NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to bring attention to my new proposal:
The Right to Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Quaon

Description: HEREBY defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, nationality, ethnicity, etc.

HEREBY legalizing marriage in all UN member nations.

HEREBY legalize marriage between members of different sapient (ie, intelligent) species.

Approvals: 1 (Quaon)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 121 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 3 2006

Opposed. There is no need for this, and anyway, without noting the rights and duties associated with the legal status of marriage, it's meaningless.

Opposed. There is no need for this, and anyway, without noting the rights and duties associated with the legal status of marriage, it's meaningless.

agreed

Government-recognized relationships may be a legal right in your ridiculously micromanaging nation, but not in mine. And we prefer it that way. I really don't see that we need a UN Resolution telling folks they can get hitched.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Opposed. Why bother at all? Let individual governments decide.

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

There seems to be little need for this. I don't see it as particularly harmful, but, as the honourable delegate from Gruenberg has pointed out, it would do little beyond enabling two people to define themselves as "married".

I'm not fundamentally opposed, but I'm not convinced there's much point to it.

Oh, and the wording needs fixing. All those "hereby"s... Tsk...


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Oh, and the wording needs fixing. All those "hereby"s... Tsk...Think that that cover our views of the proposal s0 we will add another Here bye to the idea of allowing something that most nations already allow in some way. Since this don't define marriage and the actions that go with it or rights it's not doing much more than taking up time and space.

Description: HEREBY defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, nationality, ethnicity, etc. "Thank you wife number five for reminding me of another reason not to go with this."

We, too, do not see a great deal of point to this. Marriage is defined extremely loosely in the Commonwealth, so we don't really need anything else.

OOC: Is the author here? The only post they've made is the original.

BLOODY FRAKKIN' HELL, not another damn marriage resolution! I didn't even read past the title and I already know that I'm opposing it. A nation's marriage laws are none of the UN's business.:headbang:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Wolf Guardians;11622705']OOC: Is the author here? The only post they've made is the original.Quaron does pop in, from time to time.

I hate this resolution. This is the UN, not webster's dictionary. Definitions are only necessary when it is needed for an operative clause. As it is apart from defining something this resolution DOES NOTHING.

(Do we have a card with "THE RESOLUTION ... IT DOES NOTHING!" on it?)

But in general I think a good resolution on marriage can and should be written. It's an international issue for sure. (As in a married couple going into another nation could be considered a not married couple and could face criminal and civil prosecution because of it.)

I hate this resolution. This is the UN, not webster's dictionary. Definitions are only necessary when it is needed for an operative clause. As it is apart from defining something this resolution DOES NOTHING.

(Do we have a card with "THE RESOLUTION ... IT DOES NOTHING!" on it?)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/toothless5kd.jpg

Close enough.

But in general I think a good resolution on marriage can and should be written.

No, it can't, because it shouldn't be written, because, despite what you're about to say in the next quote, it's not an international issue.

It's an international issue for sure. (As in a married couple going into another nation could be considered a not married couple and could face criminal and civil prosecution because of it.)

Oh, gimme a break... :rolleyes:

But in general I think a good resolution on marriage can and should be written. It's an international issue for sure. (As in a married couple going into another nation could be considered a not married couple and could face criminal and civil prosecution because of it.)

I can see maybe a resolution saying that nations have to recognize marriage performed in other nations as being something that could be considered an international issue, but saying who can get married is most definatly not an international issue.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I can see maybe a resolution saying that nations have to recognize marriage performed in other nations as being something that could be considered an international issue, but saying who can get married is most definatly not an international issue.

Yes that was what I was trying to say. Another question involves cross border marriages - nationals of nation A going to nation B because of the differences of marriage laws. And marriages of multinationals - one national of nation A who marries a national of nation B in either nation A or nation B.

If you don't like another nation's marriage laws, you don't have to go there.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nabnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

But in general I think a good resolution on marriage can and should be written. It's an international issue for sure. (As in a married couple going into another nation could be considered a not married couple and could face criminal and civil prosecution because of it.)Oh, gimme a break... :rolleyes:Actually, it could be (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html).

OOC: Yes, I only pop in once in a while (long story, don't have the time to tell why).

IC:
The whole idea of the resolution was to basically have it work the same as the original marriage resolution while eliminating the loophole which allows bestality.

The whole idea of the resolution was to basically have it work the same as the original marriage resolution while eliminating the loophole which allows bestality.

Which then just boils down to a resolution on homosexual marriage which according to the latest comprehensive guide proposed by Texan Hotrodders is a dead horse (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9137041&postcount=2). There were a number of reasons why the resolution was bad. The repeal would have passed by a wider margin had it not been for the absurd argument against bestality.

The whole idea of the resolution was to basically have it work the same as the original marriage resolution while eliminating the loophole which allows bestality.
But, it doesn't. This resolution does not outlaw bestiality, nor does it prevent nations from legalising marriages to animals.

It's even more pointless than Resolution #81.

Actually, it could be (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html).

OOC: state law =/= national law =/= international law

OOC: state law =/= national law =/= international lawThe principle is the same; if Cluichstan has a law that says that you can't be closer than fifth cousins to marry and a couple from Community Property who are fourth cousins vist Cluichstan, they could be arrested for incest even though they are legally married under their native law.

There are hundreds of thousands of nations in the world of NationStates; travellers can't be expected to memorize the national laws of them all. The simple solution is for nations to respect each others' works, especially when it comes to contracts - and ultimately, marriage is a contract.

In essence, we are arguing in favor of a “Full Faith and Credit” approach to contracts - or at least to the works of governmental bodies. Exceptions and restrictions that are necessary for public safety - such as the re-certification of drivers' and pilots' licenses - are certainly justifiable. But absent any public safety justification, the works of one nation should be respected by all others.

This is where Loving comes in: it was the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution of the nation in question (a fictional one to be sure, but the example still applies) that prompted its highest court to issue the ruling in question. We think the principle guiding that court should be applied within the community of nations that comprise the NSUN, and we think this is compatible with a federalist (i.e., national sovereigntist) view of this body's proper role in the world.

<Delegate makes a note to pen a “Full Faith and Credit” resolution and thinks: So many resolutions, so little time...>

The principle is the same; if Cluichstan has a law that says that you can't be closer than fifth cousins to marry and a couple from Community Property who are fourth cousins vist Cluichstan, they could be arrested for incest even though they are legally married under their native law.

Then don't visit Cluichstan. It's really that simple.

There are hundreds of thousands of nations in the world of NationStates; travellers can't be expected to memorize the national laws of them all. The simple solution is for nations to respect each others' works, especially when it comes to contracts - and ultimately, marriage is a contract.

OOC aside: While I agree personally with the latter point regarding marriage essentially being a contract, certain religious nations would most certainly object. Hell, even a lot of supposedly secular nations would, too.

In essence, we are arguing in favor of a “Full Faith and Credit” approach to contracts - or at least to the works of governmental bodies. Exceptions and restrictions that are necessary for public safety - such as the re-certification of drivers' and pilots' licenses - are certainly justifiable. But absent any public safety justification, the works of one nation should be respected by all others.

Back IC: Why? My nation's morals may be completely different from yours. Hell, I'd be willing to bet they are.

This is where Loving comes in: it was the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution of the nation in question (a fictional one to be sure, but the example still applies) that prompted its highest court to issue the ruling in question. We think the principle guiding that court should be applied within the community of nations that comprise the NSUN, and we think this is compatible with a federalist (i.e., national sovereigntist) view of this body's proper role in the world.

We do not recognise fictional court decisions of fictional nations as guidance for international law.

<Delegate makes a note to pen a “Full Faith and Credit” resolution and thinks: So many resolutions, so little time...>

Oh, please don't...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN