NationStates Jolt Archive

>>> LINK FOR APPROVALS <<< (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=gay%20rights)

[FRIENDLY MODERATION STAFF: I intend to post a clean thread once this gets to vote. I'd rather not the official thread be cluttered with weeks-old, only partially relevant posts and poll results. So please don't sticky this thread. Thanks. :p]

Many thanks to Gruenberg:This Assembly,

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;

REAFFIRMING its earlier stance in Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, that the resolution Gay Rights "in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens' rights";

VOICING its concern that keeping poor, ineffectual legislation such as Resolution #12 on the books will do nothing to advance the cause for human rights, and will in fact hamper this body's ability to make further strides in that arena;

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under international law through past declarations of this body; protections including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender;
2) Freedom to express their love for persons of the same gender;
3) Freedom from imprisonment based on sexuality;
4) Freedom from discrimination;
5) Freedom of sexual privacy; thus

DEEMING the Gay Rights resolution redundant and unnecessary;

MINDFUL that it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation;

RECOGNIZING that the enactment of this article will NOT permit member states to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals; hereby

REPEALS Resolution #12: Gay Rights.

I fully support this. I'd avoid 'ADMONISHING' though, and go for something softer, like 'ADVISING' or 'REMINDING'. I also, quite seriously, think there's no harm in repeating yourself about the effects of this. 'DECLARING' may be too strong for a repeal.

Also, you might want to include a 'housekeeping' note - pointing out that since Gay Rights is superfluous, it is in the interests of the UN to streamline redundant legislation.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12705

Votes Against: 7734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003


this is the resolution in question. sorry, but i am against any repeal, just for the section that is bolded. this has a lot more impact than what the resolution intended

this is the resolution in question. sorry, but i am against any repeal, just for the section that is bolded. this has a lot more impact than what the resolution intended

I don't give a shit. Discrimination Accord covers this, and at the same time takes a swipe at Gay Rights for being pants. I categorically state, on Wena's breast, that every single provision of Gay Rights is covered more effectively in UN law.

Fixed. And agreed: TLA's objections on this note are totally irrelevant.

I'm going to have to say no on this just because I don't think we should be taking any swipes at gay rights, no matter how redundant they are because even the best intentions have undesired consequences. Not to mention the fact that it passed with a pretty healthy margin, I believe the UN could spend it's time passing new resolutions rather than sucumbing to this uspurgence of repeals.

I'm going to have to say no on this just because I don't think we should be taking any swipes at gay rights, no matter how redundant they are because even the best intentions have undesired consequences.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't remove entirely redundant legislation, simply because to do so would seem nasty? Excuse me for favouring substance over appearance. (Except in the case of 'Kenny's VP.)

No, I have no problems with removing redundant legislation, just not this one. Like the person who psoted the original resolution, there are also some strings attached that aren't simply just gay rights. I'm just curious, though, why you guys don't spend your time coming up with new proposals that would better UN members instead of removing a redundant piece of legislation that obviously garnered a lot of support?

No, I have no problems with removing redundant legislation, just not this one. Like the person who psoted the original resolution, there are also some strings attached that aren't simply just gay rights. I'm just curious, though, why you guys don't spend your time coming up with new proposals that would better UN members instead of removing a redundant piece of legislation that obviously garnered a lot of support?

Today I posted a thread about patent law. You replied to it.

Anyway, this is a fairly silly argument. There is nothing 'special' about Gay Rights. It is redundant. Why not remove it? Not doing so, to me, in fact shows a wholly discriminatory bias.

I know, I supported your patent legislation, I think you have a good idea there. But I've also seen, not neccesarily from you, a lot of repeals being brought up. I'm just thinking that repealing a gay rights legislation is removing one less thing that a homophobic government or group would have to get around. Could there possibly be an explicit statement that says that the repeal is strictly for cleaning up redundancy, and I'm talking clear as air here.

I know, I supported your patent legislation, I think you have a good idea there. But I've also seen, not neccesarily from you, a lot of repeals being brought up. I'm just thinking that repealing a gay rights legislation is removing one less thing that a homophobic government or group would have to get around. Could there possibly be an explicit statement that says that the repeal is strictly for cleaning up redundancy, and I'm talking clear as air here.

...

Every single clause in this makes that 'clear as air'. In particular

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded equal protections under international law through past declarations of this body; these protections include, but are not limited to:....

MINDFUL that it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation;

ADVISING member states that the enactment of this article will NOT permit them to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals; hereby

Alright, I'd still like a dedicated clause just to make sure. But if you are only repealing it for redundancy reasons, I will support it.

Alright, I'd still like a dedicated clause just to make sure. But if you are only repealing it for redundancy reasons, I will support it.

DEEMING Gay Rights redundant and unnecessary;

How much more dedicated do you want it?

NM, I'm tired, I'm not reading things very well. I'll support this if it gets to the floor, I apologize for my stubborness on the situation. Best of luck on all of your resolutions.

Bresnia entirely supports this proposal.

Now, I'm sure there are still some bugs to be fixed with the wording, but frankly, it's the end of a long day, so I resign until the morning. We'll see what happens overnight.

While we agree this is by far the best reasoning for repealing gay rights--let alone the only acceptable one--we feel this leaves the human right for homosexual equality, including marriage, very vulnerable. Isn't repealing this only helping those who want to eliminate gay rights in general? And for what? Eliminating redundancy? Eliminating reverse-discrimination? Lets just have a "Non-Gay Rights" resolution to fix that :D .

I have some reading to do on passed UN resolutions to find the redundancy here. If i am assured that the "Gay Rights" legislation is sufficiently covered by other resolutions and thus made redundant then lets repeal this and get it off the books which cost our members dearly.

It would be helpful if you (Gruenberg or Kenny) would quote the exact resolutions highlighting the particular parts that make the "Gay Rights" resolution redundant. Also I am more than a little worried that your repeal text is doing more than repeal. May I remind you chaps to be mindful of the ruling that a repeal should not have anything within its text that may be seen to do anything other than repeal the specific law. Perhaps if you changed the format to be a statement rather than the current draft.

VL.

The applicable resolutions here are: #7, #80, #81, #99 and #115.

Also I am more than a little worried that your repeal text is doing more than repeal.What about the text deems it more than an argument for repeal?

... we feel this leaves the human right for homosexual equality, including marriage, very vulnerable.Have you had the chance to peruse Resolution #81?

Isn't repealing this only helping those who want to eliminate gay rights in general?To "eliminate gay rights in general" you would have to reverse at least five resolutions. Somehow I doubt that is going to happen.

Gay Rights is also illegal under current branding rules.

REAFFIRMING its earlier stance in Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, that the resolution Gay Rights "in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens' rights";A repeal by its nature may not REAFFIRM anything. It simply removes the resolution from the books as enforced UN legislation.


ADVISING member states that the enactment of this article will NOT permit them to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals; herebyThis is also a problem section for the same reason as commented above. This is a statement legislating that the repeal, if accepted, has power to force any member who would discriminate against the aforementioned persons not to do so.

May i suggest that the above 2 parts of the repeal are worked into the repeal via the way of a statement of fact under the provisions of the other existing and duplicating resolutions and worded in such a way as not to legislate anything in this repeal.

If this is taken into account you will hear me say the words..... Approved! Nice repeal.

ADVISING member states that the enactment of this article will NOT permit them to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals; herebyThis is also a problem section for the same reason as commented above. This is a statement legislating that the repeal, if accepted, has power to force any member who would discriminate against the aforementioned persons not to do so.No it doesn't. It simply states "The enactment of this repeal will NOT permit them [member states] to discriminate. ..." How is simply "advising" member states of this fact "legislating"?

As per your first note, I'll let Gruen address it. I really don't know about that one.

Have you had the chance to peruse Resolution #81?

We are very aware of all the past resolutions you've stated and consider the fact that you assumed that we haven't done so with every resolution to be very disrespectful. The simple point that we would like to stress is that while having all these resolutions that cover this point, repealing one would render the rights more vulnerable to repeal. While it is unlikely that gay rights in general will be taken away, repealing even one of the resolutions that reinstates these rights would seem foolish. Also, using the argument that past resolutions are illegal to Enodian laws isn't relevant, for past resolutions are not bound to these restrictions.

We are very aware of all the past resolutions you've stated and consider the fact that you assumed that we haven't done so with every resolution to be very disrespectful.I was simply asking a question.

The simple point that we would like to stress is that while having all these resolutions that cover this point, repealing one would render the rights more vulnerable to repeal. While it is unlikely that gay rights in general will be taken away, repealing even one of the resolutions that reinstates these rights would seem foolish.OK:

1. Gay Rights does nothing;
2. Gay Rights is redundant;
3. Gay Rights is ineffective;
4. The UN has already stated as such in Res. #99.

There is no reason why this resolution should stand, but you think it should, because you think anti-gay bigots should have to repeal six resolutions, instead of five?

anti-gay bigots should have to repeal six resolutions, instead of five?

the more the merrier ;)

Ok, I have taken your proposal text and reworked it to take into account my points. My point is that in parts the repeal text seems to try to legislate rather than to just REPEAL. My reworking of the text keeps the original jist of the repeal but cant be accused of trying to do anything other than repeal.

This Assembly,

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded equal protections under international law through the provisions of resolutions #7, #80, #81, #99 and #115, and their protections including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender;
2) Freedom to express their love for persons of the same gender;
3) Freedom from imprisonment based on sexuality;
4) Freedom from discrimination;
5) Freedom of sexual privacy; thus

PROVIDING sufficient protections against member nations who would discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals; therefore

DEEMING Gay Rights redundant and unnecessary;

MINDFUL that it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation;

REPEALS Gay Rights.

I apologise if it appears that I am being overly anal on this point as I am not in all honesty trying to be a stick in the repeal mud.

I cautiously offer my support to a repeal based on these arguments. (Yeah, I am a repeal lover, so what?) I will examine previous resolutions later to be sure. I would like to see again a point about defending the credibility of the UN.

I'd much rather see "Rights of Minorities and Women" repealed. If it was, would "Gay Rights" still be redundant? I'm worried that by repealing "Gay Rights" we might inadvertantly force ourselves to keep "Rights of Minorities and Women" if we want to maintain equal rights for gays.

I'd much rather see "Rights of Minorities and Women" repealed. If it was, would "Gay Rights" still be redundant? I'm worried that by repealing "Gay Rights" we might inadvertantly force ourselves to keep "Rights of Minorities and Women" if we want to maintain equal rights for gays.All RoMaW does is give gays the right to "express their love," a right I'm pretty sure GLBTs already have in other resolutions. The more important rights are already preserved in other legislation, so repealing RoMaW along with Gay Rights won't really put gays under threat. Even so, you can always repeal/replace if you want to set gays' rights to "express their love" in stone.

Ok, I have taken your proposal text and reworked it to take into account my points. My point is that in parts the repeal text seems to try to legislate rather than to just REPEAL. My reworking of the text keeps the original jist of the repeal but cant be accused of trying to do anything other than repeal.



This is also a problem section for the same reason as commented above. This is a statement legislating that the repeal, if accepted, has power to force any member who would discriminate against the aforementioned persons not to do so.I don't think it does. First it's been the practice of the NSUN to differentiate clauses into two classes: preambulary and active. Active clauses have the present tense, while preambulary clasues are in the gerund. There's a good linguistic reason for this, but I don't want to digress too much (and I'd rather any audience not be hanging itself from boredom by the end of this post).

Anyway, that seems to be the only difference, verb tense. What the verb is seems irrelevant. Gerund verbs are preambulary, whereas present tense verbs are active. In the preambulary clauses you argue for your active clauses, which means you have to express reality in a certain way. I don't see much difference in expression of reality in the two following clauses:RECOGNIZING J Lo as hot
ADVISING Teenage boys to buy lots of frosh socks when buying J Lo albumsThe second is more complex, but it still is just expressing the reality of the UN's advisements, while not actually dictating what they are (ie. if a later resolution would say "ADVISES teenage boys not to buy socks with J Lo", there'd be no legal contradiction, the earlier preambulary clause is squashed).

Anyway, so long as it's gerund, I don't see it as a problem.

You have my vote

I'd much rather see "Rights of Minorities and Women" repealed. If it was, would "Gay Rights" still be redundant? I'm worried that by repealing "Gay Rights" we might inadvertantly force ourselves to keep "Rights of Minorities and Women" if we want to maintain equal rights for gays.
That's assuming that "Gay Rights" does something in the "all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life" line. It doesn't do much of anything, in my opinion.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't remove entirely redundant legislation, simply because to do so would seem nasty? Excuse me for favouring substance over appearance. (Except in the case of 'Kenny's VP.)

Once again, I find myself siding with the position of my Gruenberger friend -- especially the bit about Kenny's VP.

OOC: And I'm a bit disturbed that the poll option mentioning me has received votes...

The Palentine fully supports this repeal, on the grounds that the UN already has anti-discrimination laws on the books, and because of my evil conservative, Barry Goldwaterian beliefs that it really should be up to the people of a country to decide, not an extra-governmental body. Now I'm off to chat up the Thessadorian Ambassador.:D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

How is "Gay Rights" redundant? Let me count the ways...

Homosexual acts (and, incidentally, plotting terrorism and taking heroin, but that's another issue) in the privacy of one's home is protected by "Sexual Freedom" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6);
Article 4 of "The Universal Bill of Rights" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25) outlaws discrimination against homosexuals;
Once again, homosexual acts are protected by "Rights of Minorities and Women" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=79);
"Definition of Marriage" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80) protects gay marriage;
"Gay Rights" is condemned in "Discrimination Accord" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=98), which incidentally prohibits discrimination far more effectively than "Gay Rights" does.

There is not one word of "Gay Rights" which is not better covered elsewhere. Keeping it only displays an unwillingness to prune redundant legislation, and a bias that is as hateful as the intolerance "Gay Rights" admirably tries - but fails - to prevent manifesting.

Excellent synopsis. I think it gives me an idea for drafting my form TG ...

We would like to draw the esteemed assembly's attention to the representitive of TLA's first comments here:

this is the resolution in question. sorry, but i am against any repeal, just for the section that is bolded. this has a lot more impact than what the resolution intended

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.


We agree with the representative that this resolution is fatally flawed due to the text they have indicated.

Consider for a moment what exactly "protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life" means. Are NationStates expected to rewrite all of their laws to insure that no citizen faces discrimination for any reason, even if that reason is logically valid? Are We to require all door handles be lowered to one foot, in order not to discriminate against little people, or require all airline seats to be double-wide to accomodate the obese? Are professional sports to be outlawed because the physically unfit cannot compete in them?

Quite simply, this resolution, though its authors no doubt believed it to be well-intentioned, is so poorly written that it is impossible for any NationState to adhere to it. The Law cannot command an impossibility, so We argue that this is a useless piece of legislation that in the interest of NSUN credibility should be striken from the books.

How is "Gay Rights" redundant? Let me count the ways...

Homosexual acts (and, incidentally, plotting terrorism and taking heroin, but that's another issue) in the privacy of one's home is protected by "Sexual Freedom" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6);
Article 4 of "The Universal Bill of Rights" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25) outlaws discrimination against homosexuals;
Once again, homosexual acts are protected by "Rights of Minorities and Women" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=79);
"Definition of Marriage" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80) protects gay marriage;
"Gay Rights" is condemned in "Discrimination Accord" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=98), which incidentally prohibits discrimination far more effectively than "Gay Rights" does.

There is not one word of "Gay Rights" which is not better covered elsewhere. Keeping it only displays an unwillingness to prune redundant legislation, and a bias that is as hateful as the intolerance "Gay Rights" admirably tries - but fails - to prevent manifesting.

All excellent points -- and worth repeating. However, there are two words of "Gay Rights" that are not covered elsewhere: the title "Gay Rights." That alone is enough, it seems, for some delegates to support it.

All excellent points -- and worth repeating. However, there are two words of "Gay Rights" that are not covered elsewhere: the title "Gay Rights." That alone is enough, it seems, for some delegates to support it.

Sad, but true. Most just look at the title and the vote. They need to go back and teach reading, and critical thinking in schools. Once again I'm off. The Thessadorian Ambassador awaits.:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

homosexuality should be *compulsory*

homosexuality should be *compulsory*

Actually, that would probably be illegal under "Gay Rights", as it would be discriminatory.

homosexuality should be *compulsory*


Just because I support gay rights doesn't mean I would want to be homosexual...

homosexuality should be *compulsory*


If you saw the Thessadorian Ambassador you might revise your thinking on that:D ...Or Maybe not.:D

'Twill be submitted come Monday. Once we've managed to "liberate" with extreme prejudice all those countries who had the nerve to call us "homophobic bastard."

Just because I support gay rights doesn't mean I would want to be homosexual...

Just as the Cluichstani people's opposition to enshrining said rights in international law doesn't make us homophobic.

Submission (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=gay%20rights) bump.

Ladies and gentlemen of this august assembly, it gives me great pride to announce that the repeal of Gay Rights has finally been submitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=gay%20rights), and awaiting your signatures. And a special added bonus to those ambassadors from delegate nations: Everyone who approves this proposal gets a kiss from our vice president! Antigone?

[Kenny Vice President Antigone Morgan (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Antigone_Morgan) appears at the entrance to the hall, wearing a fabulous, tight-fitting gown, and strides down the center aisle as ambassadors greet her with hoots, hollars and whistles; she glares at Riley with a fair amount of rage, and makes her way to the front of the chamber.]

Turn around for the people, Antigone.

[Reluctantly, Morgan whirls around as the ambassadors continue to sound their approval. She rolls her eyes at her new fans, glaring at Riley again and mouthing the words, "I hate you."]

I love you, too, sweetie.

Oh, and by the by, anyone who gets a friend to approve will get a special date with our No. 2 leader! Just you, her, and wherever the night takes you!

So what are you all waiting for? Approve today!

[Audience jumps to its feet in a standing ovation.]

Prostituting your VP again? :p

Ladies and gentlemen of this august assembly, it gives me great pride to announce that the repeal of Gay Rights has finally been submitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=gay%20rights), and awaiting your signatures. And a special added bonus to those ambassadors from delegate nations: Everyone who approves this proposal gets a kiss from our vice president! Antigone?

The Meddling Monk approaches Antigone with a small package. "If you want to keep to the 'letter of the law,' then use this." Handing her the large bag with the small tear shaped chocolates, he whispers, "They are even candy coated, 'for your protection.'"

Oh, and by the by, anyone who gets a friend to approve will get a special date with our No. 2 leader! Just you, her, and wherever the night takes you!

"I'll check with my regional deligate. I'm sure he has a bag of dried dates somewhere in his cubicle."

http://img478.imageshack.us/img478/8061/phone0hu.gif

Homosexual acts (and, incidentally, plotting terrorism and taking heroin, but that's another issue) in the privacy of one's home is protected by "Sexual Freedom" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6);


Possibly. However a national leader need only site a potential medical threat of homosexual acts (or any sexual acts) to render this entire resolution null, void and helpless.


Article 4 of "The Universal Bill of Rights" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25) outlaws discrimination against homosexuals;


No it doesn't.

What it does is ensure that if a national leader wants to ban sex between people of the same gender, he can, because he would be treating all people in his nation in the same way, which is what it requires him to do.


Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.


This does not protect specific classes from discrimination - if I ban sex between same genders, then I would do it for everyone - they are all being treated equally.


Once again, homosexual acts are protected by "Rights of Minorities and Women" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=79);


Firstly - can we just stop and laugh at the irony of one of the worst written resolutions in the history of time being used to defend the repeal of another?

Secondly - Articles 1 and 3 have no relevence to homosexual acts. Article 2 does in some degree, but, in the same way that UBR Article 4 is not a defence of homosexuality, nethier is treating Males and Females equally - you can ban all males and all females from having sex with the same gender and you are still treating them equally.

Article 4 of RoMaW is the most useless one. It just says "one should have the right to express your love" - not to act on it, to induldge in a bit of hanky-panky, or to marry. So while you can still say "I love you" you can't do anything else under the protection of this resolution.


"Definition of Marriage" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80) protects gay marriage;


That is true. However if "Gay Rights" was only about gay marriage, then this would be a suitable defence. However Gay Rights is far more reaching than that.


"Gay Rights" is condemned in "Discrimination Accord" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=98), which incidentally prohibits discrimination far more effectively than "Gay Rights" does.


The condemnation is just one person's view. And I can't find a single point in the resolution that specifically protects gay rights (or - to put it better - would specifically protect gay rights if "gay rights" were repealed)


There is not one word of "Gay Rights" which is not better covered elsewhere. Keeping it only displays an unwillingness to prune redundant legislation, and a bias that is as hateful as the intolerance "Gay Rights" admirably tries - but fails - to prevent manifesting.

If Gay Rights is repealed, I can easily draft a dozen or so laws that violate NO UN resolutions and strip all rights away from homosexuals and lesbians. While it does little on it's own, a lot of the other discrimination resolutions are predicated on Gay Rights being in place.

http://img478.imageshack.us/img478/8061/phone0hu.gif
I suppose this explains why your line is so busy. We are very disappointed.

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World.

I suppose this explains why your line is so busy. We are very disappointed.

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World.

Indeed, the phone seems to be constantly ringing. Must be my sultry voice.

Well do try and answer your door. Did I mention that Black New Worldian strawberries are in season?

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World.

Well do try and answer your door. Did I mention that Black New Worldian strawberries are in season?

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World.

Do they come with whipped cream?

Why yes, yes they do…

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World.

I have to say I'm extremely sceptical of this repeal, due to the fact that I am unconvinced that the resolutions mentioned as already covering the rights enshrined in this repeal are adaquately covered elsewhere.

Firstly the actual resolution text, if I may post it so as to remind members of its exact phrasing, went:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12705

Votes Against: 7734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

Here the resolution unambiguously states that gay marriages must be protected and endorsed by the laws of U.N. member nations, as well as resolving that all nations must prevent discrimination through law, in all parts of life.

If we examine the other resolutions, we see that first for:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7

Sexual Freedom

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

Not only is this extremely clumsily worded, but it inserts that two consenting adults are subject to interference on medical grounds, which are then not defined. If homosexuals were classified as suffering from a "medical disorder", then their activities could be criminalised under this resolution and leave them open to discrimination.

"The Universal Bill of Rights", has only one clause which could be construed as refering to homosexual rights, which is:

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Which is too vague, given that a nation could classify homosexuals and homosexual acts as "non-human" or "sub-human", which would leave them open to abuse. Equally, if the nation is composed of non-human sapients, then this would be inapplicable.

"Rights of Minorities and Women", does not protect gay marriage.

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

Merely protects their right to express their love for one-another, not marriage.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #81

Definition of Marriage

Description: Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.


Votes For: 11,904
Votes Against: 7,473

Implemented: Thu Nov 25 2004

Which does, it is possible to argue, protect gay marriage, but not particularly well, as it merely states that marriage cannot be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation, not that they are entitled to recognition for their marriage. Furthermore, this only covers civil ceremonies, which in countries without this capacity or right, would mean that homosexuals are not permitted to marry.

For these reasons, we remain sceptical of the planned repeal and indeed would argue that a thorough re-examination and possible re-drafting of all relevant resolutions referred to herein, should be considered.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Prostituting your VP again? :p


They have my vote, although I'd prefer the Thessadorian Ambassador. THat girl's got good...umm...posture.:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Hmmm...methinks I need to get a look at this Thessadorian ambassador...

http://test256.free.fr/cluich.jpg

Here the resolution unambiguously states that gay marriages must be protected and endorsed by the laws of U.N. member nations, as well as resolving that all nations must prevent discrimination through law, in all parts of life.

Risking petulance, let me point out that the statement "gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law" forces countries to acknowledge and protect existing gay marriages, not necessarily to grant gay couples the right to marry.

The UBoR ensures that, if the right to marry exists in national law, it has to be granted to all citizens, irrespectively of sexual orientation. And DoM forces any legal definition of marriage to encompass same sex unions. Other than this, there seems to be no protection of the right to same sex marriages at all. As there is no legislation protecting the right to heterosexual marriage.

Risking petulance, let me point out that the statement "gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law" forces countries to acknowledge and protect existing gay marriages, not necessarily to grant gay couples the right to marry.


That is true.


The UBoR ensures that, if the right to marry exists in national law, it has to be granted to all citizens, irrespectively of sexual orientation. And DoM forces any legal definition of marriage to encompass same sex unions. Other than this, there seems to be no protection of the right to same sex marriages at all. As there is no legislation protecting the right to heterosexual marriage.

The UBoR doesn't do that. If I write a law that says "you can marry someone as long as they are not of your gender" then I am not incontravention of the UBoR - I am treating everyone equally. Yeah - the law affects one group more than another, but the law treats everyone equally. (In the same way that if I write a law that says "you can not go fox-hunting" it means everyone, but only those who want to go fox-hunting would be affected by it).

DoM actually protects the right of hetrosexual marriages as well, just so as you know.

§ The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.


Am I reading this right? It seems to say that member nations in the UN can discriminate by race, sex, creed, colour, sexual orientation and even shoe size if it choses to, and all it has to do is "justify the risk".

Justify to who? The rest of the UN? Its whole population? The majority of its population?

An entire resolution that says "discrimination is bad" in the most emphatic terms basically gives every member nation an out clause to lock up all the gays at will, and this is one of the resolutions being used to justify repealing "Gay Rights", because "Gay Rights" is bad?

Didn't you leave?

Didn't you leave?

We thought so. In fact, there was a national holiday in Cluichstan to celebrate it.

The UBoR doesn't do that. If I write a law that says "you can marry someone as long as they are not of your gender" then I am not incontravention of the UBoR - I am treating everyone equally. Yeah - the law affects one group more than another, but the law treats everyone equally. (In the same way that if I write a law that says "you can not go fox-hunting" it means everyone, but only those who want to go fox-hunting would be affected by it).

This would contradict DoM, if you read the two together.

DoM actually protects the right of hetrosexual marriages as well, just so as you know.

I challenge you to post the clause that protects the right of anyone to get married. The resolution only forces a definition of the term.

This would contradict DoM, if you read the two together.



I challenge you to post the clause that protects the right of anyone to get married. The resolution only forces a definition of the term.

So - how exactly do these resolutions protect gay marriage? If DoM does nothing, then the UBR and DoM together would do even less.

So - how exactly do these resolutions protect gay marriage? If DoM does nothing, then the UBR and DoM together would do even less.

They protect in the following sense: If the right to marriage is part of the law, then gay marriage has to be allowed. They do not allow a country to have heterosexual marriage without gay marriage, as this contradicts DoM (if marriage is defined as a heterosexual civil union) and UBoR (if people of different sexual preferences are excluded from that particular right).

However, they do not state that countries need to have any law enshrining the right to marriage. They only state that any law the country has is the same for everybody, and that the concept of marriage is defined for all possible combinations of sex, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I am repeating myself, and I don't know how to explain my point further.

They protect in the following sense: If the right to marriage is part of the law, then gay marriage has to be allowed. They do not allow a country to have heterosexual marriage without gay marriage, as this contradicts DoM (if marriage is defined as a heterosexual civil union) and UBoR (if people of different sexual preferences are excluded from that particular right).

However, they do not state that countries need to have any law enshrining the right to marriage. They only state that any law the country has is the same for everybody, and that the concept of marriage is defined for all possible combinations of sex, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I am repeating myself, and I don't know how to explain my point further.


Right - I get it now. Sorry.

But that means that - with Gay Rights (the resolution) still on the books, it can be argued that all marriage is protected. If nations are required to support gay rights, and endorse gay marriage, then they have to support all marriage.

Which is nice.

Right - I get it now. Sorry.

But that means that - with Gay Rights (the resolution) still on the books, it can be argued that all marriage is protected. If nations are required to support gay rights, and endorse gay marriage, then they have to support all marriage.

Which is nice.

Except for states like Flibbleites which do not recognise marriage at all.

Right - I get it now. Sorry.

But that means that - with Gay Rights (the resolution) still on the books, it can be argued that all marriage is protected. If nations are required to support gay rights, and endorse gay marriage, then they have to support all marriage.

Which is nice.

International law isn't about being "nice."

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under international law through past declarations of this body; protections including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender;

Please forgive me if I didn't spend enought time to read all the resolution passed.
Does one other passed resolution grants:

Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender

Is this resolution the resolution "#81 Definition of Marriage" which seems to only defines it? or is there one other

Thanks for your answer.

Please forgive me if I didn't spend enought time to read all the resolution passed.
Does one other passed resolution grants:

Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender

Is this resolution the resolution "#81 Definition of Marriage" which seems to only defines it? or is there one other

Thanks for your answer.It is a definition that is applicable in all member states, as UN resolutions are enforceable in all member states. All member states are required to define marriage the same way, meaning that, if nations institute marriage, they must include all marriages in the UN definition.

So the Gay Rights marriage clause is redundant (even though I know you have a problem with that word).

It is a definition that is applicable in all member states, as UN resolutions are enforceable in all member states. All member states are required to define marriage the same way, meaning that, if nations institute marriage, they must include all marriages in the UN definition.

So the Gay Rights marriage clause is redundant (even though I know you have a problem with that word).


Thanks for your answer but i would like to understand further, if you don't mind:

Under #12:
gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.


So whitout #12, if a nation doesn't institute marriage, then does the 1 st clause of your repeal:
1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender
will be always protected?

Except for states like Flibbleites which do not recognise marriage at all.

Why should gays be able to marry in a certain nation when everyone else in that nation can't? If a nation does not institute marriage, there is no need to force nations to recognize gay marriages. Gays deserve equal treatment when marriage does exist, but they don't deserve any special privilege to marry when it doesn't.

Why should gays be able to marry in a certain nation when everyone else in that nation can't? If a nation does not institute marriage, there is no need to force nations to recognize gay marriages. Gays deserve equal treatment when marriage does exist, but they don't deserve any special privilege to marry when it doesn't.

The people of Cluichstan will soon be erecting a statue of Kenny in the central square of their capital city of Cluichabad.

Why should gays be able to marry in a certain nation when everyone else in that nation can't? If a nation does not institute marriage, there is no need to force nations to recognize gay marriages. Gays deserve equal treatment when marriage does exist, but they don't deserve any special privilege to marry when it doesn't.

Perhaps it might be better to establish a right to marriage? (if in your opinion one does not already exist).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Right - I get it now. Sorry.

But that means that - with Gay Rights (the resolution) still on the books, it can be argued that all marriage is protected. If nations are required to support gay rights, and endorse gay marriage, then they have to support all marriage.

Which is nice.

Some time ago you agreed that Gay Rights only protects existing marriages.

Perhaps it might be better to establish a right to marriage? (if in your opinion one does not already exist).As well it shouldn't, because marriage is not a "right." Rights are extended to individuals, and in case you haven't noticed, two people do not equal "an individual." So long as governments treat all consenting adult couples equally, there is no reason to force governments to institute marriage.

The people of Cluichstan will soon be erecting a statue of Kenny in the central square of their capital city of Cluichabad.We don't blame the people of Cluichstan. Kenny's a pimp. (The Palentine may be able to recommend some corrupt contractors you could hire to build your statue, btw.)

My nation will vigoriously oppose any legalization restricting the rights of homosexauls. If this evil ammendant passes there will be a price to pay.

My nation will vigoriously oppose any legalization restricting the rights of homosexauls. If this evil ammendant passes there will be a price to pay.

Which rights does it restrict?

My nation will vigoriously oppose any legalization restricting the rights of homosexauls. If this evil ammendant passes there will be a price to pay.

That'll be $4.95.

That'll be $4.95.

I refuse to pay on the basis of Res #4.

Well, it was worth a try. ;)

Well, it was worth a try. ;)

Well, the UN will not pass evil ammendants in the near future, so...

We don't blame the people of Cluichstan. Kenny's a pimp. (The Palentine may be able to recommend some corrupt contractors you could hire to build your statue, btw.)


Yes, we have excellent sculpters in our fair nation. After all our pride and joy is the Anotomically correct statue of the esteemed founder of our nation, the Warrior-Queen Kommoniwanalaya the Unchaste, found in 'The Burgh.:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Except for states like Flibbleites which do not recognise marriage at all.

But if Gay Rights requires them to endorse gay marriage, how can they not?

Some time ago you agreed that Gay Rights only protects existing marriages.

Are you sure that was me?

International law isn't about being "nice."

You have no idea how strong I am getting that idea from various member nations.

Why should gays be able to marry in a certain nation when everyone else in that nation can't? If a nation does not institute marriage, there is no need to force nations to recognize gay marriages. Gays deserve equal treatment when marriage does exist, but they don't deserve any special privilege to marry when it doesn't.


Are you saying that if "#12 gay rights" is repealed, Freedom to marry for same sex or gender individuals will not be protected by the UN anymore?

Can you read? If Gay Rights is repealed, gay couples will still be able to marry in nations where marriage is available. If nations do not have marriage, gays cannot marry. Why should gays be able to marry in states where straight couples can't even get married?

Are you sure that was me?

Yes, I am. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10237396&postcount=61)

OOC: I have better things to do than reminding you of what you write. I hope you can understand. So please keep a diary, or go somewhere else and debate against yourself.

You said:
If Gay Rights is repealed, gay couples will still be able to marry in nations where marriage is available. If nations do not have marriage, gays cannot marry.

But your proposal states:

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under international law through past declarations of this body; protections including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender;


Sorry, I'm confused, i don't understand what will happen
If the repeal pass, will they be protected by this body to marry individuals of the same sex or gender or not?

Sorry, I'm confused, i don't understand what will happen
If the repeal pass, will they be protected by this body to marry individuals of the same sex or gender or not?(Sigh ...)

Definition of Marriage (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680061&postcount=82)
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Vastiva

Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY:

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.

Votes For: 11,904
Votes Against: 7,473
Implemented: Thu Nov 25 2004If you have marriage in your nation, you have to include gay couples. I don't know how it could be clearer. Unless we were to administer electroshock therapy ....

(Sigh ...)

If you have marriage in your nation, you have to include gay couples. I don't know how it could be clearer. Unless we were to administer electroshock therapy ....


You recognize that, if #12 is repealed, gays could NOT marry anymore in nations that do not want marriage, may you answer me why you wrote the following in your repeal:

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under international law through past declarations of this body; protections including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender;

With res #12: Gays can only marry in countries where marriage is allowed.

Without res #12: Gays can only marry in countries where marriage is allowed.

Spot the difference.

Oh, I don't know ... maybe because allowing gays to marry in nations that have marriage gives gays the freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender? It says nothing about a guaranteed "right" to marry; it says "freedom to marry."

And if you say that means we should vote down this repeal, because it means that gays can no longer get married in nations that don't even have marriage, I'm gonna shoot myself.

With res #12: Gays can only marry in countries where marriage is allowed.


Please correct me if I'm wrong:
#12: Gay rights:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=11


We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.
Is it optionnal?

Is it optionnal?

Yep. Protecting and endorsing a contract is different from protecting and endorsing the right to sign contracts. A legitimate interpretation of Res #12 is that it forces nations to recognise existing marriages, without forcing them to protect the right to get married. And I assume any nation that does not wish to allow marriage at all will interpret it as such.

I have been thinking more about this, and I disagree with the whole UBR/DOM protecting gay marriage thing.

DoM defines marriage - it does not say that you have to permit it. It says that a marriage is defined as a civil joining of two people, regardless of blah blah blah, but it doesn't say that the government has to allow the marriage to happen.

UBR says you have to treat everyone equally under the law.

So if I say "no man may marry another man" - then I am treating everyone equally, and I am still recognising marriage as a joining of two people regardless of sexuality - it just so happens that sexuality doesn't enter in to it because of a law that I created.

While Gay Rights mentions gay marriage, it - more importantly - says that people can not be discriminated against in any part of life. Which (to me at least) says that I would not be able to stop men marrying men.

And it is the only resolution that says that without a getout clause.

Yep. Protecting and endorsing a contract is different from protecting and endorsing the right to sign contracts. A legitimate interpretation of Res #12 is that it forces nations to recognise existing marriages, without forcing them to protect the right to get married. And I assume any nation that does not wish to allow marriage at all will interpret it as such.

Ok, thanks for your anwser
So may I summarize the differents situation, did I understand everything correctly?:

TODAY
- Nations are not mandated to allow marriage
- If a nation allow marriage it should allow both same sex and opposite sex marriages?
- Nations which don't allow marriages are mandated to recognize existing gay marriages

If the repeal of "#12 gay rights" pass:
- Nations will not be mandated to allow marriage
- If a nation allow marriage it should allow both same sex and opposite sex marriages?

So about marriage only, the only difference will be, that nation will not be mandated anymore to recognize existing gay marriages

Did I summarized the situation well?
I really think we have to make clear, what resolution exactly do what and what they don't do, sorry if it's obvious for you, it's not for me

Ok, thanks for your anwser
So may I summarize the differents situation, did I understand everything correctly?:

TODAY
- Nations are not mandated to allow marriage
- If a nation allow marriage it should allow both same sex and opposite sex marriages
- Nations which don't allow marriages are mandated to recognize existing gay marriages

If the repeal of "#12 gay rights" pass:
- Nations will not be mandated to allow marriage
- If a nation allow marriage it should allow both same sex and opposite sex marriages

So about marriage only, the only difference will be, that nation will not be mandated anymore to recognize existing gay marriages

Did I summarized the situation well?

UBoR and DoM also imply that nations who don't recognise existing gay marriages cannot recognise existing hetero marriages. There is no escape, nations have to treat gay and hetero equally. Still, if a nation doesn't allow marriage, recognising it or not is a rather inconsequential debate, isn't it?

You are clearly fishing for loopholes, and not finding them. Why don't you fish for them in Gay Rights instead? It. Does. Nothing.

UBoR and DoM also imply that nations who don't recognise existing gay marriages cannot recognise existing hetero marriages. There is no escape, nations have to treat gay and hetero equally. Still, if a nation doesn't allow marriage, recognising it or not is a rather inconsequential debate, isn't it?

You are clearly fishing for loopholes, and not finding them. Why don't you fish for them in Gay Rights instead? It. Does. Nothing.


Fonzoland, I try to understand
-1st it was not obvious for me and it seems to some others, that #12 was only mandating recognition of gay mariage, and

-2nd forgive me that it doesn't seems evident for me either that #81 Definition of Marriage was mandating nations who allow marriage for either opposite sex individuals or same sex individuals to allow it for the other one, when it contain only a definition.

And forgive me to find the following rather confusing:

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under international law through past declarations of this body; protections including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender;

Yep. Protecting and endorsing a contract is different from protecting and endorsing the right to sign contracts. A legitimate interpretation of Res #12 is that it forces nations to recognise existing marriages, without forcing them to protect the right to get married. And I assume any nation that does not wish to allow marriage at all will interpret it as such.


Fonzoland, forgive me to have had a vague souvenir of this in the sticky.
I understand what you mean, but it 'snew to me and it seems new for some others also




Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Congratulations.

Right back at ya buddy. :p

WOOOOOOOOOOOO! Congrats Kenny! The Iron City and Primanti Bros. Sammiches are on me!:D