NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate blocker. In fact, I really hate blockers, but do recognise that they are useful occasionally, such as the nuclear arms one (I also think drugs, gambling, gun ownership and the death penalty also need blockers, maybe one day).

After reading the silly proposals thread (holy hannah), and posting myself in a marriage laws thread earlier today for a proposal that is one of the most discriminatory peices of legislation I have seen for a long while in here, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that marriage laws need a blocker, so I had a go at writing one. This is the off the cuff first version, and will need some fleshing out I'm sure.

As the proposal is urging and asking nations to be nice and recognise the marriage status of international visitors, and not discriminate against their own people, I'm looking at human rights, mild, for this.

Marriage Protection Act

Human Rights

Mild

RECOGNISING the wide-ranging differences among UN member governments in how they define and recognise marriage and civil unions within their jurisdictions;

NOTING that some member nations are theocracies that will only recognise unions preformed in accordance with the doctrines of their religions and that some member nations do not have any provisions of law recognising formal union between persons, and

BELIEVING that any attempt to impose a definition of marriage as a UN standard, to be applied to all member nations, would be extremely difficult due to these wide ranging differences, and that to do so could cause serious problems for those nations with unusual marriage laws and customs;

The United Nations

DECLARES that it is the right of all UN member nations to define and regulate marriage and civil union within their own borders as they see fit.

ASKS each UN member nation to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors, even if it does not recognise that status with regard to its own population.

STRONGLY URGES all UN member nations who do recognise marriage or civil union within their nations to apply all laws governing them equally and fairly to the whole population, without discrimination or prejudice.

CONDEMNS the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals.

Co Authored by Ausserland.

My only quibble concerns this clause Asks all UN member nations to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors, even if that status is not recognised by that government to their own population. and widely-differing ages of majority...

Just to clarify.

Are you asking that recognising the different ages of majority between nations should be recognised as well as marital status in the case of international visitors?

If so, then I agree, and can add that. The clause is an 'asks' not a mandate, so if nations really have a problem with the status of visitors to their nations, nothing in this stops them denying entry, or enforcing their own laws.

I assume this would be Human Rights, Mild, because of the last clause?

Anyway, I would like the UN to shut up about marriage, so this might be a good idea. One thing that gives me pause for thought is this: "Affirms the right of all UN member nations to define and regulate marriage/civil union within their own borders as they see fit."

Perhaps some encouragement for them not to define or regulate marriage should be included?

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

I assume this would be Human Rights, Mild, because of the last clause?

Anyway, I would like the UN to shut up about marriage, so this might be a good idea. One thing that gives me pause for thought is this: "Affirms the right of all UN member nations to define and regulate marriage/civil union within their own borders as they see fit."

Perhaps some encouragement for them not to define or regulate marriage should be included?

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

How about something along the lines of "Encourages all UN member nation governments not to interfere in the legal marriages/civil unions of the populance, and leave all decisions concerning such unions to those paticipating in them."

I came to a similar conclusion, I put a similar proposal into the queue that said something along the lines of:

"Marriage isn't a right under international law so what's the point in us having a definition of it? Lets leave it as a national issue, RTF[UN]A's and STFU."

I'd copy it here, but I didn't keep a copy offline - and what with the site being all wonky...

If this draft is better I'll be happy to nix mine so there's no mix up.

Just to clarify.

Are you asking that recognising the different ages of majority between nations should be recognised as well as marital status in the case of international visitors?

If so, then I agree, and can add that. The clause is an 'asks' not a mandate, so if nations really have a problem with the status of visitors to their nations, nothing in this stops them denying entry, or enforcing their own laws.

No. I'm pointing out that (as revealed in the 'Child Pornography Prohibition' debate) there's at least one nation out there which sets the age of majority for Humans at five years old, and that my government will refuse to treat any Human visitors from abroad as legally married while they're within our territories if they're anything like that young...

Asks all UN member nations to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors, even if that status is not recognised by that government to their own population.

:rolleyes: Some people have very strange one track minds. In my not so humble opinion, this clause is probably the only reason I would support the resolution. (As a blocker I would be mildly indifferent to it.)

As with all UN resolutions I would probably argue over each word if we lived in a world where we could properly define each word ad nauseum, but we don't so I'm more than happy to give the benefit of the doubt. The proposal states, "international visitors" so one can assume that foreigners wishing longer terms of stay in the country as immigrants would have to conform to the legal definitions of marriage in order to qalify for anything other than visitor status.

We have already seen one example of a definition that would restrict marriage to pro-creative couples in the forums. There is another example to be made in the reference that inter-species marriages is equivalent to beastiality. There are examples of simple differences of marriage laws, especially restrictions, based on a number of conditions including family clan and even race.

A person from a nation where polygamy is legal should not be immeditely arrested when they visit a nation where ploygamy is not legal. The same is true for nations with varying age of consent laws, as distasteful as that might be to some. It is one thing for nationals to go abroad for marriage and expect their nations to recognize that marriage when they return. But being able to travel without constantly having to worry about being in violation of some bizzare religious or civil marriage law should be a fundamental right.

The Principality of Ausserland fully supports this proposal, as drafted. We do have two suggestions. A while back, there was some question raised as to the strength of the term "affirms". Recommend the clause beginning "Affirms the right of all UN member nations to define..." be amended to read "Declares that it is the right of all UN member nations to define...." Also, in the next-to-last clause, change "to" to "with regard to".

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ceorana would probably support the resolution if a mandatory "full faith and credit" clause was added as per the comments of the representative from Tzorsland.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I hate blocker. In fact, I really hate blockers, but do recognise that they are useful occasionally, such as the nuclear arms one (I also think drugs, gambling, gun ownership and the death penalty also need blockers, maybe one day).

After reading the silly proposals thread (holy hannah), and posting myself in a marriage laws thread earlier today for a proposal that is one of the most discriminatory peices of legislation I have seen for a long while in here, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that marriage laws need a blocker, so I had a go at writing one. This is the off the cuff first version, and will need some fleshing out I'm sure.

As the proposal is urging and asking nations to be nice and recognise the marriage status of international visitors, and not discriminate against their own people, I'm looking at human rights, mild, for this.

I like it. I'm getting fed up with the folks who want to put more laws about the most personal things in my lawless country where we ain't real fond of laws.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

But being able to travel without constantly having to worry about being in violation of some bizzare religious or civil marriage law should be a fundamental right.

A law saying that married people have to wear orange hats at all times would be "bizarre". A law establishing and enforcing an 'age of consent' to protect children from sexual abuse is a matter of fundamental moral decency... and is surely a widespread enough practice that it would be a matter of common sense for anybody from nations where the rules about such matters are very unusual by international standards -- we'd agree that a year or two below our normal limits might be acceptable in some cases -- to check on how the laws of any other country that they're considering visiting treat the subject before they go there.

I don't see why that's an issue of marriage, though. You have laws against paedophilia (the UN requires you to do so). So long as the marriage isn't consumated in your nation, what does it matter? And if it is consumated, then it's the same offence as if the two weren't married anyway.

Sure we have laws on the subject, and would even if the UN didn't require them, but all that the UN actually requires (if you're thinking of Resolution #23) is banning "the sexual molestation of prepubescent minors"... and by the laws of the nations where those couples come from the youngsters in question aren't minors, and according to our legal advisers it's legally iffy about whether having to recognise their married status would mean that -- especially as our own laws don't let minors get married, but have to specify that just as "minors" rather than by a fixed age in terms of years because of the differing life-cycles of the several sapient species present here -- we'd have to recognise their legal adulthood (which would make some of our own laws inapplicable too) as well.

Before Resolution #23 was repealed, it demanded that trees be replanted for areas in excess of 5 acres that were logged. Unless you're worried about people getting fruity with a Scotts Pine, it's of no concern.

As for the rest, I don't really follow. Ban paedophilia. Once you've done that, what's the problem?

"We like our lack of definition and we want it to stay that way. We support this proposal 100%. Good luck."

:rolleyes: Some people have very strange one track minds. In my not so humble opinion, this clause is probably the only reason I would support the resolution. (As a blocker I would be mildly indifferent to it.)

As with all UN resolutions I would probably argue over each word if we lived in a world where we could properly define each word ad nauseum, but we don't so I'm more than happy to give the benefit of the doubt. The proposal states, "international visitors" so one can assume that foreigners wishing longer terms of stay in the country as immigrants would have to conform to the legal definitions of marriage in order to qalify for anything other than visitor status.

We have already seen one example of a definition that would restrict marriage to pro-creative couples in the forums. There is another example to be made in the reference that inter-species marriages is equivalent to beastiality. There are examples of simple differences of marriage laws, especially restrictions, based on a number of conditions including family clan and even race.

A person from a nation where polygamy is legal should not be immeditely arrested when they visit a nation where ploygamy is not legal. The same is true for nations with varying age of consent laws, as distasteful as that might be to some. It is one thing for nationals to go abroad for marriage and expect their nations to recognize that marriage when they return. But being able to travel without constantly having to worry about being in violation of some bizzare religious or civil marriage law should be a fundamental right.

That clause does only apply to visitors. People who want to stay in a new nation as immigrants should be expected to accept that nation's laws as they stand. When I wrote that, I had tourists, temporary students and foreign business people ect in mind.

I'm a bit iffy on the right to travel. Nations do have a right to control their borders, and decide for themselves who they will and won't allow to enter. They also have a right to enforce their laws on everyone within their borders if they wish to, be they foreigners or native populance. That is why that clause is only an asks, not a mandate.

The Principality of Ausserland fully supports this proposal, as drafted. We do have two suggestions. A while back, there was some question raised as to the strength of the term "affirms". Recommend the clause beginning "Affirms the right of all UN member nations to define..." be amended to read "Declares that it is the right of all UN member nations to define...." Also, in the next-to-last clause, change "to" to "with regard to".

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ok, I'll do that, and thanks for the suggestion.

Sure we have laws on the subject, and would even if the UN didn't require them, but all that the UN actually requires (if you're thinking of Resolution #23) is banning "the sexual molestation of prepubescent minors"... and by the laws of the nations where those couples come from the youngsters in question aren't minors, and according to our legal advisers it's legally iffy about whether having to recognise their married status would mean that -- especially as our own laws don't let minors get married, but have to specify that just as "minors" rather than by a fixed age in terms of years because of the differing life-cycles of the several sapient species present here -- we'd have to recognise their legal adulthood (which would make some of our own laws inapplicable too) as well.

Again, that clause is an asks, not a mandate, so you will not be forced under this to recognise or accept anything you don't want to within your own borders. If the word 'asks' is giving out the impression of forced compliance with that clause, say so and I'll change it to 'encourages' or something along those lines.

I really want to keep the focus of this blocker (still can't believe I wrote one, feel like I need a shower) on marriage/civil unions and not drift into age of consent. If someone wants to write a proposal on age of consent, nothing in this will stop them.

I came to a similar conclusion, I put a similar proposal into the queue that said something along the lines of:

"Marriage isn't a right under international law so what's the point in us having a definition of it? Lets leave it as a national issue, RTF[UN]A's and STFU."

I'd copy it here, but I didn't keep a copy offline - and what with the site being all wonky...

If this draft is better I'll be happy to nix mine so there's no mix up.

You don't need to nix yours on account of this. It hasn't been submitted yet, and won't be for a while (I'm working 7 days straight, starting today, so won't have time).

A law establishing and enforcing an 'age of consent' to protect children from sexual abuse is a matter of fundamental moral decency...

Thanks for the ... I really didn't know where to end that sentence. If you want to harp on age of consent then let's do so. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument that you must be over 30 in order to be legally married in Nation A. Comming from the Reasonable Nation of B, you were legally married at the age of 19 to a person of age 18. You entere nation A and are immediately arrested for violation of law.

Or let us consider a more practical example, mixed religious marriages entering a theocratic nation where such unions are invalid.

There is more to the universe than child molestation which is already covered under existing UN resolution anyway.

Oh and the kicker is? Who says sex has anything to do with marriage? I don't think one can argue that sex is a "right" of marriage, so even if you recognize a 20 year old's marriage with a 13 year old, it doesn't mean you have to allow them to have intercourse in your nation.

You know, I came into this thread fully expecting end up screaming, "For the love of God, NO!" However now that I've read the proposal, I find myself supporting it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Sure we have laws on the subject, and would even if the UN didn't require them, but all that the UN actually requires (if you're thinking of Resolution #23) is banning "the sexual molestation of prepubescent minors"... and by the laws of the nations where those couples come from the youngsters in question aren't minors, and according to our legal advisers it's legally iffy about whether having to recognise their married status would mean that -- especially as our own laws don't let minors get married, but have to specify that just as "minors" rather than by a fixed age in terms of years because of the differing life-cycles of the several sapient species present here -- we'd have to recognise their legal adulthood (which would make some of our own laws inapplicable too) as well.

We're fascinated. How can your law prohibit certain acts by/with minors without defining what a minor is? Please explain.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

It is tuesday night, and I'm looking at submitting this on friday night, so I can TG for it over the weekend on my much awaited days off work. This 7 day week is a real shock to a system that hasn't worked fulltime for over 10 years. Oh well, 4 days done, 3 to go ;).

Am looking for opinions on whether I should bother with it now though, as all the marriage proposals have gone out of the list. Am wondering if it is worth pushing this through. After all, being so against blockers, I'll never be able to open my mouth about them again if there is one passed with my name on it :p.

Also, are there any opinions on legality? Just want to be sure I have it in the right catagory and strength.

1. I think it's legal, so long as it's Mild.

2. I do think it's worth going ahead with.

3. Don't feel bad that it's a blocker.

Wow...how did I miss this? I, too, popped in here ready to rant against yet another marriage proposal, but this one is wonderful, with one small exception:

Encourages all UN member nation governments not to interfere in the legal marriages/civil unions of the populace, and leave all decisions concerning such unions to those participating in them.

You're going to tell governments to keep their noses out of legal marriages and civil unions? Without government, you can't have a legal marriage or a civil union, as those are concepts based on law, which is most certainly the purview of a government. Just cut that clause, and this proposal is excellent.

i agree to those who said that the UN shouldnt interfere when it comes to marriage, its really a private part to be argued, than having a debate on it, let's just make our nation to be well-improve... making it a better place..

Asks all UN member nations to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors, even if that status is not recognised by that government in regard to their own population.

The Frozen Empire of Ice Hockey Players does not support this clause. We recognize NO marriages, and we don't care if you're visiting from the Holy Land of Very Important People. The rest of it? Sure, why not.

We recognize NO marriages
Opposing a proposal that guarantees your right to continue to do so is thus a confusing position to adopt.

I hate blocker. In fact, I really hate blockers, but do recognise that they are useful occasionally, such as the nuclear arms one (I also think drugs, gambling, gun ownership and the death penalty also need blockers, maybe one day).
I'd like to say that alot of those proposals milder versions of them would be ok.(well personaly I'd like to legislate on gun ownership but that's just me) So what I think is alot better instead of a blocker is a milder proposal that does something but also blocks. This way it isin't a waste of the UN's time. For example:

Drugs: make it illegal to traffic drugs from countries that allow drugs to ones that don't.

Anyway this resoltution cannot do that because maridge legislation is all stupid so I guess it's ok. Though I don't really care if it passes because I don't think the UN will pass any maridge legislation anyway

Ps:Of course I hate blockers alot

Wow...how did I miss this? I, too, popped in here ready to rant against yet another marriage proposal, but this one is wonderful, with one small exception:



You're going to tell governments to keep their noses out of legal marriages and civil unions? Without government, you can't have a legal marriage or a civil union, as those are concepts based on law, which is most certainly the purview of a government. Just cut that clause, and this proposal is excellent.

Blame Gruen, that clause is all his fault :p:D.

I'm not exactly telling them, it is an encourages clause, so does it really need to go, or is there a milder way it could be written?

Asks all UN member nations to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors, even if that status is not recognised by that government in regard to their own population.

Unless this change, I would like everyone to note that this is "asks", therefore it doesn'te mandate anything, although I would like it to. And if where dealing with marriage, add this please:

MANDATES That no UN Nation may force, or through lack of action allow the forcing, of two unwilling indeviduals into a legally binding marriage.

Blame Gruen, that clause is all his fault :p:D.

I'm not exactly telling them, it is an encourages clause, so does it really need to go, or is there a milder way it could be written?I, for one, would still prefer it were removed, or at least reworded, because you seem to imply that governments have no right to regulate marital unions. If you want to encourage nations to allow same-sex marriage, fine, say that. Just don't imply my government has no right to step in if a man, say, were to apply to marry his mother.

Blame Gruen, that clause is all his fault :p:D.

I'm not exactly telling them, it is an encourages clause, so does it really need to go, or is there a milder way it could be written?

As much as it makes us uneasy to agree with the representative of Cluichstan about anything, we must join with him in his disapproval of this clause. It seems to be saying that governments are encouraged to place no limits or strictures on marriage, even though it may well be a status which confers certain privileges under the law. We find this illogical.

We would turn the question of our distinguished colleague and friend from Witchcliff 180 degrees: Since this is only an "encourages" clause, does it really need to stay? We recommend its deletion.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Jinx. Can't talk till somebody says your name.

There is more to the universe than child molestation which is already covered under existing UN resolution anyway.

Oh and the kicker is? Who says sex has anything to do with marriage? I don't think one can argue that sex is a "right" of marriage, so even if you recognize a 20 year old's marriage with a 13 year old, it doesn't mean you have to allow them to have intercourse in your nation.

Child protection laws, by definition (at least in our country), only apply to minors. There are also various things which the laws (at least in our country) say that minors can not do. One of those things is (because of the 'informed consent' aspect) to get married. This means that if we have to recognise those foreigners who are some years below the lowest 'age of consent' that we would allow for our own country's members of their species as legally married then we must also recognise them as legally 'adult'... in which case the laws protecing children obviously would no longer apply to them...
And I can assure you that there are people who would argue "that sex is a "right" of marriage"...

We're fascinated. How can your law prohibit certain acts by/with minors without defining what a minor is? Please explain.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Our code of laws defines 'minor' separately for each of the various types of sapient being that has members amongst our population, and allow for the fact that other types -- for whom other ages of majority might be appropriate -- also exist elsewhere. Our laws about specific matters for which this factor is relevant then refer to 'minors' (or 'adults', where that's appropriate instead) in general, instead of specifying actual ages...

I, for one, would still prefer it were removed, or at least reworded, because you seem to imply that governments have no right to regulate marital unions. If you want to encourage nations to allow same-sex marriage, fine, say that. Just don't imply my government has no right to step in if a man, say, were to apply to marry his mother.

Actually, no, this had nothing to do with protecting gay marriage. It is the clause that mentions not discriminating that does that job ;).

I put that clause in because another member recommended something along those lines, but have now removed it. I didn't want to say governments couldn't step in with marriage law, but was just trying to encourage them to stay out of it unless the union would break other nation laws, such as age of consent or incest. That clause was very wonkily worded, and I think the rest of you are right that it should go.

I support the intentions beyond this proposal,
but...
I suggest that it should not narrow down to marriage only. The resolution would better deal with the concept of family as a group. In current form it would recognize spouse-spouse relation, but ignore parent-child and others, which may fall under even more diverse laws, including adoption, genetic engineering and consequental species definition, cybernetization and other questionable subjects.

Therefore it should focus on groups known as families, or other long-term small groups forming the society, ensuring their relations may be recognized abroad.

I dare say if Witchcliff wanted this proposal to have a good chance of passage, she wouldn't endanger it by adding on such "questionable subjects." And adoption has already been dealt with through past legislation. Sort of.

We support!

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

Unless this change, I would like everyone to note that this is "asks", therefore it doesn'te mandate anything, although I would like it to. And if where dealing with marriage, add this please:

MANDATES That no UN Nation may force, or through lack of action allow the forcing, of two unwilling indeviduals into a legally binding marriage.

Sorry, I missed this yesterday.

I don't want to mandate anything in this proposal, because I do want to keep the strength mild, however how about something like this..

"Condems the practice of forced unions between unconsenting individuals".

"Condems the practice of forced unions between unconsenting individuals".

That works, thanks.

You may want to check the spelling on "condemns" (unless that's an Australian spelling).

I dare say if Witchcliff wanted this proposal to have a good chance of passage, she wouldn't endanger it by adding on such "questionable subjects." And adoption has already been dealt with through past legislation. Sort of.

Resolution for resolution? Or we'll do it all so that proposals have no effect on half of the nations and the actual issues?

You may want to check the spelling on "condemns" (unless that's an Australian spelling).

Nah, that isn't Australian spelling, just an example of my lousy spelling :p.

The whole proposal will go through spellcheck before submission, so anything I've spelled wrong should be picked up then.

Since it appears that the content of this proposal has pretty much been settled, and since we intend to support it wholeheartedly, we took the liberty of turning our notorious nit-pickers loose on the current draft. The results are below. We hope our distinguished colleague and friend from Witchcliff will find at least some of their suggestions worthwhile.

RECOGNISING the wide-ranging differences among UN member governments in how they define and recognise marriage and civil unions within their jurisdictions;

NOTING that some member nations are theocracies that will only recognise unions preformed in accordance with the doctrines of their religions and that some member nations do not have any provisions of law recognising formal union between persons, and

BELIEVING that any attempt to impose a definition of marriage as a UN standard, to be applied to all member nations, would be extremely difficult due to these wide ranging differences, and that to do so could cause serious problems for those nations with unusual marriage laws and customs;

The United Nations

DECLARES that it is the right of all UN member nations to define and regulate marriage and civil union within their own borders as they see fit.

ASKS each UN member nation to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors, even if it does not recognise that status with regard to its own population.

STRONGLY URGES all UN member nations who do recognise marriage or civil union within their nations to apply all laws governing them equally and fairly to the whole population, without discrimination or prejudice.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I’m all for this beautiful proposal. I will do my best to spread the good new to the rest on my region and hope that they too see the merit in voting for this proposal.

Marriage Protection Act

Human Rights

Mild

RECOGNISING the wide-ranging differences among UN member governments in how they define and recognise marriage and civil unions within their jurisdictions;

NOTING that some member nations are theocracies that will only recognise unions preformed in accordance with the doctrines of their religions and that some member nations do not have any provisions of law recognising formal union between persons, and

BELIEVING that any attempt to impose a definition of marriage as a UN standard, to be applied to all member nations, would be extremely difficult due to these wide ranging differences, and that to do so could cause serious problems for those nations with unusual marriage laws and customs;

The United Nations

DECLARES that it is the right of all UN member nations to define and regulate marriage and civil union within their own borders as they see fit.

ASKS each UN member nation to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors, even if it does not recognise that status with regard to its own population.

STRONGLY URGES all UN member nations who do recognise marriage or civil union within their nations to apply all laws governing them equally and fairly to the whole population, without discrimination or prejudice.

CONDEMNS the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals.

Co Authored by Ausserland.

This will be the final draft, unless there are anymore suggestions, problems, questions ect.

Ausserland, I put you in as co author, but if you don't want it, just yell, and I can remove that before submission, which is planned for tomorrow evening after update. Am too tired to bother with it tonight.

The Principality of Ausserland will be honored to be listed as co-author of this most excellent proposal.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Opposing a proposal that guarantees your right to continue to do so is thus a confusing position to adopt.

ASKS each UN member nation to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors, even if it does not recognise that status with regard to its own population.

Sounds to me like I have to recognize visitors' marriage rights, and that looks to me like it extends to immingrants coming here permanently. From what I get out of it, if, in a neighboring land, married couples don't pay taxes, when they come here, they should expect that right as well. Granted, someone will probably tell me that this conclusion is insane, but it looks like an imposition to me.

Read it again. It says "ASKS." And it only says "marital status." There is nothing in the clause about marital rights or benefits, or requiring your nation to do anything.

Also, read the first clause again:

DECLARES that it is the right of all UN member nations to define and regulate marriage and civil union within their own borders as they see fit.The Federal Republic will abstain if and when this article reaches vote. Best of luck, Witchcliff.

Sounds to me like I have to recognize visitors' marriage rights, and that looks to me like it extends to immingrants coming here permanently. From what I get out of it, if, in a neighboring land, married couples don't pay taxes, when they come here, they should expect that right as well. Granted, someone will probably tell me that this conclusion is insane, but it looks like an imposition to me.

We wouldn't dream of telling the representative of Ice Hockey Players that his conclusion is insane, but it is not correct. Nowhere in the proposal does it say that your nation has to abide by some other nation's laws concerning married people. You are asked only to recognize that visitors from other nations are married. Your nation's laws that apply to married couples apply to them while they are in your nation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Read it again. It says "ASKS." And it only says "marital status." There is nothing in the clause about marital rights or benefits, or requiring your nation to do anything.

It might say "ASKS" but if my reading of UN bylaws is correct, it means you have to do it. It is impossible for this nation to recognize other people as being part of a married couple, at least in a legal sense, since we have no mechanism to do so. Basically, for Ice Hockey Players, it's a headache waiting to happen from a judiciary standpoint.

That said, it's pretty well-written and is a lot harder to find fault with than any other marriage resolution, and that includes the ones that were repealed.

Your reading of the "bylaws" is flat wrong. It says you have to comply. Compliance does not mean you have to do something the UN is merely "asking" of you.

It might say "ASKS" but if my reading of UN bylaws is correct, it means you have to do it. It is impossible for this nation to recognize other people as being part of a married couple, at least in a legal sense, since we have no mechanism to do so. Basically, for Ice Hockey Players, it's a headache waiting to happen from a judiciary standpoint.

That said, it's pretty well-written and is a lot harder to find fault with than any other marriage resolution, and that includes the ones that were repealed.

Once again, we must respectfully state that the representative is incorrect. "Asks" is by no means a mandate. Your nation is simply not required to follow the suggestion.

Also, we're unable to understand what sort of "headache" this would cause for the nation. If your nation's laws have no provisions for recognizing marriage, you're not required to pass any. Both the "NOTING" and the "STRONGLY URGES" clauses of the proposal recognize that this situation may exist in a nation and tacitly approve it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

It might say "ASKS" but if my reading of UN bylaws is correct, it means you have to do it.Can I have $50,000?

Sweet! I asked you, now you have to send me the money!

Ice Hockey Players, as the author of this I want to firmly tell you that nothing in this draft demands your nation must recognise anything you don't choose to. It only asks nations to recognise the marital status of international visitors, it does not tell you that you must.

This does not mention immigrants, the word used is visitors. If I come to your house and stay for a couple of hours, then go home, I'm a visitor. If I come to your house and decide to stay permanently, then I'm not a visitor, I'm a border or whatever you want to call it. Get the difference?

Also, as has already been said, nothing in this demands you recognise anything you don't want to anyway. The whole idea of this proposal is to protect a nations right to define and regulate marriage/civil union however they want. The other clauses are "pretty please, will give you a cookie", nothing more.

The biggest proof of that is the strength. If anything in this mandated, forced or demanded anything of nations, it wouldn't be mild.

This proposal has been submitted.

Click Me (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Marriage)

The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio studied the paper in his hand, and scowled. Amazing, really. For the first time in he could not remember how long, there was a proposal that actually respected his nation's social mores. Almost, though--why did it always have to be "almost"?

He fretted nervously, thinking over the last clause of the draft. If not for that, he thought, this would be a shoe-in. Finally he shrugged, and called in his deputy. May as well get a second opinion on this.

The bushy-eyebrowed green-clad otaku looked over the paper handed to him. His features were similarly taut. "It's a good proposal, your grace," he said calmly. "Best I've seen come along since we've joined the UN. Except..."

"Except for that final clause," the Nuncio said, finishing his deputy's thought. "I don't know what to make of the wording. Well, I know, but really, it's intolerable. But we need this resolution on the books, though. Otherwise who knows what sort of depraved 'definition of marriage' they'll come up with next?"

"Perhaps it's not as strong as it sounds, your grace?"

"'Condemns'? I'm not sure if you can get much stronger than that. I mean, it's one thing to turn a blind eye to some of the more questionable resolutions here. It's something entirely else to vote for the 'condemnation' of your own marriage. Do you have any idea what my wife's family would say? I'll be lucky if they don't demand a divorce!"

The old deputy nuncio took a step back at the Nuncio's outburst. His boss was taking this far harder than he expected, to be discussing such taboo matters so openly. "There's no chance of getting the wording changed, your grace?" he suggested slowly.

"It's already submitted," the Nuncio replied grimly. "It's out of our hands now. And as the Cute One as my witness, I don't know whether I want to see it succeed or fail."

I look forward to placing Dashanzi's vote in favour of this proposal.

Benedictions,

The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio studied the paper in his hand, and scowled. Amazing, really. For the first time in he could not remember how long, there was a proposal that actually respected his nation's social mores. Almost, though--why did it always have to be "almost"?

He fretted nervously, thinking over the last clause of the draft. If not for that, he thought, this would be a shoe-in. Finally he shrugged, and called in his deputy. May as well get a second opinion on this.

The bushy-eyebrowed green-clad otaku looked over the paper handed to him. His features were similarly taut. "It's a good proposal, your grace," he said calmly. "Best I've seen come along since we've joined the UN. Except..."

"Except for that final clause," the Nuncio said, finishing his deputy's thought. "I don't know what to make of the wording. Well, I know, but really, it's intolerable. But we need this resolution on the books, though. Otherwise who knows what sort of depraved 'definition of marriage' they'll come up with next?"

"Perhaps it's not as strong as it sounds, your grace?"

"'Condemns'? I'm not sure if you can get much stronger than that. I mean, it's one thing to turn a blind eye to some of the more questionable resolutions here. It's something entirely else to vote for the 'condemnation' of your own marriage. Do you have any idea what my wife's family would say? I'll be lucky if they don't demand a divorce!"

The old deputy nuncio took a step back at the Nuncio's outburst. His boss was taking this far harder than he expected, to be discussing such taboo matters so openly. "There's no chance of getting the wording changed, your grace?" he suggested slowly.

"It's already submitted," the Nuncio replied grimly. "It's out of our hands now. And as the Cute One as my witness, I don't know whether I want to see it succeed or fail."

The clause in question isn't binding and certainly isn't banning anything. It is simply the UN saying "we don't like that sort of thing". It doesn't invalidate any forced marriages that have already happened, and won't stop any happening in the future.

The clause in question isn't binding and certainly isn't banning anything. It is simply the UN saying "we don't like that sort of thing". It doesn't invalidate any forced marriages that have already happened, and won't stop any happening in the future.

Which is why the HOCEK will be voting for this resolution. It's just that the Nuncio's going have a heck of a time explaining his vote to his in-laws.

Which is why the HOCEK will be voting for this resolution. It's just that the Nuncio's going have a heck of a time explaining his vote to his in-laws.

[Ambassador Ahlmann draws the Nuncio aside and whispers:]

If you want, you can tell your in-laws that you were on your way to vote against the resolution when you were approached by two very short but very stocky... uh... gentlemen, dressed in nice blue suits and conservative ties and carrying baseball bats, who urgently requested that you vote for the resolution. You can say they asked a number of questions about your health insurance during the conversation. If they doubt you, I can have my cousins Borislav and Wulfmar drop by their place and say they're looking for you.

:D

if anyone agree that the UN must not force 2 persons to marry one another against their will, people do have the right to decide, they arent babies anymore that the other people decide or choose what is right for them, if they insist about it, its like they are just taking away, whats right for them...... i hope this topic will be notice by the UN...

75 approvals as of now. If you've thought about approving this or asking your delegate to do so, please do it now. We're not very good at gratitude, but we'll do our best. ;)

Approval (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=marriage) Link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=marriage)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

[The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio listens to Ambassador Ahlman's proposal, and hmms. It's a possibility, but he's afraid it'd take more than Borslav and Wulfmar to intimidate his in-laws. If worse comes to worst, he supposed he could imitate Riley and take that OMGTKK Nuncio position...even his in-laws wouldn't hunt for him there.]

[The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio listens to Ambassador Ahlman's proposal, and hmms. It's a possibility, but he's afraid it'd take more than Borslav and Wulfmar to intimidate his in-laws. If worse comes to worst, he supposed he could imitate Riley and take that OMGTKK Nuncio position...even his in-laws wouldn't hunt for him there.]

[The Nuncio has obviously never met any of Ambassador Ahlmann's family. Here's Borislav.]

Borislav Ahlmann (http://h1.ripway.com/reclaim/Borislav_Ahlmann.gif)

This proposal failed to get to quorum this time, mainly because I just didn't have time to send enough TG's. Will put it in the list again on friday after work. Hopefully all the delegates who supported it the first time won't mind supporting it again then.

This has now been resubmitted. Last time, it dropped off the list with 100 or so approvals. Please consider adding an approval or asking your regional delegate to do so.

The link for approvals:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=marriage

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Keep pushing this.

113 approvals -- 9 more needed.

Only 3 more endorsements needed now, and I'm running out of fingernails :p.

Only 3 more endorsements needed now, and I'm running out of fingernails :p.

You think you're running out of fingernails now? What do you think I was going through back when "Nuclear Armaments" was just a few approvals away from quorum and the major update was running meaning that it could've been deleted at any second.:p

No matter how bad a person thinks something is, there is always someone who remembers worse :p.

I won't be home to watch mine today, have to leave for work in about half an hour. When I get home it will either be gone into the 'didn't make it' black hole, or sitting in the queue.

No matter how bad a person thinks something is, there is always someone who remembers worse :p.

I won't be home to watch mine today, have to leave for work in about half an hour. When I get home it will either be gone into the 'didn't make it' black hole, or sitting in the queue.

SHAZAM!

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!


Congrats!

Our thanks to the delegates who approved the proposal and to those who asked their delegates to do so.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Our thanks to the delegates who approved the proposal and to those who asked their delegates to do so.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I want to echo that, with 200% more emphasis :).

I want to echo that, with 200% more emphasis :).

You're welcome. *Bob walks away muttering, "I never thought I'd actually be supporting a proposal about marriage.*

I congratulate you on attaining quorum. Nonetheless, if anyone sees me in the GA during the debate, they are instructed to propel me doorwards at the earliest instance, because a thousand rounds of pompous numbskulls yammering about how marriage should be a national affair, and when being told what this resolution does, complaining that "waaah mummy it doesn't do anything" would be enough to drive me to a serious aerosol addiction.

Unfortunately, that's actually already happened...so I'd probably just start cracking skulls.

Also, to reiterate: there's no shame in "blocking" on this issue. So far as I can see, there's little the UN can productively do in marriage rights, and there's an awful lot it can do very wrong, even in the name of progressive legislation, so just closing down that whole avenue altogether is very worthwhile.

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

We agree most wholeheartedly with our Gruenberger friends. Let's shut this thing down once and for all.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*tosses Rono a can of spray paint*

Marriage is a religious institution. Because there is separation of church and state we cannot validate marriage. For the purposes of state, couples who are willing to raise children, married or not, receive benefits, nobody else gets any special recognition or benefits, except for a registration statement that confirms a couple is married.

Marriage is a religious institution. Because there is separation of church and state we cannot validate marriage. For the purposes of state, couples who are willing to raise children, married or not, receive benefits, nobody else gets any special recognition or benefits, except for a registration statement that confirms a couple is married.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It's a legal contract -- always has been. The religious stuff got grafted onto it later. Here's a history book. Read it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Please don't make me go pull out law as far back as Mesopotamia. :p

Marriage is a religious institution.

I could probably go on for hours about why it is not a religious institution. I could also go on for hours about why it is not a state institution. The fact is that marriage is all of the above, religious, state and even personal.

The odd thing is that historically the primary purpose of marriage has nothing to do with the two people getting married. It is mostly about the letigimate progeny of those two people, given the historical tendencies of inheritance not only of property, but rank and title. In short, marriage was what determined the difference between the heir and the bastard.

So let's take a look at one "religious" definition of marriage, which turns out to be, in the end neither church nor state but the act of the individual. (I knew those Frustrated Franciscans would come in handy one of these years.)

Although the Church realized from the first the complete sacramentality of Christian marriage, yet for a time there was some uncertainty as to what in the marriage contract is the real essence of the sacrament; as to its matter and form, and its minister. From the earliest times this fundamental proposition has been upheld: Matrimonium facit consensus, i.e. Marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament. However, it has been likewise emphasized that marriage must be contracted with the blessing of the priest and the approbation of the Church, for otherwise it would be a source not of Divine grace, but of malediction. Hence it might easily be inferred that the sacerdotal blessing is the grace-giving element, or form of the sacrament, and that the priest is the minister. But this is a false conclusion.

It is the state that has tacked on a whole number of benefits to obtaining a licence to marry, from visitation rights, inheritance rights, communial benefit rights, and so on. It is in this sense that marriage is most often talked about, and it is in this sense that the individual state should have the right to regulate and promote as it damm well pleases, subject to the nagging of its own people of course.

I congratulate you on attaining quorum. Nonetheless, if anyone sees me in the GA during the debate, they are instructed to propel me doorwards at the earliest instance, because a thousand rounds of pompous numbskulls yammering about how marriage should be a national affair, and when being told what this resolution does, complaining that "waaah mummy it doesn't do anything" would be enough to drive me to a serious aerosol addiction.

Unfortunately, that's actually already happened...so I'd probably just start cracking skulls.

Also, to reiterate: there's no shame in "blocking" on this issue. So far as I can see, there's little the UN can productively do in marriage rights, and there's an awful lot it can do very wrong, even in the name of progressive legislation, so just closing down that whole avenue altogether is very worthwhile.

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

We thank the Gruenberg representative for his positive commments on this proposal and the reassurance on the subject of it being a blocker. It still makes us feel slightly dirty every time we read it, but accept what you say is right. We agree completly, and that is why it was written in the first place.

As for the at floor debate on this subject. Panyer has volunteered to keep the Gruenberg representative too "busy" to worry about what is and isn't being discussed in the GA. After all, taking mens minds of their troubles is one of her consumate skills, and she has been admiring Mr Pyandran from afar for some time :p.

Kirin
The Reformers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

Yeah, baby! I love this! But then, I love everything! Love's what it's all about, right, man?

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Marriage is a religious institution.

Says who? Neither the government nor the Church of Kivisto would agree with that statement.

Because there is separation of church and state

Maybe in Commonalitarianism. It's possible that the Wenaist Gruenbergers would disagree. I know for a fact that the Church of Kivisto works through direct government sanction and mandate.

we cannot validate marriage.

Why not?

For the purposes of state, couples who are willing to raise children, married or not, receive benefits, nobody else gets any special recognition or benefits, except for a registration statement that confirms a couple is married.

So you do claim that you confirm their marriage, then. Good. You shouldn't have any issues with the proposed legislation.

Marriage is a religious institution. Because there is separation of church and state we cannot validate marriage. For the purposes of state, couples who are willing to raise children, married or not, receive benefits, nobody else gets any special recognition or benefits, except for a registration statement that confirms a couple is married.

We thank the representative of Commonalitarianism for his comments. It's good to know about the marriage laws and customs in the various nations of the NSUN. In Ausserland, our situation is just the opposite. Marriage is a civil institution, which must be contracted under our laws and entails specific privileges and duties under those laws. Religions may, of course, have their own religious laws concerning marriage, but they have no effect in our legal system, except as specifically recognized by law (e.g., the authority granted the clergy to perform marriages).

This sort of diversity in law and custom is precisely the reason this proposal seeks to dissuade the NSUN from imposing one-size-fits-all requirements and prohibitions on the subject. We look forward to seeing the vote of the representative in favor of the proposal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador-at-Large

We wholeheartedly support this resolution. The Imperial government has been nervous as of late, mostly due to the considerable attention paid to the issue of marriage and marriage legislation by the UN. We have been frightened that the UN may invest themselves in our marriage processes, but now the Empire breathes a collective sigh of relief.

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

It still makes us feel slightly dirty every time we read it, but accept what you say is right.You're a dirty little rep, aren't ya? Yeah... you like it, too.

So... what are you wearing?


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

Ambassador Ahlmann mutters under her breath: "Well, so much for keeping this discussion on an elevated plane." She takes another belt of Olde Frothingslosh from her Diet Coke bottle.

:D

You're a dirty little rep, aren't ya? Yeah... you like it, too.

So... what are you wearing?


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

A fire spell, and a whip, and I'm willing to use both on you, if you wish :p.

I think you have me mixed up with my co-representative. Panyer is the one who is man hungry, my boat doesn't float in that direction, if you understand what I mean ;).

Now back to the proposal for a moment. I want to state firmly that this legislation won't change a darn thing to marriage laws, or the lack thereof, within any nation if it passes. The whole point of it is to let nations decide for themselves and regulate, or not regulate, marriage as they please.

Kirin
The Reformers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

A fire spell, and a whip, and I'm willing to use both on you, if you wish :p.

I think you have me mixed up with my co-representative. Panyer is the one who is man hungry, my boat doesn't float in that direction, if you understand what I mean ;).

Now back to the proposal for a moment. I want to state firmly that this legislation won't change a darn thing to marriage laws, or the lack thereof, within any nation if it passes. The whole point of it is to let nations decide for themselves and regulate, or not regulate, marriage as they please.

Kirin
The Reformers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.


Yeah, dig what the Kirin chick just said, dudes. She's got it right. Let everyone be free to do what that want, without oppression from the UN Man.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN