NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the United Nations is well on its way toward pushing out of the window a resolution that protects its citizens' civil rights, this is the best time at which to begin drafting a new resolution to replace it. An improved resolution that employs clearer reasoning, better definitions, and most importantly is impervious to the "beastiality" strawman that brought down the first resolution.


The United Nations,

ASSERTING that all persons shall enjoy the right to love,

RECOGNIZING that this right shall include the right to have their love relationship sanctioned by the state in a "marriage" with all the benefits that comes from such an endorsement,

NOTING that various nations discriminate against this their population's right based on religion, race or gender,

REAFFIRMING that to protect the right of individuals from the whims of the nations they live in is among the supreme tasks of the United Nations,

DEFINES a "marriage" as the civil joining of any consenting member of any nation with any other consenting member or members of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age and any other factors that inhibit the individual's capability of giving consent,

FURTHERMORE RECOGNIZES that some nations have among their population individuals of different species that are not human, but are sentient and legally persons entitled to the full rights of citizenship, and

DECLARES that the above definition shall include any individual, regardless of species, who is by their nation recognized as a person capable of giving legal consent.

Feel free to poke holes in it or make improvements.

I admire you for not only attempting a replacement, but drafting it in the open. When I did the euthenasia replacement, this place scared me, so I did it in secret :p.

Now, I do think the combination of the Discrimination Accord and Universal Bill of Rights resolutions will protect against the state discriminating in who can and who can't marry, but will give you a few comments on this anyway.

First, I'm not sure about the "right to love" line. The Sexual freedom resolution. I think, already does that. What you are trying to do, I assume, is prevent state discrimination in marriage, so maybe something along the line of "Asserting that all people must have the right to marry without discrimination or bias on the part of the state". Not those exact words of course, but that sort of thing.

Another thing that will bring you howls of protest is that you seem to be forcing all nations to recognise marriage at a government level. Some nations don't have marriage at all, others have it only through religion. My nation for example doesn't have state recognised marriage because our nation is mostly female, three quarters of the population. Our few males are encouraged to spread their seed so to speak, and permanent unions are rare.

If you changed the wording to state that the state can't discriminate in marriage, only if it recognises and/or paticipates in marriage in that nation, you may be able to get around that.

I think you covered the consent and beastiality problems well.

Good luck with this :).

I see no reason for this pile to be replaced.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Thanks, Witchcliff.

For the first issue, the resolution could refer back to Sexual Freedom and reaffirm it, then to build upon that. #7 does a good job of putting "what goes on in the bedroom" out of the reach of the state, but to have one's relation publically recognized is still a step further.

I understand the second issue. The wording could perhaps be changed to reflect it - so that all individuals are entitled to whatever marriage/civil union is already in place in the nation. It shouldn't force nations that do not have marriage to introduce it, just force nations that do have it to open it to everyone.

I'll post a reworded version in a bit.

Yet a-fucking-gain, there is no point trying to do this. You are not defining marriage: you are simply defining who can get married. And without defining what marriage is, or what rights, privileges and state recognitions are afforded with it, it's worthless.

RECOGNIZING that this right shall include the right to have their love relationship sanctioned by the state in a "marriage" with all the benefits that comes from such an endorsement,
While we would be sympathetic towards a resolution encouraging States that allow heterosexual marriages not to disallow homosexual marriages (and similar anti-discrimination measures), we cannot support a resolution that forces States to recognise marriages in general where the State may not currently officially recognise such an institution.

For the first issue, the resolution could refer back to Sexual Freedom and reaffirm it, then to build upon that.
No it couldn't - since repeals were introduced, referring to previous resolutions (other than in repeals) is illegal as a 'house of cards' violation, as I discovered in my last foray into these hallowed halls.

The current situation could be taken care of by simply stating, that it is not the right of the United Nations to define marriage.
We can clearly not impose any benefits for citizens on a state, as some might not be able to comply, for several reasons (one might be financial, or social reasons).
We, as the members of the United Nations could only protect marriage.
Wording could be along the lines of: every consenting sentinent being who is a citizen of a nation can marry another consenting sentinent being who is a citizen of a nation. This right shall not be denied. The definition of "consenting sentinent being" shall be a nation's decision.

Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

How does this affect polygamists? Can they have multiple simultaneous marriages under this? Would local law be allowed to limit it's citizens to one marriage at a time?

Polygamy, well yes, it should be left to the nation to decide, whether it allows it or not. This sentence should be added anyhow.
A marriage, whether with one partner or more shall be protected.

Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

While we would be sympathetic towards a resolution encouraging States that allow heterosexual marriages not to disallow homosexual marriages (and similar anti-discromination measures), we cannot support a resolution that forces States to recognise marriages in general where the State may not currently officially recognise such an institution.

I appreciate that, because my nation certainly doesn't recognize this "marriage" crap. Defining marriage in HotRodia, even if that's what this proposal actually set out to do, would be rather like defining air in a vacuum.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I appreciate that, because my nation certainly doesn't recognize this "marriage" crap. Defining marriage in HotRodia, even if that's what this proposal actually set out to do, would be rather like defining air in a vacuum.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Hmm no marriage? In most nations they use marriage to choose, who gets to adopt kids, who gets to speak for someone who no longer speak for themselves, etc.

How does your system work without marriage? Can anyone adopt?

Hmm no marriage? In most nations they use marriage to choose, who gets to adopt kids, who gets to speak for someone who no longer speak for themselves, etc.

How does your system work without marriage? Can anyone adopt?

People can do whatever the hell they want. That's how an anarcho-capitalist cooperative tends to be.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I see no reason for this pile to be replaced.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I agree with the good doctor.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hmm no marriage? In most nations they use marriage to choose, who gets to adopt kids, who gets to speak for someone who no longer speak for themselves, etc.

How does your system work without marriage? Can anyone adopt?
I can't speak for HotRodia, but in Solenscree - the region of The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra that doesn't recognise marriage - children are raised communally, so in the event of the parents dying (or moving away and refusing to take the children with them) the community takes custody of the children.

After reading my first two statements, I would say they both fail to a certain point. A resolution, which does not define shouldn't do so (which both posts did though).
Now another now more serious attempt:

RECOGNIZING that the NationStates United Nations cannot define marriage, as each member nation has a far too different view on it, the United Nations do not define marriage.

RECOGNIZING that if marriage exists in a nation, it should be protected by the law.

URGES every member nation to create laws, that define and protect marriage.


Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

People can do whatever the hell they want. That's how an anarcho-capitalist cooperative tends to be.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Fascinating! Would you're country by chance be willing to host some servers for it? All the material would be digitally encrypted. You would have plausible deniability about any content in it?

Err nm off topic.

So no state defined marriage huh? I'm betting your citizens still have weddings though? What's the weirdest weddings your citizens have engaged in? Do they go for the ones where the religious leader waves his hands, and declares all the hundreds of mandatory marriages he arranged valid?

We can clearly not impose any benefits for citizens on a state, as some might not be able to comply, for several reasons (one might be financial, or social reasons).
Once again, which means that the UN legislating on marriage at all amounts to jackshit.

Besides, how come polygamy is a national issue, but monogamy isn't?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Once again, which means that the UN legislating on marriage at all amounts to jackshit.

Besides, how come polygamy is a national issue, but monogamy isn't?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

[OOC] That is because we have a set of stereotypes, which seem to coincidally be part of most of the users moral backgrounds. Stereotypes are not always necessarily bad, they help us to judge people. One of these stereotypes is that polygamy is bad. There are people who are convinced, that it isn't, and they are obviously the minority here on this forum, therefore I did not think about it and did not incorporate it in the first place.

[IC] Monogamy is a national issue as well, but according to Ouranberg's cultural background it is so self evident, that it wasn't seen as important to differentiate, as we believe firmly in monogamy. Furthermore, with this proposal we want to stop any further discussion of this topic in the UN, as it would be given to the nations, as compared to an endless stream of resolutions and repeals, as this topic is rather controversial.


Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

Once again, which means that the UN legislating on marriage at all amounts to jackshit.

Besides, how come polygamy is a national issue, but monogamy isn't?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Legislating marriage is silly... but it's easier then legislating cohabitation, which isn't silly. Few countries prevent a married couple above the age of consent from cohabiting.

Does this replacement proposal *ALSO* force polygomy on all UN members as the current Definition of Marriage resolution?

In other words, if the UN is trying to standardize specific cultural practices, it seems that it has to draw a line ... either it has to force one custom on all nations (in this case the idea that people can be married to as many people as they want and governments MUST provide benefits to all of these people) or it doesn't.

If the answer is that we do not want to pick and play favorites with particular customs, then a very weak langauged resolution focusing on "REQUESTING" or "NOTING WITH APPROVAL" is really the better way to go.

Fascinating! Would you're country by chance be willing to host some servers for it? All the material would be digitally encrypted. You would have plausible deniability about any content in it?

Err nm off topic.

So no state defined marriage huh? I'm betting your citizens still have weddings though? What's the weirdest weddings your citizens have engaged in? Do they go for the ones where the religious leader waves his hands, and declares all the hundreds of mandatory marriages he arranged valid?

OOC: Tell ya what, if you're really that interested in my nation, we can discuss it in a new thread in a more appropriate forum. I'd rather not turn this one into The HotRodian Cultural Exhibition.

Does this replacement proposal *ALSO* force polygomy on all UN members as the current Definition of Marriage resolution?

In other words, if the UN is trying to standardize specific cultural practices, it seems that it has to draw a line ... either it has to force one custom on all nations (in this case the idea that people can be married to as many people as they want and governments MUST provide benefits to all of these people) or it doesn't.

If the answer is that we do not want to pick and play favorites with particular customs, then a very weak langauged resolution focusing on "REQUESTING" or "NOTING WITH APPROVAL" is really the better way to go.

I think that would be achieved with my proposal above. It states clearly, that it cannpt and will not define marriage, but urges member nations to define and protect marriage, if they have such. Maybe urge is too strong, but then, this is my first attempt at a proposal.

Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

I agree that your government's version of the replacement specifically does not endorse one definition over another, and I feel that your version is the preferred method of handling this.

The question that I think may still remain is what rights does a married couple or "group" retain while traveling in other countries? Or is this even necessary?

I agree that your government's version of the replacement specifically does not endorse one definition over another, and I feel that your version is the preferred method of handling this.

The question that I think may still remain is what rights does a married couple or "group" retain while traveling in other countries? Or is this even necessary?

States within Nations seem to consider it important.

No UN Definition of Marriage especially without an actual definition of marriage period. The Holy Empire of Saint Anns Bay in particular has no particular legal status of marriage only a religious recognition. We are a theocracy yes but still do not afford special rights for marriages or define who can....that is for the church as marriage can only be done in the church. We will not ever endorse such a proposal and already cast a vote for the repeal of the last such resolution. Though I wish the repeal was a little better written but hey it gets the job done, no?;)

States within Nations seem to consider it important.

For good reason ... most nation states establish some common national laws in order to promote trade between these subdivisions of the national government. For example, a Miervatian is considered a citizen of Mikitivity, and as such is entitled to the right to move to Thoris canton and automatically become a citizen of Thoris. However, a Miervatian is not automatically a citizen of Ceorana simply for moving to Ceorana.

Thoris, recognizing marriages in Miervatia, makes it easier for citizens from Miervatia to become citizens in Thoris. I can honestly say that with Mikitivity's very selective citizenship requirements that my government is not as interested in making it "easy" for citizens from Ceorana to become voting citizens in Mikitivity. Welcomed residents, sure ... voting citizens, no.

The only reason I continue to bring this up, is in Nolanstadt upon death, property is immediately transfered to a spouse by the canton. It can become very problematic if a rogue nation, let's call it Utah, decided that everybody in Utah is married. In such a case, Nolanstadt would have to see to it that the estate of the deceased were divided to everybody in Utah. That is what the current resolution forces upon all nations due to its poor language. I'd like to see that avoided in any replacement.

While we would be sympathetic towards a resolution encouraging States that allow heterosexual marriages not to disallow homosexual marriages (and similar anti-discrimination measures), we cannot support a resolution that forces States to recognise marriages in general where the State may not currently officially recognise such an institution.

Completely agreed. Ice Hockey Players has no legalized marriage; all the rights that go with marriage can be doled out by people to other people as they see fit, and actual marriages can be performed by churches and such. We will not support any resolution that forces us to have a legal definition of marriage.

Completely agreed. Ice Hockey Players has no legalized marriage; all the rights that go with marriage can be doled out by people to other people as they see fit, and actual marriages can be performed by churches and such. We will not support any resolution that forces us to have a legal definition of marriage.

Hmm, I'm getting convinced the state has no business legislating marriage at all. In most cultures it is a religious ritual. Does any definition of marriage violate the seperation of church and state?

Hmm, I'm getting convinced the state has no business legislating marriage at all. In most cultures it is a religious ritual. Does any definition of marriage violate the seperation of church and state?

It would seem that most any definition of marriage skirts the separation of Church and State, unless you specifically define a civil marriage (as seperate from a religious marriage) as a contract between parties, enjoining them together as a single legal unit. For simplicity, a civil marriage could be termed a [i]civil union, leaving marriage to the churches entirely.

But, not all nations have separation of church and state. And by interfering in a theocracy's "civil unions", you are thereby messing with their marriages.

This whole business should be left to national governments.

I agree that your government's version of the replacement specifically does not endorse one definition over another, and I feel that your version is the preferred method of handling this.

The question that I think may still remain is what rights does a married couple or "group" retain while traveling in other countries? Or is this even necessary?


I think this could be addressed by adding the following:


DECLARES (is that the right word to be used here?) that visiting citizens to a nation with different laws concerning marriage (and such) are not subject to the laws applied in the country they visit.

INSISTS that member nations create laws that regulate treatment of permanent residents with a different citizenship.


That should take care of that.
I think this turns into an effective way to put this issue sole into the hands of national governments.

Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

DECLARES (is that the right word to be used here?) that visiting citizens to a nation with different laws concerning marriage (and such) are not subject to the laws applied in the country they visit.
You might want to reword that so it doesn't sound like they're exempt from all laws.

But, not all nations have separation of church and state. And by interfering in a theocracy's "civil unions", you are thereby messing with their marriages.

This whole business should be left to national governments.The only condition I'd put on that is that people should have the right to marry, with their full and free consent through the process.

In fact, I'd just copy article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights. Probably kill section 3 or weaken it to take into account the exotic set up of some nations.

Article 16.

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

<shrugs>

Possibly also legislate that legally binding marriages in a UN state are applicable in all other UN nations.

I'd actually deliberately leave a definition out of the process. Just say people can get married (providing there is consent), and let member states decide the specifics.

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

For simplicity, a civil marriage could be termed a civil union, leaving marriage to the churches entirely.

Meaning that there could no longer be such a thing as a non-religious marriage? No, thank you.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You might want to reword that so it doesn't sound like they're exempt from all laws.

Thanks, that would be bad.


DECLARES that visiting citizens to a nation with different laws concerning marriage (and such) are not subject to the laws applied on marriage in the country they visit.



I'd actually deliberately leave a definition out of the process. Just say people can get married (providing there is consent), and let member states decide the specifics.


Well, don't you think, that this is already achieved with my proposal (the one I wrote here)?

I will for better understanding now sum up my proposal:


RECOGNIZING that the NationStates United Nations cannot define marriage, as each member nation has a far too different view on it, the United Nations do not define marriage.

RECOGNIZING that if marriage exists in a nation, it should be protected by the law.

URGES every member nation to create laws, that define and protect marriage.

DECLARES that visiting citizens to a nation with different laws concerning marriage (and similar unions) are not subject to the laws applied on marriage in the country they visit.

INSISTS that member nations create laws that regulate treatment of permanent residents with a different citizenship.


Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

Just say people can get married (providing there is consent), and let member states decide the specifics.

Or just not legislate on this issue at all.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Or just not legislate on this issue at all.Quite. However, this would then open the door to marriages where consent was not mandatory (such as forced marriages, as opposed to arranged marriages, which are slightly different) and that is something which my government feels is within the auspices of human rights.

Yup, that will tick off some nations, but this is one of those times where human rights have a strong argument against national soverignty concerns. Perhaps not an overwelming argument - hence ensuring consent is needed, without trampling over national legislation on what marriage actually is....

Quite. However, this would then open the door to marriages where consent was not mandatory (such as forced marriages, as opposed to arranged marriages, which are slightly different) and that is something which my government feels is within the auspices of human rights.

Yup, that will tick off some nations, but this is one of those times where human rights have a strong argument against national soverignty concerns. Perhaps not an overwelming argument - hence ensuring consent is needed, without trampling over national legislation on what marriage actually is....

How exactly will United Nations legislation be able to ensure consent?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The United Nations would have a gnome at every single wedding in all member states to ensure consent ;)

In Game Mech terms, it's not a matter of how it's acheived.

In RP terms, one could put such language to highlight how free and informed consent in all walks of life should be encouraged, and that member states have an obligation to promote these.

Not that I am the expert on how this could be done, simply that it's well within the mandate of the UN (or at least, how I perceive it). I'm not even interested in writing such a proposal.

OOC: Especially because I'm reduced to running a live distro of Ubuntu on my laptop at the moment.

I like the ideas behind it, but the resolution doesn't allow nations enough leeway.

With regards to polygamy, wouldn't it be easier if we simply inserted a clause allowing each nation the ability to decide how many people one could marry? that strikes a balance between legislating polygamy for every UN nation and ensuring that each nation has enough sovereign power to decide how many people one could marry.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Delegate to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

I like the ideas behind it, but the resolution doesn't allow nations enough leeway.

With regards to polygamy, wouldn't it be easier if we simply inserted a clause allowing each nation the ability to decide how many people one could marry? that strikes a balance between legislating polygamy for every UN nation and ensuring that each nation has enough sovereign power to decide how many people one could marry.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Delegate to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

If that was aimed at me, well, the proposal does not define what marriage is and therefore does not limit a marriage to be monogamous.

Hirota, I think adding consent would bring this too close to a definition, and this is what we don't want to do here. I want to put this whole thing off the table for the NSUN. Some nations may not think in terms of consent, however wrong this maybe, but it might be the case. What about those nations?
I think we should just put this thing forward to a vote.

Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

Quite. However, this would then open the door to marriages where consent was not mandatory (such as forced marriages, as opposed to arranged marriages, which are slightly different) and that is something which my government feels is within the auspices of human rights.

Yup, that will tick off some nations, but this is one of those times where human rights have a strong argument against national soverignty concerns. Perhaps not an overwelming argument - hence ensuring consent is needed, without trampling over national legislation on what marriage actually is....
But how could any UN proposal accomplish something like that when not every member nation chooses to legislate on the issue. Let alone have anything to do with the process at all, to begin with?

Though wo do kind of agree, theoretically and anecdotally, with the idea of legislation on consent, or at least age consent, in nations where such legislation would be both possible and feasible.



Hirota, I think adding consent would bring this too close to a definition, and this is what we don't want to do here. I want to put this whole thing off the table for the NSUN. Some nations may not think in terms of consent, however wrong this maybe, but it might be the case. What about those nations?
Which is unfortunate seeing as that we view 'consent' as possibly, the only legitimate issue of UN legislation concerning the topic of marriage.

OOC: Especially because I'm reduced to running a live distro of Ubuntu on my laptop at the moment.That reminds me... I really should get off my ass and install that on the other desktop... [/threadjack]

This new resolution is no better than the old one. As said before, it only says who can get married, not what marriage is. In some nations, marriage is an institution to raise children, not a mere "love relationship." This resolution is a blatant infringement on the rights of national government.

Which is unfortunate seeing as that we view 'consent' as possibly, the only legitimate issue of UN legislation concerning the topic of marriage.<nods> I think the issue of consent is probably the one aspect of marriage that has a foot in fundamental human rights and could be broadly supported without dispute.

(and also because few people here are from cultures which....skip over the whole consent side of marriage)

If you are so eager to add a definition of consent, that most members can agree on, why don't you give a definition?

Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

If you are so eager to add a definition of consent, that most members can agree on, why don't you give a definition?If nobody else took it up, I would.

Right now, I'm busy with a TG campaign.....

<sigh> Fine! I'll draft one.

10 minutes worth of effort on this one. Rip it to shreds if you like :)

Determined to promote universal respect and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;

Noting that certain customs, ancient laws and practices relating to marriage were inconsistent with these principles;

Noting the broad variations in marriage between member states and eager to preserve customs, ancient laws and practices consistent that do not conflict with human rights and fundamental freedoms for all;

Noting previous resolutions protecting minors, and condemning abuses of minors;

Noting that a minor cannot supply consent;

Mandates that men and women of adult age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Mandates that no marriage shall be legally entered into without the full and free consent of both parties, such consent to be expressed by them in person after due publicity and in the presence of the authority competent to solemnize the marriage and of witnesses, as prescribed by law.

Mandates no marriage shall be legally entered into with a minor.

Reserves the rights of member states to legislate on eligibility to marry under other conditions, subject to applicable international law.

Reserves the right of member states to legislate on national taxation and fiscal benefits of marriage, or the recognition of any other form of union.

Commence shredding...



Determined to promote universal respect and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;


What about species? Concerns were voiced before.



Noting that certain customs, ancient laws and practices relating to marriage were inconsistent with these principles;

Noting the broad variations in marriage between member states and eager to preserve customs, ancient laws and practices consistent that do not conflict with human rights and fundamental freedoms for all;

Noting previous resolutions protecting minors, and condemning abuses of minors;

Noting that a minor cannot supply consent;


Not bad...



Mandates that men and women of adult age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.


You know, by not mentioning same-sex marriages, people will ask "what about those, you want to allow that kind of stuff?", and others will whine that you did not explicitly mentioned that they are ment as well.



Mandates that no marriage shall be legally entered into without the full and free consent of both parties, such consent to be expressed by them in person after due publicity and in the presence of the authority competent to solemnize the marriage and of witnesses, as prescribed by law.

Mandates no marriage shall be legally entered into with a minor.


Yeah, thats a good way to handle consent.



Reserves the rights of member states to legislate on eligibility to marry under other conditions, subject to applicable international law.


Wait, what do you mean with "applicable international law"? What about tourists, or permanent residents with different citizenship?



Reserves the right of member states to legislate on national taxation and fiscal benefits of marriage, or the recognition of any other form of union.

Good. Even though I shreded some parts as wished, I do not htink it is generally flawed.
What about we throw our two proposals together to create a resolution that will fulfill the task it is intended to do?
Or we can put both resolutions up for vote, but then probably both will fail, both in the queue and in its effectiveness.

Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

Well, it's a good thing we have resolution #25 "The Child Protection Act" that already establishes the only thing we all agree on here regarding age of consent.

In light of that, I think after reading this thread so far that any proposal will be superfluous due to previously passed U.N. legislation. This being the basis for my repeal of "Definition of Marriage" that will be deleted as soon as the current one is approved, I would be glad to to reach quorum with my repeal once again by modifying the current one very little if a "Definition of Marriage II" as described here were to pass (plus, I have two entire lists of delegates to contact who have already approved the repeal of the first definition of marriage). If you go back and read through this thread, the majority of people here have posted no need for such a bill. I believe that will hold up over the NS world right now as well.

I appreciate alot of the sentiment expressed here, but will not be in favor of the U.N. meddling in religious matters of the individual nations. I do not support this as a role for these United Nations. I join the chorus of voices here that urge we put this one to rest and work on something a bit more productive.

Hirota, I find myself liking a lot of that draft, but I realise now that you've plagia...copied from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How come no one noticed that? No one read UDoHR? For shame.

Article 16 in full (3. has not been included in Hirota's draft):

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


The current draft would, as in UDoHR, leave same-sex marriages to be decided by the state.

And I'm in agreement that consentment in marriage is very much in the scope of the UN.

Hirota, I find myself liking a lot of that draft, but I realise now that you've plagia...copied from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How come no one noticed that? No one read UDoHR? For shame.I do that a lot, especially if I'm not putting much effort into it. <shrugs>

Well, it's a good thing we have resolution #25 "The Child Protection Act" that already establishes the only thing we all agree on here regarding age of consent.Yeah, there is some overlap. However, the age of consent overlooks the fact that not all nations worry about consent in the first place. It's not much good if you have an age of consent if that consent is irrelevant once you reach that age!

Consent, in all areas is a fundamental human right. Marriage is a specific example of where that fundamental human right is not respected universally.
I appreciate alot of the sentiment expressed here, but will not be in favor of the U.N. meddling in religious matters of the individual nations. I do not support this as a role for these United Nations. I join the chorus of voices here that urge we put this one to rest and work on something a bit more productive.I don't think my draft does that. Whoever marries them has to be approved by the state. Church officals can be approved as easily as anyone else.

But meh, I'm not going to be spending time on this when I have rights to water, maritime distress, and bushmeat still on the agenda.

Hirota, I find myself liking a lot of that draft, but I realise now that you've plagia...copied from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How come no one noticed that? No one read UDoHR? For shame.

Article 16 in full (3. has not been included in Hirota's draft):


The current draft would, as in UDoHR, leave same-sex marriages to be decided by the state.

And I'm in agreement that consentment in marriage is very much in the scope of the UN.

OOC:
:) I actually like it when people look to RL documents for inspiration and then work to fit those documents into something more appropriate for NationStates.

IC:
My government actually feels that consent in marriage is effectively covered by a number of other resolutions that condemn slavery and promote individual liberty. I'd like the record to state that Mikitivity would rather UN legislation on this matter focus on the international implications ... in other words, we feel that a replacement should explain in the preamble why this issue needs international focus. If not in the preamble, I'd like to ask that replacement sponsors will at least continue their excellent public explanations and enter the justification as part of any debate.

Best Wishes,
Howie T. Katzman

I have a wild idea. Any "Definition of Marriage" proposal should have a clause that allows member states to ignore the resolution IF AND ONLY IF it chooses not to have a legal definition of marriage AT ALL.

Something like:

ALLOWS member states not to have any legal definition of marriage;

Something like that.

Let's pretend there is a nation, perhaps called New Caprica, where you may only be married if the President (a man named Gaius Baltar) decides it is OK. Now let's pretend that on New Caprica, that married couples are given extra comforts ... and President Baltar's marriage permits are selectively issued.

Now let's say that another country, Cylon, wants to send tourists to New Caprica ... but unlike the requires for marriage on New Caprica, Cylons (being rather hive-minded) are legally married to all other Cylons and when they arrive in New Caprica they demand all the benefits reserved only for Baltar's finest and in doing so place ungodly (or as the New Capricans like to say 'frakking insane') burdens on the poor New Capricans.

The thing I'd like other nations to think about is why is it really so important to decide what marriage should mean in other nations???

The thing I'd like other nations to think about is why is it really so important to decide what marriage should mean in other nations???


It's not.

OOC: And you really need to lay off the Battlestar Galactica, my friend. ;)

Let's pretend there is a nation, perhaps called New Caprica, where you may only be married if the President (a man named Gaius Baltar) decides it is OK. Now let's pretend that on New Caprica, that married couples are given extra comforts ... and President Baltar's marriage permits are selectively issued.

Now let's say that another country, Cylon, wants to send tourists to New Caprica ... but unlike the requires for marriage on New Caprica, Cylons (being rather hive-minded) are legally married to all other Cylons and when they arrive in New Caprica they demand all the benefits reserved only for Baltar's finest and in doing so place ungodly (or as the New Capricans like to say 'frakking insane') burdens on the poor New Capricans.

The thing I'd like other nations to think about is why is it really so important to decide what marriage should mean in other nations???OOC: someone watches to much frackin Galactica. :)

IC: I agree with the broad majority of what you've said. I still maintain that the issue of consent is a fundamental human right. I've not had the chance to research, but I don't know if existing resolutions adequately cover this.

OOC: someone watches to much frackin Galactica. :)

OOC: I'd agree with that, but I just used the term frakkin myself.:D

Quite. However, this would then open the door to marriages where consent was not mandatory (such as forced marriages, as opposed to arranged marriages, which are slightly different) and that is something which my government feels is within the auspices of human rights.

Yup, that will tick off some nations, but this is one of those times where human rights have a strong argument against national soverignty concerns. Perhaps not an overwelming argument - hence ensuring consent is needed, without trampling over national legislation on what marriage actually is....

One could write a "Rights of Married People" resolution that makes sure even if two people are wed one doesn't get the right to, I dunno, sell the other into slavery? Or whatever power you are worried mandatory marriages would give one person over the other, just specify no one ever gets that power?

If nobody else took it up, I would.

<sigh> Fine! I'll draft one.

10 minutes worth of effort on this one. Rip it to shreds if you like :)


No need. My government likes this proposal.

For simplicity, a civil marriage could be termed a [i]civil union, leaving marriage to the churches entirely.

Meaning that there could no longer be such a thing as a non-religious marriage? No, thank you.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Pazu-lenny Kasigi-Nero concurs with Christelle Zyryanov on this point.

Caramida, it seems that your sugestion induce that marriage will be banned for people not belonging to any churche. Do you really want that to happen?

Marriage is something pretty important for many Lovestereli people (for both believers and non believers).

Discussion of this subject could be made much simpler if we accepted one simple idea. Unless you live in a theocracy, a religion is not the government, and vice versa. Marriage, or whatever you choose to call it, can be viewed in two completely separate ways:

1. A status under civil law, which establishes certain rights, permissions, and responsibilities for those involved: the "civil union".

2. A status under canon (religious) law, with characteristics established by the religious organization.

Now, if a nation (say, a theocracy), wants to consider these two as the same thing, that's up to them. If the nation wants to recognize "marriages" performed by the clergy as "marriages" under civil law, fine--but it doesn't have to. And if a church wants to recognize "marriages" performed by civil authorities as "marriages" under its canon law, fine--but it doesn't have to.

If we clearly separate these two things in our minds and discussions, the NSUN can ignore the religious status and focus on the "civil union". Many of us, I'm sure, believe that the NSUN has no business legislating on matters of religion. This would let us avoid doing so.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Discussion of this subject could be made much simpler if we accepted one simple idea. Unless you live in a theocracy, a religion is not the government, and vice versa. Marriage, or whatever you choose to call it, can be viewed in two completely separate ways:

1. A status under civil law, which establishes certain rights, permissions, and responsibilities for those involved: the "civil union".

2. A status under canon (religious) law, with characteristics established by the religious organization.

Now, if a nation (say, a theocracy), wants to consider these two as the same thing, that's up to them. If the nation wants to recognize "marriages" performed by the clergy as "marriages" under civil law, fine--but it doesn't have to. And if a church wants to recognize "marriages" performed by civil authorities as "marriages" under its canon law, fine--but it doesn't have to.

If we clearly separate these two things in our minds and discussions, the NSUN can ignore the religious status and focus on the "civil union". Many of us, I'm sure, believe that the NSUN has no business legislating on matters of religion. This would let us avoid doing so.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
I think you coined interesting expressions "marriages performed by the clergy" and "marriages under civil law" and I fully agree that they have to be separated.

The husband of a friend of me in RL, was previously married (civil+religious), then divorced (civil). But he had to wait few years for the annulation of his religious marriage by the Vatican. So he married (civil) my friend, but they were not allowed to marry (religious) as he was already married (religious).

So maybe, there can be 2 options available for churches, up to them:
1-churches can perform/celebrate a marriage for persons having already a civil marriage, but those religious marriage CANNOT be a legal contract and had not to be respected legally.
2-churches may, at their discretion, perform some legal marriages, but then they had to comply with legal marriage/divorce laws, (in 2: churches are not mandated to perform all kind of marriages; civil marriages are also available for those wanting to marry outside churches)

In my repealed "divorce" proposal, we were dealing with marriage as a "contract", so only about divorce for "legal/civil marriage", not with only religious (non-legal) marriages, but maybe this have to be written in a more clearly manner.

If the process of marriage is like getting drive a car.

1) You get a license from the state that says you have passed the basic requirements. Mainly passed the written, eye, and cordination test or whatever.
2) You road test in the vehicle you wish to drive.

The first part would be something the state would deal with then for the second one would have two choices.

A) Go to your religious person and get hitched by their standards and procedures.

B) Go to your local barber and get hitched by their standards and procedures.

To finish this all one must come back with the issued license to have it certified and a certificate of marriage is given. This means they are married. Fail to follow all rules and your are not legally married.. Just like if you blow the road test you don't drive a car.


As far as legal marriage if it's done by local laws then it legal regardless of who does it. As those doing it would be required to follow the standards set for any marriage license to be issued then converted to a certificate.

OOC: In US (post 1830) early on men were taking out the license only and many never returned to get the certificate. Thus by those early laws they were not legal couples.. Since they failed to return the license signed by the person saying they were hitched by them. Most set up with the gal and had family with no final on the marriage taken to turn license into certificate.