to legislate. This is most certainly one of them.

Men If we start giving people rights, then pretty soon they will want to make decisions, and I find other people making decisions a threat to my power...

Tha Sup O'lord; Fez...

We are saying that parents do not have the right to break up their marriages without first taking into account the effect it will have on the children of that marriage.


Speaking from a position of absolutely no experience at all (my parents are happily married, and always have been) I would say that if two people who are entirely miserable and unhappy with each other stay together to ensure the kid is happy, the kid is going to notice and end up not so happy.


The child's welfare is the parents' responsibility and one that they cannot abdicate for any reason. To safeguard the child's right that their parents exercise that responsibility, the State has the right and duty to intervene in matters of divorce.

This resolution says nothing about the rights of the child, and denies the State the ability to safeguard them in matters of divorce. It thus leaves them defenseless in the case of selfish and uncaring parents.

But - to argue the other side for a moment - if the parents stay together because they are not permitted to divorce by the state, and end up taking their frustation with their situation out on the kids of the marriage, hasn't the state failed in it's duty to safeguard the child?

There have been UN issues that were none of their business before, but this takes the cake. What's next, is the UN going to tell nations how to process their cheese????

Vastiva's idea for a resolution on cheese became Yelda's Global Food Distribution Act. So...yes. Although I admit, this one really does take the biscuit.

Greater Boblandia has been following the... discussion concerning this resolution very closely. After long consideration, we move to vote against this resolution.

While the goal of this resolution seems laudable, at least on the surface, it is, in fact, an act of absolute cultural imperialism. For some reason, the authors of this resolution consider a contract such as marriage (more specifically, the ability to nullify such an arrangement) to be on par with the right of a person to have access to the resources required to sustain life.


Being forced to stay married to someone you no longer wish to be married to isn't something you think is a human right? Not being required to be beaten by your wife? Raped by your husband? Not having to stay married to someone who is going to be in prison for life for murdering twenty kids?

I would argue that if you are required to stay married to someone who has changed dramatically since you married them is tantamount to slavery - and the UN (and most reasonable people) believe that being enslaved takes away one of your most basic human rights - the right to be free.



Furthermore, they go on to make the assumption that this entirely societal construct operates in the same fashion across all borders. This resolution does not even entertain local cultural considerations on marriage, despite the inalterable fact that marriage is entirely a societal construct in the first place.


Marriage is the union of one person to another person. The UN says so in the resolution "Definition of Marriage". If that is the case then why can the UN not say divorce is the end of that union?


Like it or not, there are places where the UN has no moral right to legislate. This is most certainly one of them.

I disagree. The UN has the right to legislate where it's members say it has the right.

Of course, if you have a tradition of marriage that's inferior to those of the traditions of Love and esterel and Compadria, your people are not granted the same rights as them. So, in a different way, it has very little impact.

That was....the intention. While it leaves a gaping flaw in the resolution, I don't believe its in the UN's jurisdiction to dictate to any religious institution beyond any national government what it can or cannot do. If the religious institution is tied to the national government, it will need to distinguish between contractual marriage and religious marriage - the latter of which this body cannot interfere with. It is a flaw, but one I would rather see than to attempt to dictate to a religion what they are allowed to believe in.

I just think that no religion should have the right to force the citizens of any to follow that religion to the letter - thus the requirement of the split.

--------------------------

Concerning 3 months: while during the three months you don't have to live with your spouse, you are still legally married to him/her. So you are not allowed to marry another person (except if polygamy and polyandry are allowed in your country) until the three months period / or six months period, if your spouse doesn't want to divorce / before being able to marry another person.

While there is certainly room for your nation to change your laws so the divorce can happen immediately, or to allow marriages in such cases, I do not feel there is an issue with that component of the resolution, and one must question why the divorce was not requested earlier if the newly in-love couple wish to be married before the 3 month wait period was over.

[Bolding ours.]

Are we to understand that the honorable representative doesn't care about psychological damage to children? And can we assume that, if a child who is old enough to make reasoned decisions decides he or she does not want to see the parent, he or she will be forced to anyway? The child's rights are to be automatically "trumped" by the parent's?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I would be interested to hear such an instance where psychological damage is an issue. My concern is that I have found that what many consider to be a concern of "psychological damage" is often NOT in the best interest of the child. With exception to direct trauma from the father due to abuse, etc (hence the clause), I have a difficult time thinking of an instance where psychological damage is a consideration. Perhaps the representative in Ausserland would be wise enough to suggest some.

That was....the intention. While it leaves a gaping flaw in the resolution, I don't believe its in the UN's jurisdiction to dictate to any religious institution beyond any national government what it can or cannot do. If the religious institution is tied to the national government, it will need to distinguish between contractual marriage and religious marriage - the latter of which this body cannot interfere with. It is a flaw, but one I would rather see than to attempt to dictate to a religion what they are allowed to believe in.

I just think that no religion should have the right to force the citizens of any to follow that religion to the letter - thus the requirement of the split.

I think you misunderstand. Those who support the proposal believe that polygamous or polyandrous marriages are inferior. That seems to me to be forcing one's culture on others.

Greater Boblandia has been following the... discussion concerning this resolution very closely. After long consideration, we move to vote against this resolution.

While the goal of this resolution seems laudable, at least on the surface, it is, in fact, an act of absolute cultural imperialism. For some reason, the authors of this resolution consider a contract such as marriage (more specifically, the ability to nullify such an arrangement) to be on par with the right of a person to have access to the resources required to sustain life.

I feel you are much mistaken on this matter. I cannot speak for Love and Esterel as I haven't had the luxury of reading all his posts, but that is not the position held by myself

Furthermore, they go on to make the assumption that this entirely societal construct operates in the same fashion across all borders. This resolution does not even entertain local cultural considerations on marriage, despite the inalterable fact that marriage is entirely a societal construct in the first place.

Actually, the UN has already standardized the societal construct of civil marriage (Resolution 81). I'm merely providing a way to get out of civil marriage. I do not touch religious marriage which is far from the control of most nations, nor shall I attempt to. Understand the difference

Like it or not, there are places where the UN has no moral right to legislate. This is most certainly one of them.

*disagrees*

I think you misunderstand. Those who support the proposal believe that polygamous or polyandrous marriages are inferior. That seems to me to be forcing one's culture on others.

*mutters*

*notes Krioval's comment on the UNOG forums*

I haven't even been following that argument TBH, and I think I may have caused serious damage to doing that. Understand that I do not consider such a marriage inferior, but I'm running low on time to look into the debate surrounding it.....

We have taken a firm stance against this bill because it forces us to allow people the right to separate. This will cost billions of dollars in court fees and the like, that could better be spent on schools (or in our case, the military). I agree with Otaku Stratus when he said this:
There have been UN issues that were none of their business before, but this takes the cake. What's next, is the UN going to tell nations how to process their cheese????
This is a matter better left up to the individual nation.

We have taken a firm stance against this bill because it forces us to allow people the right to separate. This will cost billions of dollars in court fees and the like, that could better be spent on schools (or in our case, the military). I agree with Otaku Stratus when he said this:
There have been UN issues that were none of their business before, but this takes the cake. What's next, is the UN going to tell nations how to process their cheese????
This is a matter better left up to the individual nation.

You've just plagiarised another members post, with your second paragraph, I hope you realise.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

You've just plagiarised another members post, with your second paragraph, I hope you realise.

OOC: Oh please. DHara Secundus gives credit to the author, are you going to crucify him from not using a quote box? :rolleyes:

You've just plagiarised another members post, with your second paragraph, I hope you realise.

So quoting people is now plagiarism? Argh! I've just plagiarised you, now.

Seriously, maybe we could get back to discussing why this proposal blows, rather than falsely accusing its opponents in an effort to distract attention from its obvious failings?

We have taken a firm stance against this bill because it forces us to allow people the right to separate. This will cost billions of dollars in court fees and the like, that could better be spent on schools (or in our case, the military).

While I may disagree with your priorities, I note that depending on your implementation of this resolution, your actual expenditures could be minimalized. You don't even have to pay the court fees yourself.

I agree with Otaku Stratus when he said this:
There have been UN issues that were none of their business before, but this takes the cake. What's next, is the UN going to tell nations how to process their cheese????
This is a matter better left up to the individual nation.

Compared to some of the stuff that has passed, this is actually fairly conservative when it comes to regulation......

I would be interested to hear such an instance where psychological damage is an issue. My concern is that I have found that what many consider to be a concern of "psychological damage" is often NOT in the best interest of the child. With exception to direct trauma from the father due to abuse, etc (hence the clause), I have a difficult time thinking of an instance where psychological damage is a consideration. Perhaps the representative in Ausserland would be wise enough to suggest some.

We'd be happy to....

(1) When the non-custodial parent, seeking revenge, continually disparages the character of the custodial parent (or a step-parent, in the case of remarriage) in front of the child.

(2) Instances in which the non-custodial parent suffers from mental illness which causes him/her to act inappropriately in the presence of the child.

(3) Instances in which the non-custodial parent is under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the visits and that is apparent to the child.

(4) Instances in which the non-custodial parent has psychologically abused the child before the divorce and instilled fear.

(5) Cases in which the non-custodial parent psychologically abuses the child during visitations.

(6) Cases in which the non-custodial parent must be kept under close restraints in a psychiatric facility or prison and the setting would frighten the child.

(7) Cases in which the non-custodial parent engages in stalking the child and that is known by the child.

(8) Cases in which the non-custodial parent sexually abused the child prior to divorce, but the divorce was granted on other grounds.

(9) Cases in which the non-custodial parent physically abused his/her spouse prior to divorce, the acts were witnessed by the child, but the divorce was granted on other grounds.

(10) Cases in which the child is in fear of the non-custodial parent because the child knows of violent crimes committed by that parent.

We'll stop here. Please note two points. First, none of the situations cited would necessarily harm the child in all cases, but all of them have the potential to do so, especially when the child has already been traumatized by the divorce itself. That is why we firmly believe that visitation must be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on careful evaluation and assessment by competent professionals, and not on the basis of inappropriately narrow rules of universal application. Second, in every one of the cited cases, the authorities would be prohibited by your proposal from denying visitation.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We'd be happy to....

(1) When the non-custodial parent, seeking revenge, continually disparages the character of the custodial parent (or a step-parent, in the case of remarriage) in front of the child.

Don't care

(2) Instances in which the non-custodial parent suffers from mental illness which causes him/her to act inappropriately in the presence of the child.

In such instances, I refer to LAE's suggestion of third party being present

(3) Instances in which the non-custodial parent is under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the visits and that is apparent to the child.

Also possible third party presence required.

(4) Instances in which the non-custodial parent has psychologically abused the child before the divorce and instilled fear.

I'll discuss this at the bottom

(5) Cases in which the non-custodial parent psychologically abuses the child during visitations.

As far as I'm concerned, same as 4

(6) Cases in which the non-custodial parent must be kept under close restraints in a psychiatric facility or prison and the setting would frighten the child.

Really don't care. In fact, it is scenarios like this that actually make me oppose so called "psychological considerations"

(7) Cases in which the non-custodial parent engages in stalking the child and that is known by the child.

Would classify as abuse and take necessary action

(8) Cases in which the non-custodial parent sexually abused the child prior to divorce, but the divorce was granted on other grounds.

Addressed - known flaw of resolution

(9) Cases in which the non-custodial parent physically abused his/her spouse prior to divorce, the acts were witnessed by the child, but the divorce was granted on other grounds.

Addressed - known flaw of resolution

In both cases, BTW, I mentioned a possible solution a few pages back.

(10) Cases in which the child is in fear of the non-custodial parent because the child knows of violent crimes committed by that parent.

Same as 6

We'll stop here. Please note two points. First, none of the situations cited would necessarily harm the child in all cases, but all of them have the potential to do so, especially when the child has already been traumatized by the divorce itself. That is why we firmly believe that visitation must be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on careful evaluation and assessment by competent professionals, and not on the basis of inappropriately narrow rules of universal application. Second, in every one of the cited cases, the authorities would be prohibited by your proposal from denying visitation.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Alright, now that we have narrowed it down, I can begin to explain.

Like I said before, my concern is when one's actions are directly towards the child - which is why I did not address #4 or 5. In most of those cases, I would vehemetely disagree with you in such a case that it went into a courtroom. I most of those cases, I think there is absolutely no reason that the child should have any real concern about it. I don't believe that we have the right to remove a child's right to meet a parent just because one disagrees with the decisions that parent has made in his/her life - no matter how criminal they were. Unless the incidents directly caused trauma for the child, I see absolutely no reason to support it as a reason to force the parent to sever all contact.

That brings us to 4 and 5, and this is where my problem is with my own reasoning. I have certainly heard of these situations and cannot say one way or the other about them. Yes the child has suffered directly from this person, but does that justify not allowing his/her parent to see him/her? My coauthor I know would say no, and I personally would abstain on such a case. Part of me feels this is abuse - and under certain definitions of domestic violence, certainly would be considered abuse. However, another part of me just doesn't believe it is bad enough. However, issues such as 6 and 10 are areas where I know many would disagree with me. I do not believe they should be grounds for losing visitation rights. I never have, probably never will. I think it is important that instead of shunning these members of society, we actually show the children what has happened. I feel it more important for them to know the truth and experience it than to shun them. And it is for this reason that I do not put in psychological considerations. Too many people place too much emphasis on areas that I think shouldn't be of concern.

That was....the intention. While it leaves a gaping flaw in the resolution, I don't believe its in the UN's jurisdiction to dictate to any religious institution beyond any national government what it can or cannot do. If the religious institution is tied to the national government, it will need to distinguish between contractual marriage and religious marriage - the latter of which this body cannot interfere with. It is a flaw, but one I would rather see than to attempt to dictate to a religion what they are allowed to believe in.

The esteemed representative of the Forgottenlands fails to note, though, that in the case of Our nation, the religious institution IS the national government. Thus the whole concept of a difference between "contractual" vs. "religious" marriage has no meaning for Us--they are one and the same.

I just think that no religion should have the right to force the citizens of any to follow that religion to the letter - thus the requirement of the split.

Does the esteemed representative wish to go on record as denying Our nation's government the right to enforce its own laws? Are Our people to be slaves of the NSUN, merely because their chosen form of government does not meet with the Forgottenlands' approval?

We thank the honorable representative of Forgottenlands for his prompt response and careful explanation of his views. To save some space, we have omitted the specific cases and comments, which the members can examine in your posting.

Alright, now that we have narrowed it down, I can begin to explain.

Like I said before, my concern is when one's actions are directly towards the child - which is why I did not address #4 or 5. In most of those cases, I would vehemetely disagree with you in such a case that it went into a courtroom. I most of those cases, I think there is absolutely no reason that the child should have any real concern about it. I don't believe that we have the right to remove a child's right to meet a parent just because one disagrees with the decisions that parent has made in his/her life - no matter how criminal they were. Unless the incidents directly caused trauma for the child, I see absolutely no reason to support it as a reason to force the parent to sever all contact..

You may not think that that "the child should have any real concern about it", but the issue is not what you think the case should be. The issue is what the situation may actually be. No one is talking about denying visitaion because of decisions that a parent has made. We're talking about keeping children from being put in situations which might be psychologically harmful to them. And we would further point out that the proposal says nothing about a child's right to anything. The right of the parent to visitation "trumps" everything.

That brings us to 4 and 5, and this is where my problem is with my own reasoning. I have certainly heard of these situations and cannot say one way or the other about them. Yes the child has suffered directly from this person, but does that justify not allowing his/her parent to see him/her? My coauthor I know would say no, and I personally would abstain on such a case. Part of me feels this is abuse - and under certain definitions of domestic violence, certainly would be considered abuse. However, another part of me just doesn't believe it is bad enough. However, issues such as 6 and 10 are areas where I know many would disagree with me. I do not believe they should be grounds for losing visitation rights. I never have, probably never will. I think it is important that instead of shunning these members of society, we actually show the children what has happened. I feel it more important for them to know the truth and experience it than to shun them. And it is for this reason that I do not put in psychological considerations. Too many people place too much emphasis on areas that I think shouldn't be of concern.

The child is afraid of the parent who has a history of psychologically abusing them, and you still think he or she should be forced into contact with them? The parent psychologically abuses the child during visitations, and there's nothing wrong with that? We can't find any possible basis to agree with that. And I would agree that, in examples 6 and 10, it may be quite proper and healthy to allow the child to have contact with the parent. But then again, it might not be. That depends on the circumstances and the child's psychological state -- which, of course, this proposal forbids us from considering.

We are frankly appalled at the responses where you indicated you "don't care". We think they are perfect examples of what is dreadfully wrong with this proposal. The co-authors, in their fixation on establishing the right of a non-custodial parent to visitation, cared far too little about the rights of children to be protected from harm.

Ausserland respectfully urges our fellow members to vote NO on this well-intentioned but badly flawed proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

EDIT: Argh, Ausserland posted too. This post was 'aimed' at Forgottenlord, not Ausserland.

Right. Firstly, it's probably time we settled the issue of remarriage. I cannot find anything in any resolution that would specifically ban the issuing of a marriage without the consent of all parties. However, I am going to let that one lie, because no other nation has raised this objection. Whilst I believe there may well be nations where consent is not required in marriage, I do not believe the government would deliberately reinstate marriages after a divorce: it would be too much administrative hassle, for little point. Nonetheless, I feel the dismissal is based on pragmatic speculation, rather than any specific legality. Which possibly is an issue for future discussion.

Visitation rights: I do not care that you do not care about various scenarios. In all probability, you're not tremendously offended by that. Why not? Because your fields of expertise are international law, politics, and diplomacy. I sincerely doubt you have aspirations to renounce the presidency (presidency? office, anyway) and become a social worker. You are not qualified to make those judgments. I, like you, have a mild distaste for the 'think of the children!' trump card; in this case, I think it's valid, though. We should reiterate that if mummy and daddy get a divorce because mummy won't do that special thing anymore, you know with the sock puppet and the corkscrew and half-lemon, and daddy then ritually slaughters mummy one day, devouring her still-beating heart as little Timmy watches his mother's dark red blood trickle down his father's face, his father is still given the right to regular visitation. And you know what? I'm not even going to rule that out; perhaps there are children who could 'suck it up' (in a metaphorical sense, not suck up their mother's blood) or who would be more damaged by not seeing their father. But there will be those who would be better off not having to see him - even if it's with nineteen other people present, through a ten-foot wall of glass, for two seconds every twelve years. It is no more my place to make that assessment than it is yours. I accept that social workers may make mistakes (OOC: really, really bad ones) but I still feel they are the most qualified - or, rather, the agency allotted to make the decision by the most local representation possible - to decide based on the interests of the child. I am not dismissing the rights of the parent as a factor in the equation, but I do not believe it is the be-all and end-all.

I raised objections about polygamy and polyandry on page 2 of the drafting thread, but probably should have pushed harder, and I'll stop painting all supporters of the proposal as believing such marriages are inferior. Should this be repealed, I would of course wish a replacement to incorporate accommodation for them. Furthermore, I feel there are unresolved issues about, for example, the alimony arrangements, or the cessation of rights (for example, the words 'by those concerned' in "Legalise Euthanasia" probably have pertinence to divorce cases). If these are to remain sovereign rights, then such could do with being more explicit.

Finally, I should add that I did originally suggest mild support for this. I do not believe it is the UN's place to legislate marriage. I am wrong. The UN has done so repeatedly and, whilst I am no fan of whoring myself to the whim of the majority, I accept that I must fight the battles I can win. If, then, marriage is within the ambit of UN legislation, then it follows that divorce is similarly applicable. I stated that I would have preferred something that dealt exclusively with contracts in the abstract; that conviction remains. Nonetheless, I accept that you are going to 'win', and congratulate you as such (albeit prematurely, but I'm going to be mighty busy tomorrow). I just hope that certain of those involved in this thread might take note of the fact that there are lines the UN should not cross, even though it clearly can cross them, and the weight of frustration demonstrated in voiced and polled opinion might serve as a reminder that morality is not universal.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"We are informed by our regional delegate, Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny), that despite a recent, inexplicable uptick in violence in Paradise City; the president's ongoing affair with the ambassador from Cobdenia; daily confrontations with its psychotic neighbors; efforts to find a new regional delegate, and a secret incursion into the Eternal Kawaii, it was nonetheless able to cast its 13 votes AGAINST this resolution. So Merry Christmas to all, to all a good night, and remember: You didn't hear anything about the secret incursion into the Eternal Kawaii.VICTORY IS MINE!!

The Unending Virtue response to the proposal.


Dear colleagues, Unending Virtue is not very excited about this proposal.

The proposal mentions in several places the need to perform some act in accordance with the law. First of all, this "law" is vague. Should Unending Virtue's courts rule in accordance with its own laws? What if Unending Virtue's laws are distinct in procedure and is not applicable to the scene?

For example, recently, the marriage issue was a matter before the Imperial Senate, and the First Consul decided that it was now the government's power to arrange, conduct, and monitor all marriages in the land.

The law insists, therefore that the government of Unending Virtue be made the supreme arbitrator in all marriage issues, including the issue of divorce and annulment. The Marriage Administration in the Unending Virtue is not a court of law, but a civic administration under the jurisdiction of the proconsul of each province.

If the implementation of this Proposal is a responsibility of the Country, and not of the UN by a standardized international committee who would rule equally for cases in all nations, then my argument follows:

Supposing this resolution is passed and the right to divorce is granted to the Subjects of Unending Virtue

-------------------------------------------------------------------
-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The right to employ the use of lawyers in a court of law is not necessarily implementable as the system of justice in the Unending Virtue is not an adversarial system.

The provincial Marriage Administration currently does not hear any oral arguments. The paperwork is done by provincial civil servants who do not meet with the clients.

Legally speaking, this resolution imposes the rights it declares to grant, but it does not contain any language to impose countries to create or specify in any way how, a certain state functionary/government organ to guarantee that the rights and provisions can be observed/executed, therefore if the country has no means of carrying out the provision but declares to comply with the granted rights in "principle", then this resolution will have been in vain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

-4- PERMITS parents who have lost the right to see their children for issues listed in [3] be allowed to have this right returned if a court of law feels that said parent is no longer a threat to the child or other parent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, the Imperial Consitution of Unending Virtue grants its subjects the freedom of association and assembly, and does not limit the age of the person exercising their rights. In practice, the magistrates have never disallowed anyone from meeting anyone else if both parties are voluntary and willing unless the purpose of the meeting is to commit indictable crimes.

Therefore, a divorced parent has no right, under the legal precedents, to ask a magistrate to prohibit the other parent from meeting with their children, for any reasons whatsoever, so long as the children and the parent would be willing to see each other and would willingly and freely testify before a magistrate (without any influence from the unwilling parent) if any incidents or accusations of wrongful activities are brought.

Underaged descendents of divorced parents is by law given to the custody of the proconsul of the province and raised in the provincial Divorcee's Children Facility, and the proconsul will not likely forbid one parent from meeting with the children. The Imperial Senate does not have the authority to force the proconsuls to do anything, and does not have the authority to tell the First Consul to compel the provincial governments to any terms because the ruling of the nation's nobilities is strictly a matter for the Imperial Family.

Besides, the First Consul's recent marriage law would not work if this resolution is imposed. A great humiliation to the Imperial Family indeed. Thus, Unending Virtue will simply overlook this issue and continue to arrange, conduct, and monitor all marriages as willed by the people of this land. If we do not tell our citizens of this resolution, then they will never ask for things given by the resolution. State media is tightly regulated.

IN SUMMARY, this resolution is with good and fair intentions, however, it is not perfectly written because it does not provide for any clear way of carrying out the actions intended, and it would be a shame if it is passed as-is without any improvements made onto it, then we'd have to waste some time again to repeal it and remake it.

Before I make a separate reply to the points of some of the opponents of this resolution, I would like to issue a small OOC apology:

I was very unfair in accusing D'Hara Secundus of plagiarism; it was arrogant and foolish. At the time of posting, I happened to be in a bad mood due to non-NSUN reasons and I took it out on a fellow U.N. member. That's obviously not acceptable and I'm genuinely sorry for any ill-feeling or hurt I've incurred or instilled in my fellow members.

Visitation rights: I do not care that you do not care about various scenarios. In all probability, you're not tremendously offended by that. Why not? Because your fields of expertise are international law, politics, and diplomacy. I sincerely doubt you have aspirations to renounce the presidency (presidency? office, anyway) and become a social worker. You are not qualified to make those judgments. I, like you, have a mild distaste for the 'think of the children!' trump card; in this case, I think it's valid, though. We should reiterate that if mummy and daddy get a divorce because mummy won't do that special thing anymore, you know with the sock puppet and the corkscrew and half-lemon, and daddy then ritually slaughters mummy one day, devouring her still-beating heart as little Timmy watches his mother's dark red blood trickle down his father's face, his father is still given the right to regular visitation. And you know what? I'm not even going to rule that out; perhaps there are children who could 'suck it up' (in a metaphorical sense, not suck up their mother's blood) or who would be more damaged by not seeing their father. But there will be those who would be better off not having to see him - even if it's with nineteen other people present, through a ten-foot wall of glass, for two seconds every twelve years. It is no more my place to make that assessment than it is yours. I accept that social workers may make mistakes (OOC: really, really bad ones) but I still feel they are the most qualified - or, rather, the agency allotted to make the decision by the most local representation possible - to decide based on the interests of the child. I am not dismissing the rights of the parent as a factor in the equation, but I do not believe it is the be-all and end-all.

I would like to respectfully differ on this point; it seems to me that what the intent of the text was, was to leave jurisdiction of the matter of visiting rights to the courts, should the parent appeal a ban imposed due to the proven factors mentioned in clause 3. I think most courts would be sensible enough not to let the father visit the child, even after a repeal attempt, because it would be recognised that in cases like this, the child's welfare would probably not be served by the father visiting him. The courts would no doubt interpret threat to mean 'psychological' as well as 'physical' threat, so that if the child was traumatised by the sacrificial experience you cited, he would not be forced to see his father. I just feel that very, very few courts, to the point of it being a barely negligible number, would permit such activities. And of course, it would not be impossible for social services or the boys guardians to appeal the decision themselves.

I raised objections about polygamy and polyandry on page 2 of the drafting thread, but probably should have pushed harder, and I'll stop painting all supporters of the proposal as believing such marriages are inferior. Should this be repealed, I would of course wish a replacement to incorporate accommodation for them. Furthermore, I feel there are unresolved issues about, for example, the alimony arrangements, or the cessation of rights (for example, the words 'by those concerned' in "Legalise Euthanasia" probably have pertinence to divorce cases). If these are to remain sovereign rights, then such could do with being more explicit.

Thank you for not continuing to paint us as believing they are inferior, I myself might have been rash in my choice of words in my reply to that point when it was first raised. The alimony arrangements would perhaps best be dealt with another resolution, aimed at arranging "Post-Divorce Settlements" as this one is purely enshrining a specific right to divorce and some terms of access to immediate family members by the respective parties.

Finally, I should add that I did originally suggest mild support for this. I do not believe it is the UN's place to legislate marriage. I am wrong. The UN has done so repeatedly and, whilst I am no fan of whoring myself to the whim of the majority, I accept that I must fight the battles I can win. If, then, marriage is within the ambit of UN legislation, then it follows that divorce is similarly applicable. I stated that I would have preferred something that dealt exclusively with contracts in the abstract; that conviction remains. Nonetheless, I accept that you are going to 'win', and congratulate you as such (albeit prematurely, but I'm going to be mighty busy tomorrow). I just hope that certain of those involved in this thread might take note of the fact that there are lines the UN should not cross, even though it clearly can cross them, and the weight of frustration demonstrated in voiced and polled opinion might serve as a reminder that morality is not universal.

I agree that this has in many ways brought up fault-lines concerning morality and its universality. The ethical debates have often centred on whether we believe that there is a general code of values common to all peoples, or whether each morality is separately developed by various societies. I personally am inclined towards the former, many others towards the latter. Hopefully in future, a fuller consensus shall be achieved.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The alimony arrangements would perhaps best be dealt with another resolution, aimed at arranging "Post-Divorce Settlements" as this one is purely enshrining a specific right to divorce and some terms of access to immediate family members by the respective parties.

Oh God, not again. If there is something to take home after this debate, is that legislation at such a micro level is not well received. WHY does the UN have to consider "Post-Divorce Settlements"?

The esteemed representative of the Forgottenlands fails to note, though, that in the case of Our nation, the religious institution IS the national government. Thus the whole concept of a difference between "contractual" vs. "religious" marriage has no meaning for Us--they are one and the same.

Does the esteemed representative wish to go on record as denying Our nation's government the right to enforce its own laws? Are Our people to be slaves of the NSUN, merely because their chosen form of government does not meet with the Forgottenlands' approval?

The people of Cluichstan feel that the record speaks for itself. Sadly, cultural imperialism is a hallmark of a large number of member states, including Forgottenlands.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Esteemed Colleagues:

I wish to go on record...for the Nth time...and say that resolutions such as this one have no place in the UN. Divorce, marriage, that whole interpersonal issue -- it's all well within the sovereignty of individual nations, or even cultural demarcations within nations. For the love of whatever you deem holy, leave the rights of individual nations alone!

Quixotically,

Magister Jubal Harshaw of Intangelon
Regional UN Delegate for Greater Seattle

Well, Hualien is quite possibly going to pull out of the United Nations of this passes. There is no authority in the UN Charter for the UN to declare its authority over such internal matters.

We thank the honorable representative of Forgottenlands for his prompt response and careful explanation of his views. To save some space, we have omitted the specific cases and comments, which the members can examine in your posting.



You may not think that that "the child should have any real concern about it", but the issue is not what you think the case should be. The issue is what the situation may actually be. No one is talking about denying visitaion because of decisions that a parent has made. We're talking about keeping children from being put in situations which might be psychologically harmful to them. And we would further point out that the proposal says nothing about a child's right to anything. The right of the parent to visitation "trumps" everything.



The child is afraid of the parent who has a history of psychologically abusing them, and you still think he or she should be forced into contact with them? The parent psychologically abuses the child during visitations, and there's nothing wrong with that? We can't find any possible basis to agree with that. And I would agree that, in examples 6 and 10, it may be quite proper and healthy to allow the child to have contact with the parent. But then again, it might not be. That depends on the circumstances and the child's psychological state -- which, of course, this proposal forbids us from considering.

We are frankly appalled at the responses where you indicated you "don't care". We think they are perfect examples of what is dreadfully wrong with this proposal. The co-authors, in their fixation on establishing the right of a non-custodial parent to visitation, cared far too little about the rights of children to be protected from harm.

Ausserland respectfully urges our fellow members to vote NO on this well-intentioned but badly flawed proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs


First, i would like to thanks Ausserland, for his 2 post, as I agree with him, it's very important and to thanks For Forgottenlands, as I would not have give a so good answer.

I will just want add that there is another factor about "psychological damage" to take into account:

When a child cannot see one of his parents, he/she will ask why and may not understand why; even if reality is sometimes difficult to admit, the opposite can be worse.

The esteemed Ambassador of Ausserland proposed in the drafting stage the following:

DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce unless the authority granting the divorce determines that this would not be in the best interests of the children.

Back in that thread I answered him, this clause would have open a dangerous loophole.

Well, Hualien is quite possibly going to pull out of the United Nations of this passes. There is no authority in the UN Charter for the UN to declare its authority over such internal matters.

I'd like (if I may) to correct the honourable delegate on his assertion. The NSUN does have authority, technically speaking, over all aspects of policy. Whether or not it chooses to or should exercise such power, is a matter of considerable debate amongst its members. So the question is not so much one of authority, but of moral authority, a far more vague concept.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

This proposal fails to mention other circumstances that would require a quicker divorce. The fact that it only mentions a few circumstances, is the reason why I voted "No".

I think this proposal might work better if it were to be written up as "reasons not allowing for divorce"... of which I can't think of any. If someone wants a divorce, let them get one. Not allowing a divorce because one person wants it and one person doesn't could lead to serious emotional distress, not to mention crime, in the extrememe consequence.

Example: Two people meet in a pub/bar and get drunk as hell and go off to a place similar to Vegas. They don't even KNOW each other. They wake in the morning and can't get a divorce? Regardless of whether they signed papers, I think this is reason for divorce.

There are plenty of other odd situations out there that are not encompassed in this proposal.

`)
Hype
HSVN

This proposal fails to mention other circumstances that would require a quicker divorce. The fact that it only mentions a few circumstances, is the reason why I voted "No".

I think this proposal might work better if it were to be written up as "reasons not allowing for divorce"... of which I can't think of any. If someone wants a divorce, let them get one. Not allowing a divorce because one person wants it and one person doesn't could lead to serious emotional distress, not to mention crime, in the extrememe consequence.

Example: Two people meet in a pub/bar and get drunk as hell and go off to a place similar to Vegas. They don't even KNOW each other. They wake in the morning and can't get a divorce? Regardless of whether they signed papers, I think this is reason for divorce.

There are plenty of other odd situations out there that are not encompassed in this proposal.

`)
Hype
HSVN

In reply, I cite clause 1.6, to answer your assertion.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I have voted FOR this proposal, but sadly have lost my delegate status due to the fact that the only other UN Member Nation in my old region died...so my vote only counted for me...but I still voted! This one looks to be a close call too...o.o

I have voted FOR this proposal, but sadly have lost my delegate status due to the fact that the only other UN Member Nation in my old region died...so my vote only counted for me...but I still voted! This one looks to be a close call too...o.o

I'm glad to hear that another member of the U.N. has voted for this excellent proposal. I agree it is going to be a close call, but with a bit of luck and some hard work on the TG campaigns and battles on the forum, we can carry the day.

I'm sorry to hear you've lost your delegate status. If you like, you can always come to the Nationstates region (not NATION STATES region by the way, they're traitors) and join our grouping. You won't be a delegate, but we treat all our members with respect and have a good community spirit and democratic processes of decision making.

P.S. I am aware that this is region advertising, but I'm using it in the context of the discussion. Please don't hurt me:( .

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

As, the resolution "Right to Divorce" passed, Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero want to give a special thanks to Forgottenlands, who authored this resolution as me, and argumented and debated it better than me.

He would like also to thanks every nation who have contributed in the drafting phase, everyone who approved it or voted FOR or AGAINST, and give another special thanks to all who supported us in this forum or by telegram.

NB: Pazu-Lenny’s new family name is Kasigi-Nero, as he joined Midori Kasigi, now Midori Kasigi-Nero, the Deputy UN Ambassador of the Empire of Kirisubo, in the eyes of the Kami. They will have a Kirisuban wedding in Kirisubo next month.

Although we voted and heavily campaigned against this resolution, we would still like to congratulate Love and Esterel and Forgottenlands on their victory. Well done.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Congratulations.

Well I had no idea that the UN forced nations to accept homesexual unions and I also disagree with the this most recent proposal. It forces nations to provide an easy way out of marriage. That said, I resign from the UN for the integrity of my nation. Perhaps in the future, when the UN actually decides on globally important matters and keeps their hands out of issues better decided in local situations, I may return.

Gruenberg, [NS]The-Republic, thanks

[NS]The-Republic, I sympathize for your campaign, as i did one few months ago, against the repeal of Dolphins (mine was at the approval stage) and my result was so poor.

Since I know Nationstates, it seems to me that the only sucessfull TG campaign (against a proposition) was against the "Worldwide Media Act", as it was so tight, so it's not impossible, just really, really hard:p

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/office.jpg

See ya!

this was a hard fought debate and the margin of defeat was tight.

i would like to congratulate my husband to be on his victory and to remind him that its his turn to make dinner ;)

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Kirisuban deputy ambassador to the UN

[NS]The-Republic, I sympathize for your campaign, as i did one few months ago, against the repeal of Dolphins (mine was at the approval stage) and my result was so poor.
Hey, you win some, you lose some, it's all part of the fun!

BTW, does anyone know why I have [NS] before my name? It's only here on the forum, not on the NationStates site.

this was a hard fought debate and the margin of defeat was tight.

i would like to congratulate my husband to be on his victory and to remind him that its his turn to make dinner ;)

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Kirisuban deputy ambassador to the UN

Thanks darling. Kiss

Is it ok for you if I order some stunning food at "El Bulli", for our dinner tonight:
here is the menu, let me know what you prefer::p

Hors d’oeuvres
Cocktail of fresh apple juice with Calvados
Parmesan ice cream sandwich (crisp wafers, chilled mousse inside)
A cannoli of corn wafer filled with guacamole
Black olive bread shaved and twisted into crispy flowers
Puffed quinoa (tasted like Poprocks) served in brown paper cone
Tomato juice sorbet (pale, pure juice) thickened with bread, topped
with a crisp ball filled with peppered olive oil
Poached quail egg in crisp, pale sugar caramel flavored
with black pepper Parmesan straws

Appetizers
Hot and cold soup of fresh peas with mint
Iced polenta with Parmesan custard and olive oil
“Tagliatelle” noodles of jellied consommè (agar-agar) served warm
with bacon, cheese dice, and cream
Oil of charred truffles with quail egg yolk in a baby onion cup
with bread flowers
Sea cucumber batons, fresh mango with caramelized black olive puree
Hot and cold chop suey (vegetable macèdoine included corn
and zucchini) with raw chilled clams
Ravioli of squid with coconut milk and ginger
Pineapple sorbet dotted with dried pineapple

Main Courses
Foam of tea, barnacles in a jelly
Sautèed red mullet, ravioli of red beet with blackcurrant and port
Cube of foie gras with basil mousse and pine nuts
Yeast soup with cream, cinnamon, lemon sorbet

Desserts
White chocolate granità with mango puree and caramelized black olive puree
Deconstructed tiramisù — mascarpone, half circle of frozen
espresso, powdered cocoa, jelly of amaretto

“Follies”
Lollipop of dried yogurt with dried strawberry granules
White chocolate wafers marbled with black olive puree
Oval white chocolate wafers flavored with truffle
Passion fruit meringues

--------------
OOC: “El Bulli” restaurant, Costa Brava, Spain
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/food_and_drink/news/article191953.ece

lets see :)

Cocktail of fresh apple juice with Calvados
Ravioli of squid with coconut milk and ginger
Sautèed red mullet, ravioli of red beet with blackcurrant and port
White chocolate granità with mango puree and caramelized black olive puree
Passion fruit meringues

that should hit the spot :)

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Kirisuban deputy ambassador to the UN

The-Republic']BTW, does anyone know why I have [NS] before my name? It's only here on the forum, not on the NationStates site.
It's a quirk of the forums, if you want it removed you can ask in the tech forum and they'll take care of it.

It's a quirk of the forums, if you want it removed you can ask in the tech forum and they'll take care of it.
Thanks.

lets see :)

Cocktail of fresh apple juice with Calvados
Ravioli of squid with coconut milk and ginger
Sautèed red mullet, ravioli of red beet with blackcurrant and port
White chocolate granità with mango puree and caramelized black olive puree
Passion fruit meringues

that should hit the spot :)

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Kirisuban deputy ambassador to the UN

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero, called his wife, Midori Kasigi-Nero on their mobile phone:

"Baby, a friend of mine, Georges Shallmar, the LAE minister of economy and trade arranged us 2 place at "El Bulli" tonight, we will arrive in LAE by the UN portal. You will not only taste 3 or 4 of these stunning meal, as at "El Bulli" a dinner is 25-30 meals, it's more a sort of degustation:) "

Midori answers the phone, agrees and returns to the Kirisuban UN offices on the 40th floor to get ready.

:sniper: Once again we get something shoved down our throats that are the concern of sovereign governments ONLY...The next thing will be forcing us to put butter on our toast. Get real.

:mp5:

In retrospect, I wish we had gone through a longer drafting process, as there were definately some mistakes made, but all in all, I was honestly more concerned in making sure my first resolution passed than the issues it had. I shall try to remember those mistakes in future resolutions and hope that this one can be improved on.

That said, I'm currently brooding about what Ausserland and Gruenburg have said - no doubt arguments that will likely be taken up at some later point as the discussion of repeals and replacements gets underway both here and in the Old Guard so I will probably address them at that time. However, TEK's comment I feel is more petinent and this argument never seems to get old so I shall address it now.

The esteemed representative of the Forgottenlands fails to note, though, that in the case of Our nation, the religious institution IS the national government. Thus the whole concept of a difference between "contractual" vs. "religious" marriage has no meaning for Us--they are one and the same.

We've gone over this, many times. If your government is incapable of seperating the two, then the contractual marriage is still allowed to be divorced - regardless of whether the religious aspect is attached to it. I am not interested nor concerned if the problem lies with the way you have structured your society, as the reasoning of why I believe divorce is so important doesn't change. The question is where I believe the UN has power, and this is on any governments that have subjected themselves to the rule of the UN. This UN rules those who have consented to be members, and you consented to give up sovereignty in the process. Your government consented to have its powers limited by the UN. I feel the right for your citizens to have a divorce, to disagree with your church's stance on divorce and to act upon that right heavily outweighs that of your government's right to have its laws match its religion. You can call something a sin, but you cannot force people to choose not to commit the sin.

Does the esteemed representative wish to go on record as denying Our nation's government the right to enforce its own laws? Are Our people to be slaves of the NSUN, merely because their chosen form of government does not meet with the Forgottenlands' approval?

Your people need not do anything. But I shall go on record and say that your government follows the will of the NSUN so long as you're a member. Clause 3 (IIRC - might be 2) of UNR 49 says as much.

Although I am delighted at the passage of this resolution, after much fine debate from both sides, I sense that a repeal is imminent and therefore we should not let our guards down and consider this a fait accompli just yet.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Congrats on your first resolution, Forgottenlord. Congrats on another resolution, L&e.

Although I am delighted at the passage of this resolution, after much fine debate from both sides, I sense that a repeal is imminent and therefore we should not let our guards down and consider this a fait accompli just yet.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I would support a repeal on many of the points that Gruenburg has brought up, and will likely begin working on a draft of a replacement to sit in the background should any repeal gain momentum. I will, of course, not support any repeal that uses National Sovereignty as the excuse - though Ausserland's point about Social Workers I would probably let go.

I would support a repeal on many of the points that Gruenburg has brought up, and will likely begin working on a draft of a replacement to sit in the background should any repeal gain momentum. I will, of course, not support any repeal that uses National Sovereignty as the excuse - though Ausserland's point about Social Workers I would probably let go.

First, we'd like to thank the distinguished representative of Forgottenlands for his excellent efforts to keep debate on this resolution civil and on point. We opposed the resolution and support its repeal, but we appreciated his attitude and efforts.

We're a little puzzled. What was our point about "Social Workers". We don't recall mentioning them.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

LAE will of course support a repeal/replacemnt process, if we read a better proposition than our resolution.

But, even if our resolution is far from perfect, i have yet to see any improvment idea in this forum (apart from the 2 month refexion, from the RL switzerland in 1.1 and 1.2, suggested to me by someone in by TG)

We would support a repeal, even without seeing a new draft. The authors themselves agree with some shortcomings, and that there is a wide support for a general, less intrusive "right to divorce" statement, so the passing of a replacement would not be as hard as the current vote. I would personally favour a replacement written by the same authors, as surely they would be more sensitive to the points made here, after this long debate. (ooc: this is also a sneaky political move to gain their support for the repeal)

The government of Hualien has been overthrown in a military coup. Following the passage of the right to divorce resolution, the executive announced that Hualien would remain a member of the United Nations despite the massive unpopularity of the measure. However, military leaders with the collusion of leading members of the Parliament, have decided to overthrow the government. The former executive is currently in prison. The military has handed control of the executive to the leader of the Chamber of the Faiths, the upper chamber of the Parliament. "Unfortunately, there are states, including states in our own region, who have no respect whatsover for the sovereignty of nations. They have used the United Nations for their own cultural imperialism. THe people of Hualien should never allow that to happen. Once Parliament convenes tomorrow, we shall immediately submit a motion to formally withdraw from the United Nations. We will also submit legislation to give more power to the Parliament instead of vesting nearly absolute power in the executive, even though he is an elected one." On other regional news, Northstralia, though consisting a government radically different from that of the Most Serene Republic, has withdrawn from the United Nations.