NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING the recent passage of "Right To Divorce",

CONCERNED at a number of failures of said resolution:

1. OBSERVING that although it 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', this does not actually guarantee any right to a divorce, meaning the final decision still rests with national or local courts anyway,

2. DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide,

3. BELIEVING it to be fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

4. RECOGNISING that it would be better to have visitation privileges determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the facts of the specific situation and giving proper attention to the welfare of the children as well as the rights of the parents,

5. NOTING FURTHER that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships, and as such enforces one particular set of values,

6. CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies,

7. REMAINING OPEN to the possibility of replacement legislation that legislates a 'right to divorce' without resorting to unnecessary micromanagement:

REPEALS "Right To Divorce".

Submitted on behalf of Gruenberg.

[Edited to show most first "Repeal" in the que.]

also: http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce

We don't support legislation submitted by "rouge" nations. Now, if you were a mascara or lipstick nation we might reconsider.

...no. Some of us fought very hard against this resolution, and take its repeal seriously. It's disappointing you can't bring yourself to do the same.

...no. Some of us fought very hard against this resolution, and take its repeal seriously. It's disappointing you can't bring yourself to do the same.

Gruenberg, you voted in the wrong category. You should have voted in Category 4 "Leave it alone -- I invested a lot of political capital in 135."

We take it as seriously as you do.
We at Cramistan support a "Right to Divorce" as all contracts between individuals should be able to be recinded.
However, 135 goes far beyond the simple "right to divorce" and addresses a bunch of other "rights" such as the right to see children, and these are best addressed in other resolutions, or by member states.... not in a "right to divorce" We in Cramistan opposed 135 on those grounds and others.

Thanks for your input.

We don't support legislation submitted by "rouge" nations. Now, if you were a mascara or lipstick nation we might reconsider.

My spelling stinks... just not as bad as Resolution 135. Thanks for your humor.

P.S. how many spelling errors did you count in Resolution 135? There will also be a poll on that... coming soon.

Use another proposal... Cramistan is a Rouge Nation.
Fonzoland, Gruenberg, Krioval, Love and esterel, Yelda, [NS]The-Republic

With voting turned on, we see the author of 135, "Love and esterel" also voted in the wrong category. Should have voted in "I invested a lot of political capital in 135"


:fluffle:

shame there is not an option on the poll that says something like:

"OMG! It's such a suprise that nations spring out of nowhere to write an awful repeal and will probably disappear when they realise it ain't going to happen overnight!"

I would have picked that option. No offence Cramistan but I really think nations should come back to this topic in the future rather than acting without letting some time pass.

Use another proposal... Cramistan is a Rouge Nation.
Fonzoland, Gruenberg, Krioval, Love and esterel, Yelda, [NS]The-Republic

With voting turned on, we see the author of 135, "Love and esterel" also voted in the wrong category. Should have voted in "I invested a lot of political capital in 135"

I am sorry, but who the f**k do you think you are to tell people where they should be voting? The fact that L&E is open to repeal & replace his own proposal is a sign of more political maturity than any poorly designed poll you can come up with.

Use another proposal... Cramistan is a Rouge Nation.
Fonzoland, Gruenberg, Krioval, Love and esterel, Yelda, [NS]The-Republic

With voting turned on, we see the author of 135, "Love and esterel" also voted in the wrong category. Should have voted in "I invested a lot of political capital in 135"


:fluffle:

yeah, i ckicked on the wrong button, and didn't find how i can change my vote;)

I am sorry, but who the f**k do you think you are to tell people where they should be voting? The fact that L&E is open to repeal & replace his own proposal is a sign of more political maturity than any poorly designed poll you can come up with.

A little decorum please...

shame there is not an option on the poll that says something like:

"OMG! It's such a suprise that nations spring out of nowhere to write an awful repeal and will probably disappear when they realise it ain't going to happen overnight!"

I would have picked that option. No offence Cramistan but I really think nations should come back to this topic in the future rather than acting without letting some time pass.

Querido Hirota,

No offense taken. Your point that Cramistan will probably disappear from the UN is right on. If the members of the UN believe its purpose is to legislate morality within our soveriegn borders, and proposals like "Right to Divorce" are not repealed immediately, we will withdraw.

FYI the "Rouge Nation" choice was intended for opinions such as yours.

NOTE: The first three options on this voting are to repeal, and the voting is running decidedly towards repeal.

yeah, i ckicked on the wrong button, and didn't find how i can change my vote;)

As far as I know you are stuck with it.

If L&E knows the best restaurants in Spain we will moderate our tone in hopes we will be the beneficiaries of an invitation.

L&E -- You have yet to respond to my point that a "Right to Divorce" should be separate from a "right to determine the how and why and when to divorce" and separate from a "right to visitation". I eagerly await your response.

As far as I know you are stuck with it.

If L&E knows the best restaurants in Spain we will moderate our tone in hopes we will be the beneficiaries of an invitation.

yes "el Bulli", on the Costa Brava, north of barcelone, one of ithe if not the best; but i'm afraid i will be difficult to invite you, first we wil lhave to book almost one year in advance,
second, even if we reserve our odds wil lbe less than 10%,
and third if you pay the bill of course i invit you:D


L&E -- You have yet to respond to my point that a "Right to Divorce" should be separate from a "right to determine the how and why and when to divorce" and separate from a "right to visitation". I eagerly await your response.

when & why:
ok, i already answered to this but here is my answer for
the other possibility we had was a short clause, do you prefer that?:

-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce when one partner request it.

This was the old good time when scientific freedom for example (nothing against) or IVF, i admit, were nor a minimum regulated

Visitation:
Visitation had to be garanteed with divorce,
it's not because someone is divorced and even is not the custodian parents, that he/she is should be barred, as any non-divorced parents, to see the child

with Forgottenlands we agreed with 2 exception: proven domestic violence or sexual abuse

If not, it can create a giant loophole, in particular in nations, as Iran and Saoudi-Arabia in RL

It was of course difficult to write this, i agree this is not perfect, but so far, i have read no serious alternative,

Then Forgottenlands wanted to add:

-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.

and i agreed with him, and i always support this

Also our proposition don't deal with custody, because it's so complex, even to have basic clause about it, and i'm not an expert

i will add that be don't wanted to allow some divorce for fault, as these "faults" clauses have destroyed thousands of family even further in the world.

we replaced it with:
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months, or later, after the initial request

-1.5- it's not mandatory to nations as they can have only: "One partner repeats a request for a divorce "

But is something essantial, maybe the more important sentence in our resolution, because it request the partner to have 3-month of reflexions, and then it can prevent from precipited-but-not-really-wanted-divorces

This is why, even of it strange to some, and maybe in a sort of subliminal manner, resolution #135 is a pro family resolution

yes "el Bulli", on the Costa Brava, north of
when & why:
ok, i already answered to this but here is my answer for
the other possibility we had was a short clause, do you prefer that?:

... stuff deleted


Our point was the the UN should not Specify the "How and Why" of divorce. The basic right to a divorce the majority agrees.

The controversy is over "how and why and when"...

An arbitrary three months waiting period is just that, an arbitrary number. Why not let member nations determine whether three weeks or three minutes would be better than three months?

The other DECIDES are less arbitrary but less necessary. Allowing individual members to determine "How" and "Why" is in the UN's best interest.

Since you state you are not an expert, let us let the experts in each member nation determine the "When, How and Why".

Finally, you fail to address the point that a "Right to Visitation" is different and separate from a "Right to Divorce". Had it not been included, much of the controversy surrounding the proposal would have been eliminated.

Lets just simplify the thing to:

"DECIDES: No member nation shall enact legislation prohibiting divorce."

Tal vez, le gustaria seguir en el Castillano?

"DECIDES: No member nation shall enact legislation prohibiting divorce."


The problem with his aproach is that, then, many nation will allow divorce only for various "faults"

and i as explained many times, this is the cause of many further family destruction

Of course i'm not a legal expert about divorce, but i made many research when drafting it, it's why i mentionned in this forum legislation in RL Sweden, Finland and also in Spain, Nederland and california and some faults considered as a requirements in some nations.

Furthermore, the wife of one of my best friend just asked for divorce last week. Unfortunatly, in my RL nation clause 1.5 doesn't exist
then my friend has only 2 choices:
-accept; or
-not accept, and then, as she looks very determined at this moment and will probably will very upset if he doesn't accept, she will begin a divorce procedure for various faults .

This is dramatic, because if there was something as clause 1.5, he could have say he didn't want to accept it, and she will not be upseted as she would have know that, she will be able to divorce anyway 3 months later.
Then she will have had to think it about it all for 3 months, and even if nothing was guaranteed, it would have been a chance for their couple.

The problem with his aproach is that, then, many nation will allow divorce only for various "faults"

and i as explained many times, this is the cause of many further family destruction
Emphasis added

Fault-divorce is a cause of family destruction -- agreed. However, how many nations currently take this approach? One? Two? Many? Failed to show "harm" in this regard, since "many" is unquantifed.

Our position is that the simple approach will be more acceptable to the member nations, especially those MANY nations that epressed the view that the UN is overstepping its bounds.

I respect you persevering, especially in a language that is not your first language.

A Dios

This is dramatic, because if there was something as clause 1.5, he could have say he didn't want to accept it, and she will not be upseted as she would have know that, she will be able to divorce anyway 3 months later.
Then she will have had to think it about it all for 3 months, and even if nothing was guaranteed, it would have been a chance for their couple.

The merits of your argument are obvious. How about this:

"DECIDES: No member nation shall enact legislation banning no-fault divorce."

So simple.

OOC: As someone going through a divorce, I have first-hand experience with the crappy divorce laws we are stuck with and the impact on fault-based divorce.

The merits of your argument are obvious. How about this:

"DECIDES: No member nation shall enact legislation banning no-fault divorce."

So simple.

OOC: As someone going through a divorce, I have first-hand experience with the crappy divorce laws we are stuck with and the impact on fault-based divorce.

OOC: Coming back to this thread, I find it has developed into a reasonable and interesting debate. So I will join, and hope Cramistan will accept my sincere apologies for the previous outburst.

IC: I would also prefer a resolution which just stated a general principle, but I can understand L&E's problem in making it watertight without micromanagement. In your statement, a nation might very well say no-fault divorce is legalised... after a 57 year cooling off period.

We wish to express reservations with this proposal. As others have said here, Ascensoria is not opposed to the right of divorce being enforced so much as the method that was chosen. We would rather see it repealed and replaced with a generic right of divorce.

We also agree that drawing a line between fault and no-fault divorce is arbitrary and unhelpful. In the more repressed days of history it was not unknown for couples to deliberately commit adultery simply so they could have a divorce. We have no wish to see citizens forced into such extreme acts for the sake of their freedom.

It saddens me to say it, but I also think a 'replace' act is more likely to pass. I fear that a fair few of our noble peers have a habit of reading titles rather than content.

Herald Sitharensor
Ascensoria

I would also prefer a resolution which just stated a general principle, but I can understand L&E's problem in making it watertight without micromanagement. In your statement, a nation might very well say no-fault divorce is legalised... after a 57 year cooling off period.

We can fix that --

"DECIDES: No member nation shall enact legislation limiting no-fault divorce."

These lawyers sure are pesky.

OOC: Coming back to this thread, I find it has developed into a reasonable and interesting debate. So I will join, and hope Cramistan will accept my sincere apologies for the previous outburst.

IC: I would also prefer a resolution which just stated a general principle, but I can understand L&E's problem in making it watertight without micromanagement. In your statement, a nation might very well say no-fault divorce is legalised... after a 57 year cooling off period.


It's why i think it was not possible to propose something reasonable with less details, and again we never wanted this:

"-1- ... when one partner repeats a request for a divorce"


Following is the unknown story of #135:

In the very 1st draft i send by tg to Forgottenlands, -1.5- = 6 months, as it is in RL Norway and Finland
in the second -1.5- = 3 months, probably reflecting my liberal trendency

As Forgottenlands and I, are not expert on divorce, we hsitated for long about 3 or 6 monts, for me it was very important, as -1.5- synthetise even alone all the humanist philosophy and the pro-family position behind #135

As we didn't know, we posted in the forum with the 3 months, and i was absolutly ready to put at 6, if anyone asked it

But this point was absent of the debate, i was sad, and during the vote, the quality of the debate was so poor, that i loose my nerves against someone accusing us of being "closed minded"

Then during the debate, someone sent a TG to me just tolding me that our proposition was close to RL Switzerland one, i was intrigued, checked it, find out that the 2 month reflexion for the equivaent of -1.1- and -1.2- were a great idea, and was sad to not have think about it before


About visitation,

Ausserland expressed his very interesting concerns in the early drafting stage, i want to thank him for that, then i answered him the same day:

"Thanks, you made a good point, but our fear are in cases where a conjoint (mostly mowen) will fear to ask a divorce because (s)he knows that the odds (s)he will be able to see their child will be very low (sorry to mentioning once against Iran or Saudi-Arabia), so maybe the best solution will be to add some more issues others to domestic violence in -3-"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9937354&postcount=26

He answered me in the last 24 hours of the vote;
In his answer most of the case were already included in #135 (domestic violence or sexual abuse) or having been anserered by me (third party being present, behind a glass), the remaining where ansered in the excellent post of Forgottenlands (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10073843&postcount=307)and completed by me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10076508&postcount=319).

I felt my vote on your poll does not explain my proper feelings regarding resolution 135 and your proposed repeal:

I have invested too much time and effort into resolution 135 that, despite its inherent flaws and known failings, I cannot and will not support a dumbass 2 line repeal where the repealer treats my resolution as nothing short of a joke when it was considered serious enough by this body to be one of the most heavily debated resolutions of all time, puts together the most ridiculously constructed poll, and does nothing except goof off with little attempt to debate the actual resolution or explain where and why he feels there is a problem other than to state his personal opinion. I have contested with half a dozen individuals in the official topic who have, after several rounds, convinced me of its failings, but they put the time and effort into debating it and explaining their arguments - sometimes with very LOOOOOONG explanations.

Our point was the the UN should not Specify the "How and Why" of divorce. The basic right to a divorce the majority agrees.

The controversy is over "how and why and when"...

An arbitrary three months waiting period is just that, an arbitrary number. Why not let member nations determine whether three weeks or three minutes would be better than three months?

We left that power for the individual nation by implementing clause 1.6

The other DECIDES are less arbitrary but less necessary. Allowing individual members to determine "How" and "Why" is in the UN's best interest.

Actually, we specifically chose not to worry about how and why. We made civil divorce blind to such acts. Certainly, stuff like pre-nuptual agreements and settlements can take those into account, but the fact of the matter is marriage is a contract - and I believe people should have the right to leave a contract - even if there is a considerable penalty for doing so.

Since you state you are not an expert, let us let the experts in each member nation determine the "When, How and Why".

Finally, you fail to address the point that a "Right to Visitation" is different and separate from a "Right to Divorce". Had it not been included, much of the controversy surrounding the proposal would have been eliminated.

I don't believe in having 1000 different proposals for a 1000 different rights, so I am not going to debate this point further. If you think there is an issue with the WAY we implemented the visitation rights, then argue it. However, if your argument is no more substantial than "you should've done it seperately", then I'm going to have to say I'm not recognizing that thread of thought.

Lets just simplify the thing to:

"DECIDES: No member nation shall enact legislation prohibiting divorce."

Tal vez, le gustaria seguir en el Castillano?

You want to talk about driving holes through resolutions, I could drive a bloody Death Star through that resolution and not even loose a turret in the process.

I felt my vote on your poll does not explain my proper feelings regarding resolution 135 and your proposed repeal:

I have invested too much time and effort into resolution 135 that, despite its inherent flaws and known failings, I cannot and will not support a dumbass 2 line repeal where the repealer treats my resolution as nothing short of a joke when it was considered serious enough by this body to be one of the most heavily debated resolutions of all time, puts together the most ridiculously constructed poll, and does nothing except goof off with little attempt to debate the actual resolution or explain where and why he feels there is a problem other than to state his personal opinion.

Well, that's quite a run-on sentence. It has a little bit of everything: While mostly personal attacks, I take exception to it in whole. By your response to the debate in this thread you must concede your personal attack has missed its mark completely.

I have contested with half a dozen individuals in the official topic who have, after several rounds, convinced me of its failings, but they put the time and effort into debating it and explaining their arguments - sometimes with very LOOOOOONG explanations.

Having admitted the failings of the proposal we in Cramistan look forward to its repeal. It takes a brave man to admit his failings, but any coward can make personal attacks.

The Jingoistic States of Gahinas has voted that this resolution should be repealled "as quickly as possible".

The main reason for this repeal is as follows:

"Eliminating the right to divorce will make people think more carefully about entering a marrital relationship in future.
As of right now, marriage is taken as a light decision, done for such reasons as financial benefits for both parties. No one cares much about the repercussions, because they are under the belief that should things not work out, they can apply for a divorce.
Elimination of the right to divorce will make people think before they act."

Another, less persuasive argument was supplied by our more religious Citizens:

"What in God's name! Do the vows people take at the altar mean nothing anymore?! Everyone says 'I do' when asked if they will stand by their partner, in sickness and health, 'til death do they part. This idea of divorce destroys the whole ending of that vow!"

If a repeal of the resolution was presented, The Jingoistic States of Gahinas would gladly support such a repeal.

Well, that's quite a run-on sentence. It has a little bit of everything: While mostly personal attacks, I take exception to it in whole. By your response to the debate in this thread you must concede your personal attack has missed its mark completely.

I think it was intended to be run-on. And as I read it, he made no personal attack whatsoever. Specifically, he attacked:
- your repeal,
- your attitude towards the resolution,
- your poll,
- your debating style.

Having admitted the failings of the proposal we in Cramistan look forward to its repeal. It takes a brave man to admit his failings, but any coward can make personal attacks.

You see, this is a personal attack.

Now comes ForgottonLands, the spread debater to this thread to respond to the substance of the arguments. Lets see how well he does.

We left that power for the individual nation by implementing clause 1.6



Actually, we specifically chose not to worry about how and why. We made civil divorce blind to such acts. Certainly, stuff like pre-nuptual agreements and settlements can take those into account, but the fact of the matter is marriage is a contract - and I believe people should have the right to leave a contract - even if there is a considerable penalty for doing so.

-- referring to the fact that 135 goes beyond a "right to divorce" and specifies arbitrary and capricious "conditions" Your response is non-responsive. Clause 1.6 does allow nations to expand and add conditions, but not subtract. In my opinion, and many others expressed here, 1.6 does not satisfy soveriegn nations desire to govern themselves. One of the primary failings of 135 is that it DOES specify "how and why" conditions that are really none of the UN's business.


I don't believe in having 1000 different proposals for a 1000 different rights, so I am not going to debate this point further. If you think there is an issue with the WAY we implemented the visitation rights, then argue it. However, if your argument is no more substantial than "you should've done it seperately", then I'm going to have to say I'm not recognizing that thread of thought.

It is anathema to the process to piggy-back rights on top of each other. The subject of child visitation is best left to local decision makers, and we don't believe it has any place in a UN document. If the UN feels otherwise, then the subject is sufficiently voluminous to warrent its own resolution and debate. You ignore the fact that much of the controversy over 135 was the very issue you refuse to debate futher. Had this been left off 135 its repeal might not be immient. The fact is that VISITATION RIGHTS have nothing to do with DIVORCE RIGHTS and in my opinion have no place in a "right to divorce". I'll bet my next to the last paycheck the next version of a "right to divorce" that passes the UN will lack a "visitation right".


You want to talk about driving holes through resolutions, I could drive a bloody Death Star through that resolution and not even loose a turret in the process.

I assume you are referring to the generic "right to divorce" favored by many posting in these forums, rather than 135. The reason the generic is favored over 135 is the ability to locally implement appropriate rules and proceedures, rather than have them foisted upon nation-states by the UN. I dare you to bring your death-star to Cramistan and drive it through our divorce laws. Good Luck.

I think it was intended to be run-on. And as I read it, he made no personal attack whatsoever. Specifically, he attacked:
- your repeal,
- your attitude towards the resolution,
- your poll,
- your debating style.

OOC: One for the 'Greatest UN forum quotes...'

I think it was intended to be run-on. And as I read it, he made no personal attack whatsoever. Specifically, he attacked:
- your repeal,
- your attitude towards the resolution,
- your poll,
- your debating style.

Forgotton tries to desparage legitimate arguments by belittling everything about me of which he is aware. It is clearly a personal attack. You cant be serious.

The bullying attitude of certain long-time members is tiresome. Call that a personal attack if you like -- it is right on the mark.

I look forward to the repeal of 135.

OOC: Coming back to this thread, I find it has developed into a reasonable and interesting debate. So I will join, and hope Cramistan will accept my sincere apologies for the previous outburst.

Sigh. Sincerity is fleeting.

Sigh. Sincerity is fleeting.

Not really, but pacience is. You fail to grasp the distinction between form and content, so I will elaborate:

I sincerely regret my inadequate wording of a valid point.

Now comes ForgottonLands, the spread debater to this thread to respond to the substance of the arguments. Lets see how well he does.

Interesting title..... though I love how you took the time and effort to make sure you spelt the word "Forgotten" correctly.

-- referring to the fact that 135 goes beyond a "right to divorce" and specifies arbitrary and capricious "conditions" Your response is non-responsive. Clause 1.6 does allow nations to expand and add conditions, but not subtract. In my opinion, and many others expressed here, 1.6 does not satisfy soveriegn nations desire to govern themselves. One of the primary failings of 135 is that it DOES specify "how and why" conditions that are really none of the UN's business.

Oh - you do not understand. You see, you could ADD a statement saying "One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 minutes, or later, after the initial request" or even one saying "One partner requests a divorce" and it would be perfectly legal by the way our resolution was implemented. Of course, the counter is that you could also go "One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 years, or later, after the initial request" - but 1.5 would still be in effect (since, as you so right noted, you cannot subtract clauses), so the 3 months, being a shorter timeframe can still be utilized. Basically, you can shortcut the timeperiods with your own locally added clauses.

It is anathema to the process to piggy-back rights on top of each other. The subject of child visitation is best left to local decision makers, and we don't believe it has any place in a UN document. If the UN feels otherwise, then the subject is sufficiently voluminous to warrent its own resolution and debate. You ignore the fact that much of the controversy over 135 was the very issue you refuse to debate futher. Had this been left off 135 its repeal might not be immient. The fact is that VISITATION RIGHTS have nothing to do with DIVORCE RIGHTS and in my opinion have no place in a "right to divorce". I'll bet my next to the last paycheck the next version of a "right to divorce" that passes the UN will lack a "visitation right".

Actually, the debate was upon HOW we implemented the visitation rights and whether there were certain scenarios where our decisions may have not been the most suitable choice. We have come to a general understanding - but it was not "should visitation rights be on a seperate resolution or left on this one", it was "how should it be dealt with". I am not interested in hearing arguments on whether something should be addressed upon this resolution or not - after all, visitation is generally dealt with at divorce anyways. I am interested in hearing what people's opinions are on the failings of our implementation of visitation rights.

BTW - considering I'm being encouraged by many groups to write the re-draft (including Ausserland and Gruenberg who so handily shredded LAE's and my last attempt), you are betting with the person who controls the text of the next resolution - how foolish at best. It is my intention to address visitation rights at some level or another - even if it is to state that it should be left to either a case-by-case business, an encouragement clause or a "nations figure out what they want to do about it".

I assume you are referring to the generic "right to divorce" favored by many posting in these forums, rather than 135. The reason the generic is favored over 135 is the ability to locally implement appropriate rules and proceedures, rather than have them foisted upon nation-states by the UN. I dare you to bring your death-star to Cramistan and drive it through our divorce laws. Good Luck.

You see, it is not your divorce laws I'm worried about. It is nations like TEK who point blank refuse to grant a divorce under any circumstance. Your resolution wouldn't phase them - while there are many from HOCEK that I'm sure were ready to lynch me with 135.

I think it was intended to be run-on.Actually, it wasn't a run-on; just because a sentence contains long (or creatively linked -- via semi-colon, dash or parenthetical phrase) clauses doesn't mean that it's a run-on or gramatically incorrect.

Actually, it wasn't a run-on; just because a sentence contains long (or creatively linked -- via semi-colon, dash or parenthetical phrase) clauses doesn't mean that it's a run-on or gramatically incorrect.
Oh, the ever-neglected ellipsis... it too plays a part in creating proper syntax.

Cramistan is a "rouge" nation? What does a nation's use of make-up have to do with anything?

Unless the poll meant "rogue".

Well, regardless, repeal this crappy thing. Divorce is a cultural matter that has no bearing on international politics. This resolution is, as most of them are, unenforceable and a slap in the face to sovereignty.

Interesting title..... though I love how you took the time and effort to make sure you spelt the word "Forgotten" correctly.
Who cares about spelling your name correctly? I sure don't give a rat.


Oh - you do not understand. You see, you could ADD a statement saying "One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 minutes, or later, after the initial request" or even one saying "One partner requests a divorce" and it would be perfectly legal by the way our resolution was implemented. Of course, the counter is that you could also go "One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 years, or later, after the initial request" - but 1.5 would still be in effect (since, as you so right noted, you cannot subtract clauses), so the 3 months, being a shorter timeframe can still be utilized. Basically, you can shortcut the timeperiods with your own locally added clauses.

I do understand. You acknowlege that shorter time frames -- read nationstate preferrred timeframes -- are disallowed under 135. Get out of my nation. We'll decide how we want to do things. A generic "right to divorce" is sufficient. We don't need the extra "how and why and when" foisted upon us by some forgotten lands.

Actually, the debate was upon HOW we implemented the visitation rights and whether there were certain scenarios where our decisions may have not been the most suitable choice. We have come to a general understanding - but it was not "should visitation rights be on a seperate resolution or left on this one", it was "how should it be dealt with". I am not interested in hearing arguments on whether something should be addressed upon this resolution or not - after all, visitation is generally dealt with at divorce anyways. I am interested in hearing what people's opinions are on the failings of our implementation of visitation rights.

The fact that there is controversy over the subject, and the fact that a "right to visitation" is separate from a "right to divorce" is reason enough to leave it out. Unrefuted: the "right to visitation" is voluminous enough to deserve its own separate discussion. Just because you assert that "visitation is generally dealt with at divorce anyways" is not reason enough for the UN or some forgotten peoples to attempt to cram their particular view down our nations gullet. We'll decide those things without that input thank you. The points that I made go unrefuted. Visitation is a separate subject, and had the Vistation "right" been kept out of 135 we might not even be repealing the thing. But thankfully there is a critical momentum.

BTW - considering I'm being encouraged by many groups to write the re-draft (including Ausserland and Gruenberg who so handily shredded LAE's and my last attempt), you are betting with the person who controls the text of the next resolution - how foolish at best. It is my intention to address visitation rights at some level or another - even if it is to state that it should be left to either a case-by-case business, an encouragement clause or a "nations figure out what they want to do about it".

Considering you are encouraged by many to get out of their business, why don't you just sit down? I'm not betting with the "person who controls" rat dung. I'm telling you the UN or some forgotten people have no business messing with our country's method for deciding what happens to little rats in a divorce. Stay out of it.

P.S. Your suggestion that "nations figure out what they want to do about it" is a welcome change and a relief. Since you offer that as an option, we accept.

You see, it is not your divorce laws I'm worried about. It is nations like TEK who point blank refuse to grant a divorce under any circumstance. Your resolution wouldn't phase them - while there are many from HOCEK that I'm sure were ready to lynch me with 135.

It's not divorce laws I am worrried about -- its the UN and holier that thou know-it-alls that think they know better than we do how to do things in our country. As one recent poster noted, and I did in another thread -- 135 is unenforcable.

We will do what we like in Cramistan regardless of the "needs" of a forgotten land that is best forgotten.

Finally, I would like to say, in all sincerity -- get and stay out of Cramistan and we will get along much better. Really. Bye.

Actually, it wasn't a run-on; just because a sentence contains long (or creatively linked -- via semi-colon, dash or parenthetical phrase) clauses doesn't mean that it's a run-on or gramatically incorrect.

Yea -- see http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000011.htm and also http://www3.cerritos.edu/fquaas/resources/runons.htm.

Yes there are those technicians that believe that just because one places a comma between clauses they have punctuated correctly. I'm not in that school.

Hey as long as you are going to edit the choices on this poll, would you kindly change the spelling on the word "Rouge" to "Rogue"? Thanks.

P.S. I will consult with you next time so I can get your option in the poll ahead of time, that way we'll know just who else is voting with you. Thanks. Unless of course you can edit that as well. Sigh.

Yes there are those technicians that believe that just because one places a comma between clauses they have punctuated correctly. I'm not in that school.There are times when only a comma is required. The people that want short sentences are the same people who think that writting to the sixth grade level is sufficient. Some of us prefer more complex phrasings. [Edit: And your first link doesn't support you: it says that long sentences are grammatically correct, just "hard to understand". Whine.]

Furthermore, if you can only attack a poster's grammar, well...

Hey as long as you are going to edit the choices on this poll, would you kindly change the spelling on the word "Rouge" to "Rogue"? Thanks.Sure.

There are times when only a comma is required. The people that want short sentences are the same people who think that writting to the sixth grade level is sufficient. Some of us prefer more complex phrasings. [Edit: And your first link doesn't support you: it says that long sentences are grammatically correct, just "hard to understand". Whine.]

Furthermore, if you can only attack a poster's grammar, well...

Sure.

The first link does support me. Did you notice the big red Incorrect: in front of the properly punctuated but run-on sentence? He says it is "technically" correct, but it is a run-on sentence.

This is what happens when you cast pearls before swine. Idiots.:headbang:

[Edit: If calling the supreme moderator a swine and an idiot gets me banned from this joke of a web site -- I say THANK GOODNESS.]:D

This is all lovely, but could I point out that while you're wasting your time on this, your repeal is, er, dead.

This is all lovely, but could I point out that while you're wasting your time on this, your repeal is, er, dead.

Go back to page one of this thread, first post.

The repeal is not dead. There is a critical mass towards repeal. It matters not the means, only the end.

Also: Kindly note the balloting in this thread is decidedly towards repeal. The balloting in the original thread was 3:2 against the resolution. The people that read and/or participate in the dicussion abhor 135. QED.

Go back to page one of this thread, first post.

The repeal is not dead. There is a critical mass towards repeal. It matters not the means, only the end.

The edit was made one minute after my post, so I assume we just crossed wires. Thank you, I suppose. But I disagree about legislation being about the ends, not the means. I wrote a repeal and submitted it when there were already 6 in queue, because I didn't think any of them did the argument justice. A repeal is permanent - it can't be repealed - so once we pass it, that's that. As such, it seems foolish to me to suggest that we should shovel through any old shit, so long as we kill the resolution, because then we're lowering our standards beneath that of the original resolution. The authors put effort into it; we put effort into arguing against it. I want those arguments solidified, not forgotten about while people try to pass a "but I don't like it!" repeal.

The edit was made one minute after my post, so I assume we just crossed wires. Thank you, I suppose. But I disagree about legislation being about the ends, not the means. I wrote a repeal and submitted it when there were already 6 in queue, because I didn't think any of them did the argument justice. A repeal is permanent - it can't be repealed - so once we pass it, that's that.

All I meant was I don't care how it gets repealed, but that it gets repealed.

As such, it seems foolish to me to suggest that we should shovel through any old shit, so long as we kill the resolution, because then we're lowering our standards beneath that of the original resolution.

The discussion and poll in this thread has contributed to the eventual repeal of 135.

The authors put effort into it; we put effort into arguing against it. I want those arguments solidified, not forgotten about while people try to pass a "but I don't like it!" repeal.

The repeal authored by Cramistan was anything but a "but I don't like it!" repeal and I take exception to your assertion. Our repeal, while containing humor, was based on reason. The reasoned argument is that the UN has no business specifying "how and why and when" of divorce, that Cramistan supports a generic right, but leave us to implement the details.

The fact that there were seven or eight repeals in the que at one time speaks volumes to the crying need.

We are pleased that two well-written repeals are currently in the que and we hope the current holiday season does not dampen voting in the repeal process.

However, I don't really care anymore. This whole web site emits a foul odor. I'm probably going to be banned for calling the supreme hack moderator a swine and an idiot anyway.

All I meant was I don't care how it gets repealed, but that it gets repealed.

I know that's all you meant. I disagreed. I do care how it is repealed; it's a reflection on the UN as a whole.

The discussion and poll in this thread has contributed to the eventual repeal of 135.

The repeal authored by Cramistan was anything but a "but I don't like it!" repeal and I take exception to your assertion. Our repeal, while containing humor, was based on reason. The reasoned argument is that the UN has no business specifying "how and why and when" of divorce, that Cramistan supports a generic right, but leave us to implement the details.

I wasn't talking about your draft, specifically; I can't really remember it. However, being 'based on reason' isn't enough. One could reason that the UN has legislated marriage, that marriage and divorce are intrinsically linked, and that as such it is only fair to legislate divorce. There is not one reasoned argument; there are several. You feel you picked one: well done. What else you got?

However, I don't really care anymore. This whole web site emits a foul odor. I'm probably going to be banned for calling the supreme hack moderator a swine and an idiot anyway.

(If we're going to get technical, I believe they've ruled before that 'idiot' doesn't count as a flame.) But, anyway, getting into argument isn't really enough to warrant slamming the whole site, is it? I mean, you disagreed with him; believe me, it's happened before, and a lot more...explosively. I'm sure it'll happen again. It's just a game: maybe try to enjoy it?

Hey as long as you are going to edit the choices on this poll, would you kindly change the spelling on the word "Rouge" to "Rogue"? Thanks.

I respectfully inform the moderator, The Most Glorious Hack, that I object to such arbitrary and undemocratic procedures: many among us might have chosen that option purely out of dislike for the colour red, or for unfundamented bigotry against national leaders who wear makeup (and Fonzoland humbly includes itself in that group); to change the nature of a poll in the middle of the voting procedure strikes us as, aside from giving the authors unintended relevance as a "rogue" nation, putting unspoken words in our enlightened lips, and furthermore destroying the strict statistical validity of said poll.

I wasn't talking about your draft, specifically; I can't really remember it.

Ooooh... I see. Kindly engage brain before mouth -- you are grinding the gears.

(If we're going to get technical, I believe they've ruled before that 'idiot' doesn't count as a flame.)

How about idiot swine? Swearing in a foriegn language? Just where is the line drawn?

It's just a game: maybe try to enjoy it?

It is only a game until someone loses an eye.

I respectfully inform the moderator, The Most Glorious Hack, that I object to such arbitrary and undemocratic procedures: many among us might have chosen that option purely out of dislike for the colour red, or for unfundamented bigotry against national leaders who wear makeup (and Fonzoland humbly includes itself in that group); to change the nature of a poll in the middle of the voting procedure strikes us as, aside from giving the authors unintended relevance as a "rogue" nation, putting unspoken words in our enlightened lips, and furthermore destroying the strict statistical validity of said poll.

Yea -- I'm just thrilled I got that idiot swine to do something for me. If he wants to change it back for you -- more power to you.

The "lipstick and mascara nation" comment was hilarious.

I do understand. You acknowlege that shorter time frames -- read nationstate preferrred timeframes -- are disallowed under 135. Get out of my nation. We'll decide how we want to do things. A generic "right to divorce" is sufficient. We don't need the extra "how and why and when" foisted upon us by some forgotten lands.

Actually, LAE, but meh, who cares.

You see - if I said "right to divorce", nations like TEK could go "you have the right to be divorced 10 minutes after you die" - and unless I have a complex mass of reasons, it would be impossible to either block that idea or to allow for conditions to be attached (ie blocking all attempts to add conditions to divorce). That is more due to the mere design of the UN.

The fact that there is controversy over the subject, and the fact that a "right to visitation" is separate from a "right to divorce" is reason enough to leave it out. Unrefuted: the "right to visitation" is voluminous enough to deserve its own separate discussion. Just because you assert that "visitation is generally dealt with at divorce anyways" is not reason enough for the UN or some forgotten peoples to attempt to cram their particular view down our nations gullet. We'll decide those things without that input thank you. The points that I made go unrefuted. Visitation is a separate subject, and had the Vistation "right" been kept out of 135 we might not even be repealing the thing. But thankfully there is a critical momentum.

I disagree and will continue to attach visitation to divorce, whether you agree with it or not. The level of contraversy does not justify backing down.

Considering you are encouraged by many to get out of their business, why don't you just sit down? I'm not betting with the "person who controls" rat dung. I'm telling you the UN or some forgotten people have no business messing with our country's method for deciding what happens to little rats in a divorce. Stay out of it.

No, you did not tell me that, you bet that the next attempt at Right to Divorce would not contain Visitation rights. Even if you're going to completely ignore my arguments, at the very least pay attention to your own.

P.S. Your suggestion that "nations figure out what they want to do about it" is a welcome change and a relief. Since you offer that as an option, we accept.

We aren't offering it, we're stating where our current position is. I guarantee nothing about the final draft....though you have pushed me into a position where I now feel required to address visitation rights

It's not divorce laws I am worrried about -- its the UN and holier that thou know-it-alls that think they know better than we do how to do things in our country. As one recent poster noted, and I did in another thread -- 135 is unenforcable.

*rolls eyes*

I am aware of the flaws that 135 has, but it is about a wording mistake, not because the law, if properly worded, would be unenforceable.

We will do what we like in Cramistan regardless of the "needs" of a forgotten land that is best forgotten.

Finally, I would like to say, in all sincerity -- get and stay out of Cramistan and we will get along much better. Really. Bye.

I honestly don't care if we do or do not get along better, nor will I be sitting down on this matter. I rarely back away from something unless I've been convinced that what I'm doing is not a good thing. NatSov is rarely an argument I accept. You'll notice that I supported Gruenberg and Fonzoland's repeal attempt because they attacked the failings of my resolution from the way it was done, not because it infringed upon any nation's customs, etc.

BTW - calling Hack "idiot swine" is just asking to get booted.

Aren't you charming?

The first link does support me. Did you notice the big red Incorrect: in front of the properly punctuated but run-on sentence? He says it is "technically" correct, but it is a run-on sentence.What was that? Did you just admit defeat without realizing it? Why yes! You did! Let's try reading past the pretty red letters, shall we?

"(Technically punctuated OK, but too long to be easily understood. See better sentence structure above.)"

So it's not a run-on sentence, it's just "too long". Again, some of us don't feel the need to write at a 6th grade level.

This is what happens when you cast pearls before swine.Ah, irony.

Idiots.Verily I am swayed by your masterful debating technique.

[Edit: If calling the supreme moderator a swine and an idiot gets me banned from this joke of a web site -- I say THANK GOODNESS.]:DThis raises an interesting question, specifically: why do you continue to frequent a site that you consider to be a "joke"? Is your life so hollow that you have nothing better to do than visit a site you dislike? Are you simply a useless troll?

Or, are you trying to insulate yourself and attempting to look tough by pretending you don't care?

This is a stupid game and you are all a bunch of stupid losers.



NOTING the recent passage of "Right To Divorce",

CONCERNED at a number of failures of said resolution:

1. OBSERVING that although it 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', this does not actually guarantee any right to a divorce, meaning the final decision still rests with national or local courts anyway,

2. DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide,

3. BELIEVING it to be fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

4. RECOGNISING that it would be better to have visitation privileges determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the facts of the specific situation and giving proper attention to the welfare of the children as well as the rights of the parents,

5. NOTING FURTHER that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships, and as such enforces one particular set of values,

6. CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies,

7. REMAINING OPEN to the possibility of replacement legislation that legislates a 'right to divorce' without resorting to unnecessary micromanagement:

REPEALS "Right To Divorce".

Submitted on behalf of Gruenberg.

[Edited to show most first "Repeal" in the que.]

also: http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce

Could I point out we already repealed this?