NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I know straight off that some of you will argue that this has already been covered by previous legislation, so I'm going to begin by explaining why I don't think that it has, and also why I think this proposal is necessarry.

This proposal covers (hopefully) all rights of sexual orientation exclusively, including ones that have not yet been covered such as same-sex CIVIL marriage and adoption.

There was briefly a resolution which allowed same sex marriages but that was repealed as some (mis?)interpreted it to condone bestiality. Sexual Freedoms looks set to be repealed soon too. Seeing as non-humans will be protected under seperate legislation (most likely) I believe that a piece of legislation dedicated to protecting solely rights of sexual orientation will offer the best protection, and if, at a later date, it is repealed or voted down before then, it has not been as a result of a minor part of the legislation.

Rights of Sexual Orientation
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong? Significant? (Opinions welcome)

Description:

CONCERNED that the tendency to group multiple minority groups into a singular piece of legislation has sometimes resulted in a weakening of that proposal due to the attack on a minor part of that legislation,

BELIEVING that explicit protection under the law is more powerful than implicit protection,

AFFIRMING the promotion of equality and non-discrimination

BELIEVING that sexual orientation, like gender or race, relates to fundamental aspects of human identity, and thus deserves explicit protection

DEFINING for the purposes of this proposal ‘sexual orientation’ as being used to denote the gender of the people to whom one is sexually or emotionally attracted, and using sexual minority to mean one of non-heterosexual orientation

WE THE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

DECLARE that same-sex relationships or sexual relations must not be illegalised

FORBID member states from using sexual orientation as a means to discriminate under any circumstances other than those set out in pre-existing legislation.

MANDATE that members of sexual minorities (as defined above) must be treated equally under the law, and invalidate any laws denying sexual minorities of equal rights

REQUIRE member state to grant same-sex couples any rights that are granted to opposite-sex couples, including, but not limited to, adoption and marriage defined as an (optionally) non-religious state ceremony granting the same status and legal rights as heterosexual marriages, or other equivalent arrangements.


I welcome comments, advice and criticism. Have I missed something out? (Most likely something glaringly obvious!) Should I take anything out? Should I edit something, should I change my definitions, do I unintentionally exclude people? Comments please!

DECLARE that same-sex relations must not be illegalised.
What? I can't illegalise my little sister? But she steals my clothes and uses all my make up. Not to mention pinching all my boyfriends. I want to make her illegal so bad!

Sorry, couldn't help it, but I can see that line drawing such loony comments.

I assume you mean same-sex sexual relations can't be illegalised? Perhaps you could look at changing the wording on that line.

Overall, I love the idea, and would support a proposal on this subject. The gradual repeals of human rights resolutions is slowly eating away at this sort of protection, and it would be good to see some of that replaced.

DECLARE that same-sex relations must not be illegalised
Can be abstracted from Resolution #7, "Sexual Freedom", and Resolution #80, "Rights of Minorities and Women".

Were the former to be repealed, I think a replacement would cover this.

FORBID member states from using sexual orientation as a means to discriminate under any circumstances
Illegal for contradiction of UN Resolution #99, "Discrimination Accord":
"§ 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."

MANDATE that members of sexual minorities (as defined above) must be treated equally under the law, and invalidate any laws denying sexual minorities of equal rights
Again, can be abstracted from other legislation, including "The Universal Bill of Rights" and "Discrimination Accord".

REQUIRE member state to grant same-sex couples any rights that are granted to opposite-sex couples, including, but not limited to, adoption and civil marriage (although do not legislate on religious ceremonies)
The former is covered by Resolution #121, "Adoption and IVF Rights"; the latter, given member nations have the right to define what status is associated with civil marriage, is meaningless.

Here's my suggestion. Go through the past legislation, and come back with an explicit list of what rights are definitely missing, and where governments can clearly discriminate. Civil union excepted, I'm unimpressed that much of this proposal hasn't been done already.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

.
I assume you mean same-sex sexual relations can't be illegalised? Perhaps you could look at changing the wording on that line.


I'll change it to something like "same-sex relationships or sexual relations"

Can be abstracted from Resolution #7, "Sexual Freedom", and Resolution #80, "Rights of Minorities and Women".

Were the former to be repealed, I think a replacement would cover this.

Or, were this passed, a replacement for sexual freedoms would not be necessary, at least not in the context of sexual orientation. As I said, alot of resolutions are being repealed which is gradually eroding the rights of sexual orientation that are explicitly protected. I am trying to prevent that from happening by having them set out in one place. But I am not merely repeating protections that already exist, I am building on them and adding new ones, and presenting them in possibly the most legislatively efficient way.

Illegal for contradiction of UN Resolution #99, "Discrimination Accord":
"§ 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."

Hmm. Ok, I will have to amend it to read something along the lines of except under the circumstances described in the discrimination accord. I can't really think of an example of an extreme security risk that would warrant discriminating based upon sexual orientation, but rules is rules.


The former is covered by Resolution #121, "Adoption and IVF Rights"; the latter, given member nations have the right to define what status is associated with civil marriage, is meaningless.

Well, maybe I will create the right to a non-religious state ceremony granting the same status and legal rights as heterosexual marriages, or other such arrangements. Does that sound better?


Here's my suggestion. Go through the past legislation, and come back with an explicit list of what rights are definitely missing, and where governments can clearly discriminate. Civil union excepted, I'm unimpressed that much of this proposal hasn't been done already.

Will so do now. I have to admit, I had just done a quick draft to put on my regional forum and then thought I would just whack it on here too for intial comments. I do agree that some of the rights listed here are implied elsewhere. But for reasons mentioned above, implicit protection is rarely worth anything.

In RL, most non-discrimination accords, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have "or any other whatever" tacked on at the end, and yet sexual orientation is rarely, and certainly never universally, interpreted to be included.

But if it looks like there is too much overlap, I may well just have to reduce this to a same-sex marriage proposal.

Or, were this passed, a replacement for sexual freedoms would not be necessary, at least not in the context of sexual orientation. As I said, alot of resolutions are being repealed which is gradually eroding the rights of sexual orientation that are explicitly protected. I am trying to prevent that from happening by having them set out in one place. But I am not merely repeating protections that already exist, I am building on them and adding new ones, and presenting them in possibly the most legislatively efficient way.
My point is more that without demonstrating how you are adding new ones, this reads to me like duplication. And therefore, contingent on the repeals you fear...which will probably lead to replacements anyway. I'm unsure how valuable this is, in other words.

Hmm. Ok, I will have to amend it to read something along the lines of except under the circumstances described in the discrimination accord. I can't really think of an example of an extreme security risk that would warrant discriminating based upon sexual orientation, but rules is rules.
I would just leave it out altogether.

Well, maybe I will create the right to a non-religious state ceremony granting the same status and legal rights as heterosexual marriages, or other such arrangements. Does that sound better?
No:
1. Some states would prefer to have no formal recognition of civil union whatsoever. To require them to institute such is an unacceptable violation of their sovereignty.
2. You're assuming a separation of church and state. That isn't always so.
3. Given the above, you're doing little to protect the rights of homosexual couples in heavily religious societies, where civil unions - even for heterosexuals - grant few rights. Given these are the people most in need of protection...what point does it serve?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

My point is more that without demonstrating how you are adding new ones, this reads to me like duplication. And therefore, contingent on the repeals you fear...which will probably lead to replacements anyway. I'm unsure how valuable this is, in other words.

Ok. Then it is quite possible that this will evolve into solely a same-sex marriage issue but I'll see how it goes, how the repeals of other issues go, etc, before submitting anything anyway.


No:
1. Some states would prefer to have no formal recognition of civil union whatsoever. To require them to institute such is an unacceptable violation of their sovereignty.

Good point. I will have to stress the point then that the goal is equality and not the establishment of extra rights. Edit: On re-reading, I have stated that only rights already given to heterosexual couples should be made available to non heterosexual couples.


2. You're assuming a separation of church and state. That isn't always so.

No I'm not. If it is established already that we can't discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation on a range of other issues then most likely they would already be creating some kind of artificial separation of church and state - say by not illegalising homosexuality. What I am trying to argue is that while I am allowing for religions not to offer any spiritual or religious benefits, same-sex unions must be granted the same legal rights- such as tax laws, next of kin laws, and so on.

3. Given the above, you're doing little to protect the rights of homosexual couples in heavily religious societies, where civil unions - even for heterosexuals - grant few rights. Given these are the people most in need of protection...what point does it serve?

My goal in this proposal was to create equal rights for all, not new rights per se. If someone wants to make the right to marry mandatory for everyone then fine but that's not what I'm trying to do. So under this proposal, if no one was allowed to marry then that would be fine, but if heterosexual couples could marry, but not homosexual couples, then that would not be fine.

1. Some states would prefer to have no formal recognition of civil union or marriage whatsoever. To require them to institute such is an unacceptable violation of their sovereignty.

Forgive me this RL reference, but as no nation in RL has no formal recognition of civil union whatsoever, to institute such seems more an acceptable violation of their "fantaisy sovereignty" than an unacceptable violation of their "national" sovereignty.;)

OOC:
Forgive me this RL reference, but as no nation in RL has no formal recognition of civil union whatsoever, to institute such seems more an acceptable violation of their "fantaisy sovereignty" than an unacceptable violation of their "national" sovereignty.
No nations in RL have non-human sapients among their population, or space ships. Fortunately, this is NS.

OOC:

No nations in RL have non-human sapients among their population, or space ships. Fortunately, this is NS.

Exactly, both are fantasy and may happen in the future.

But defendants of “non-human sapients rights” fantasy defend those because they are sensitive to this position, they would like this situation.

So, I wanted to know if defendants, as Gruenberg, of "fantasy societies with no formal recognition of civil union or marriage whatsoever" defend those because they are sensitive to this position, because they would like this situation?

Minor grammatical preference ...

Currently you have:
DECLARE that same-sex relationships or sexual relations must not be illegalised

FORBID member states from using sexual orientation as a means to discriminate under any circumstances other than those set out in pre-existing legislation.

MANDATE that members of sexual minorities (as defined above) must be treated equally under the law, and invalidate any laws denying sexual minorities of equal rights

REQUIRE member state to grant same-sex couples any rights that are granted to opposite-sex couples, including, but not limited to, adoption and marriage defined as an (optionally) non-religious state ceremony granting the same status and legal rights as heterosexual marriages, or other equivalent arrangements.

I'm from the school of thought that thinks of the United Nations as a single organization, thus the verbs used in "its" resolution should basically present-active-singular-tense verbs. (I would never vote down a resolution on minor grammar, but figured I'd share.) :)

Examples (incorrect -- correct):
He run faster than anybody else. -- He runs faster than anybody else.
She bathe in the moonlight. -- She bathes in the moonlight.
It come for us. -- It comes for us.


DECLARES that same-sex relationships or sexual relations must not be illegalised

FORBIDS member states from using sexual orientation as a means to discriminate under any circumstances other than those set out in pre-existing legislation.

MANDATES that members of sexual minorities (as defined above) must be treated equally under the law, and invalidate any laws denying sexual minorities of equal rights

REQUIRES member state to grant same-sex couples any rights that are granted to opposite-sex couples, including, but not limited to, adoption and marriage defined as an (optionally) non-religious state ceremony granting the same status and legal rights as heterosexual marriages, or other equivalent arrangements.

Ok, I know straight off that some of you will argue that this has already been covered by previous legislation, so I'm going to begin by explaining why I don't think that it has, and also why I think this proposal is necessarry.

This proposal covers (hopefully) all rights of sexual orientation exclusively, including ones that have not yet been covered such as same-sex CIVIL marriage and adoption.

There was briefly a resolution which allowed same sex marriages but that was repealed as some (mis?)interpreted it to condone bestiality. Sexual Freedoms looks set to be repealed soon too. Seeing as non-humans will be protected under seperate legislation (most likely) I believe that a piece of legislation dedicated to protecting solely rights of sexual orientation will offer the best protection, and if, at a later date, it is repealed or voted down before then, it has not been as a result of a minor part of the legislation.


I welcome comments, advice and criticism. Have I missed something out? (Most likely something glaringly obvious!) Should I take anything out? Should I edit something, should I change my definitions, do I unintentionally exclude people? Comments please!

I really don't see anything here worth doing that isn't already covered by the Discrimination Accord. Going any further is just micromanaging, and for the sake of a particular legal privilege, not even a general right. What a waste of time.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

-snip-While we do not support this legislation, we would point out to the Mikitivian representative that Gwenstefani's grammar is correct: "We the United Nations do hereby declare, etc."

Forgive me this RL reference, but as no nation in RL has no formal recognition of civil union whatsoever, to institute such seems more an acceptable violation of their "fantaisy sovereignty" than an unacceptable violation of their "national" sovereignty.;)
in RL when? In the late 20th and early 21st centuries? Who says such a short timespan should determine what's "fanatasy sovereignty" and what's "national sovereignty"?
My Theocracy has no formal recognition of marriage between Believers (which all the citizens of the Theocracy are) except the Religious one. While it does not regulate "sexual practises between consenting adults in the privacy of their home," it does follow Biblical Law in considering same-sex relationships "sinful" and, though not discriminating against such "sinners" in any other way, does not consider a "marital" union between them possible, as "marriage" is considered to have only religious significance.
Though exactly such a theocracy most probably never existed, similar ones have existed in various places and times over the last 3000 years. Please take this into Historical Context.

While we do not support this legislation, we would point out to the Mikitivian representative that Gwenstefani's grammar is correct: "We the United Nations do hereby declare, etc."

I skipped right over that. :( Though I'll withdrawl half my recommendation, I still do not like the UN being referred to in the plural. UN members is fine, but the UN itself is technically an organization, complete with a UN Secretariat loyal to only the UN.

[OOC: The real UN format, is generally what I like seeing ... it is efficient.]

My government prefers:

The NationStates United Nations,

[Preambulatory clauses -- fragments -- discussing why this resolution is an international or important issue],

1. [Activing clause],

2. [Next Activing clause],

etc.

Again, I wouldn't vote against a proposal based on so minor a nitpick, but I will bring them up here and now, as it is what the people of Mikitivity would like to see.

Forgive me this RL reference, but as no nation in RL has no formal recognition of civil union whatsoever, to institute such seems more an acceptable violation of their "fantaisy sovereignty" than an unacceptable violation of their "national" sovereignty.;)The Hack has no legal definition of marriage. All marriage is of a religious nature. Likewise, two people can declare themselves married and they are. If they want to change their name, there are methods for doing so. If they want their spouse to be considered their next of kin, there are methods for that, too.

Such libertarian ideals are hardly uncommon or surprizing in NS.

The Hack has no legal definition of marriage. All marriage is of a religious nature. Likewise, two people can declare themselves married and they are. If they want to change their name, there are methods for doing so. If they want their spouse to be considered their next of kin, there are methods for that, too.

Such libertarian ideals are hardly uncommon or surprizing in NS.

Thanks if you can help me to understand the hack society:
but "Likewise, two people can declare themselves married and they are. " seems to me a sort of legal definition of marriage (from what i learn on this forum about "declare")

It would work something like this:

"You wanna get married?"
"Sure."
"Yay, we're married."

Their legal status hasn't changed, as there's no change to take place.

OOC:
Exactly, both are fantasy and may happen in the future.

But defendants of “non-human sapients rights” fantasy defend those because they are sensitive to this position, they would like this situation.

So, I wanted to know if defendants, as Gruenberg, of "fantasy societies with no formal recognition of civil union or marriage whatsoever" defend those because they are sensitive to this position, because they would like this situation?
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying. I raised the point because it's commonly noted that many nations in NS do not have or would like not to have any formal state recognition of marriage. Anything beyond that, I don't know.

Good point. I will have to stress the point then that the goal is equality and not the establishment of extra rights. Edit: On re-reading, I have stated that only rights already given to heterosexual couples should be made available to non heterosexual couples.
Alright. However, on a tangent, you keep using the word "couples". I certainly hope you're not going to end up with a proposal precluding polygamy, continuing the UN's discrimination against this valid concept.

No I'm not. If it is established already that we can't discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation on a range of other issues then most likely they would already be creating some kind of artificial separation of church and state - say by not illegalising homosexuality. What I am trying to argue is that while I am allowing for religions not to offer any spiritual or religious benefits, same-sex unions must be granted the same legal rights- such as tax laws, next of kin laws, and so on.
If you want equality in right of attorney laws, write something about that - not about marriage. You're trying to work for equality in state benefits? Ok, but that has nothing to do with marriage.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

I've had a thought about another issue I could potentially tackle within this proposal. I don't know if it has been covered before, I'm at work right now so I'll check later.

Most resolutions so far concentrate on enforcing laws on governments, e.g. governments must not discriminate based on sexual orientation. However, this does little to affect discrimination in society, e.g. it does not provent private businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation when hiring and firing. Would it be an ok idea to try and work in some kind of clause requiring governments to prevent discrimination in the workplace, etc

I've had a thought about another issue I could potentially tackle within this proposal. I don't know if it has been covered before, I'm at work right now so I'll check later.

Most resolutions so far concentrate on enforcing laws on governments, e.g. governments must not discriminate based on sexual orientation. However, this does little to affect discrimination in society, e.g. it does not provent private businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation when hiring and firing. Would it be an ok idea to try and work in some kind of clause requiring governments to prevent discrimination in the workplace, etc
I still think you're retreading old ground:
COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice, MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;

ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences;

URGES regional awareness of cultural, racial, and cultural differences, given the often close ties of a nation’s diversity with its region’s diversity;
Besides, I'm not keen on governments interfering with private enterprises, let alone the UN doing so.

But the passage you've quoted doesn't even mention sexual orientation, rather refers to "cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences". Other differences is so vague that it can practically be discounted.

What actually sparked my idea was the reading of your fair sentencing act, particularly part 2 which gave states the rights to choose their own sentencing. While I agree with that mainly, I realised that making something illegal does little to tackle the root of the discrimination- something can be made technically illegal, but the sentence could be so minor that enforcement is not worthwhile and the overall message portrayed would be that it didn't matter.

Of course you could argue that tackling homophobia (for example) is not best done at the international level and rather at the local level. But in extreme circumstances, such as nations with low civil rights, the international level may be the only first step available.

Granted that government interference in private businesses is not always desirable, it could only be beneficial for the company to hire the person best qualified for the job, regardless of their sexual orientation. I'm not going to start advocating quotas or anything, and it could be difficult to prove intent in not hiring someone, but at least it could protect someone from being fired for that reason alone, and will give them legal grounds for "wrongful dismissal" etc.

It is preferable to hire someone best qualified for the job. That's why the free market will always tend away from unnecessary and unfair discrimination. I'm astonished that you think regulation is needed. Sit back and let the companies do their job, and discrimination based on sexual orientation will become a thing of the past. There is no compelling reason for businesses to so discriminate, so they won't. Well-intentioned as your law might be, it's unnecessary.

It is preferable to hire someone best qualified for the job. That's why the free market will always tend away from unnecessary and unfair discrimination. I'm astonished that you think regulation is needed. Sit back and let the companies do their job, and discrimination based on sexual orientation will become a thing of the past. There is no compelling reason for businesses to so discriminate, so they won't. Well-intentioned as your law might be, it's unnecessary.

If that was the case then we wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws at all. Which is clearly not the case. Unfortunately, while it may technically be best for the company to always hire the the best person for the job, it won't hurt them too much to hire the second best person, especially if the interviewer allows his personal beliefs to influence the decision and the best candidate is a poof.

You act as if it is unheard of for people to be fired based upon their sexual orientation, but [OOC, RL] it was not so long ago that in the UK homosexuality could be the sole reason for dismissal if one were a teacher or in the armed services, and in any profession if one a) worked with children or b) your colleagues had a problem with it.

It was only government interference in national employment laws which changed this (especially in large corporations), and the UN is able to compel governments to do this.

Unfortunately, while it may technically be best for the company to always hire the the best person for the job, it won't hurt them too much to hire the second best person, especially if the interviewer allows his personal beliefs to influence the decision and the best candidate is a faggot.I don't care if you're gay or not; don't use that word.

I don't care if you're gay or not; don't use that word.

I'm sorry, I hate the word too and never use it. I had turned into a prejudiced interviewer for my point. I'll tone it down.

After a casual reading of this thread I must interject that I tend to agree with those who point out the redundancy of this proposal with laws that already exist. Without desiring to be casted in a lot that would discriminate against ANY people, it seems that when we treat any people group with special reference we are discriminating against all peoples not mentioned with their own specific references in the law. Discrimination Accord does a fair job at ensuring this general fair treatment towards everyone.

Mmmmm ... Pistol Whip ...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e27/Pyaemia/pistolwhip.jpg

Without desiring to be casted in a lot that would discriminate against ANY people, it seems that when we treat any people group with special reference we are discriminating against all peoples not mentioned with their own specific references in the law. Discrimination Accord does a fair job at ensuring this general fair treatment towards everyone.

But this proposal does include everyone. It says however you treat A, you must treat B equally. You can't always do that in a generic way because in some cases you do have to treat people differently, but not in the case of sexual orientation, hence why it requires explicit mention.

Ok, I reread your proposal and here are the actions your proposal demands:

WE THE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

DECLARE that same-sex relationships or sexual relations must not be illegalised

Where I disagree that nations or united nations should have any involvement with sexual relationships outside of possibly age, consent, and possibly such things as polygamy, species, death, and interesting categories like that; this clause would appear to deny any prohibition on sexual relations even in those categories.

There is also redundancy here with resolution #7:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7

Sexual Freedom
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

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.).

Furthermore, interpretation of "sexual relations must not be illegalised" seems illegal due to contradiction with UN resolution #22

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #22

Outlaw Pedophilia
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Goobergunchia

Description: RESOLVED, That the act of sexual molestation of a pre-pubescent minor is hereby outlawed in all UN member nations.


FORBID member states from using sexual orientation as a means to discriminate under any circumstances other than those set out in pre-existing legislation.

Once again, resolution #7 above as well as #80 & #99 makes this unneccessary:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #80

Rights of Minorities and Women
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Amsterdam junior

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

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

and...

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #99

Discrimination Accord
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Belgrade-beograd

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the precedent of international law towards greater human rights and equality for all,

RECALLING the sentiments of such documents as “Universal Bill of Rights”, “Definition of Marriage”, “Freedom and Equality”, and “Sexual Freedom” in the separation of governments from discriminatory practices and ideologies,

UPSET by the lack of previous legislation (at the time of this document’s composition) directly prohibiting governments from discriminatory practices,

CITING as a possible cause of such oversight the incorrect interpretation of the “Gay Rights” document, which in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens’ rights:

RESOLVES upon protecting all persons and groups in member nations from discrimination by their respective member governments;

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,

2. The right to participate in government,

3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,

4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law,

5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;

COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice, MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;

ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences;

URGES regional awareness of cultural, racial, and cultural differences, given the often close ties of a nation’s diversity with its region’s diversity;

CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

§ 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.






MANDATE that members of sexual minorities (as defined above) must be treated equally under the law, and invalidate any laws denying sexual minorities of equal rights

This was already clearly accomplished with #99.

REQUIRE member state to grant same-sex couples any rights that are granted to opposite-sex couples, including, but not limited to, adoption and marriage defined as an (optionally) non-religious state ceremony granting the same status and legal rights as heterosexual marriages, or other equivalent arrangements.

This one may arguably be covered in #99
CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

If the government recognizes marriages then it would not be allowed to discriminate already based on sexual orientation.

Would a proposal that has actions lines covered by other proposals currently on the books be deemed illegal? If the last section is specifically deemed not covered by #99, and yet all the other actions are clearly covered by previous legislation, would that make this proposal illegal?

We disagree, and we are not convinced Discrimination Accord protects marriage "rights." From the passage cited by the Pistol Whip representative:

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.It only bars UN members from discriminating against certain minorities with respect to rights previously cited in the resolution. Those rights?:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,

2. The right to participate in government,

3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,

4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law,Marriage is not mentioned here, nor is it mentioned in the following, more general clause:

5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;Since Gay Rights and Definition of Marriage have already been repealed by the United Nations, and thus international law can no longer be seen to protect marriage, the Creative Solutions Agency has found that Resolution #99 does not necessarily require the Federal Republic to extend such rights to gay couples, though we do so of our own accord.

Marriage is the only right that would be granted under this proposal that is not conceivably guaranteed under existing legislation. We are content with that, as the institution of marriage is a strictly cultural province, and international law has no place in regulating it. Domestic marriage laws have very little effect across international borders, so in our view they do not constitute a legitimate issue for United Nations intervention. If Gwenstefani can offer a compelling justification for changing and uniforming the marriage laws of 30,000 member states, we may change our mind. Until such time, however, the Federal Republic remains opposed.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

We disagree, and we are not convinced Discrimination Accord protects marriage "rights." From the passage cited by the Pistol Whip representative:

It only bars UN members from discriminating against certain minorities with respect to rights previously cited in the resolution. Those rights?:

Marriage is not mentioned here, nor is it mentioned in the following, more general clause:

Since Gay Rights and Definition of Marriage have already been repealed by the United Nations, and thus international law can no longer be seen to protect marriage, the Creative Solutions Agency has found that Resolution #99 does not necessarily require the Federal Republic to extend such rights to gay couples, though we do so of our own accord.

Marriage is the only right that would be granted under this proposal that is not conceivably guaranteed under existing legislation. We are content with that, as the institution of marriage is a strictly cultural province, and international law has no place in regulating it. Domestic marriage laws have very little effect across international borders, so in our view they do not constitute a legitimate issue for United Nations intervention. If Gwenstefani can offer a compelling justification for changing and uniforming the marriage laws of 30,000 member states, we may change our mind. Until such time, however, the Federal Republic remains opposed.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations


No, I'm not really sure how much we disagree. You only responded to the last action clause which I previously said, "This one may arguably be covered in #99." I expressed what I thought the established laws said - but I'm too new to be dogmatic.

My question, since I'm relatively a newbie around these parts, and trying to get my way around without seeming like such a dumb one :D - if you are right that the last clause is not specific enough to be repetition from previous UN law, does a proposal that contains 4 actions - 3 of which have been previously covered - propose a legal submission? I understand that it's possible for clause 4 to be specific enough to legitmate a new proposal.

If I were to submit something in the future and one clause was repetitious, would it be illegal? two? three? A certain percentage? I won't submit anything until I feel like I've 'learned the ropes' first. Maybe repetition is done all the time? Please help me understand.

If I were to submit something in the future and one clause was repetitious, would it be illegal? two? three? A certain percentage? I won't submit anything until I feel like I've 'learned the ropes' first. Maybe repetition is done all the time? Please help me understand.
Judgment call by the mods, really. The rules state that if most of your proposal is duplication, it'll be illegal. That would tend to suggest that a little bit is ok. But really, it would be judged on the basis of each proposal - it's senseless to set a quota for how much a proposal can duplicate.