NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Original draft thread can be Found Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500628).

As this proposal will be up for vote soon, and as the draft thread has degenerated slightly :p, I've decided to start a brand new one for the at vote debate, and also, to please those that like them, include a basic poll.

You have the full support of the Queendom of Karmicaria.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Office of the Ceoranan Ambassador to the United Nations

Be it known, that the Congressional Republic of Ceorana doesn't give not only a darn, but also an ice cream sundae (chocolate, without the cherry) and an old imported pickup (which are, by sheer coincidence, not allowed in Ceorana) about this issue.

Signed,
Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

But we'll probably vote for it anyway, because my civil rights ranking could use a boost we want to show support for the efforts of our colleagues who we generally get along with.

Excellent. Now we can all marry our cats if we want. Or allow our cats to marry each other, whatever. I wonder if my pet python is interested in marriage. Hard to tell when he's got such a bad lisp. Can't make out a damn thing he says. Where was I? Oh, right.

In any case, I'm very much in favor of this legislation that allows nations to determine their own laws concerning marriage, in keeping with the biological needs of the populace and the practical concerns that are often affected by technology levels, cultural and philosophical traditions, economic circumstances, and mothers-in-law. I've heard those mothers-in-law can really make marriage complicated in some nations, certainly more complicated than the UN can handle effectively.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

To the HotRodian Representative: We feel that in the interests of gender equality there must be a modification to the major cultural influences: father-in-laws. :D

As a traditionally matriarchal society Ithania recognises that the father-in-law can be a source of overbearing rigidity, stress, and fear… or even be far worse and try to further reduce the sanctity of marriage by being interested in the daughter-in-law in a way he should not be. *shudders*

With respect to the resolution: We are greatly in favour of this resolution as it allows a greater level of flexibility within member nations and reduces the inevitable problems caused by a “one size fits all” international culture.

As long as the sanctity of another nation’s culture is respected when individuals migrate to the respective member nations then we see no reason that this should not be passed. Of course, the only issue will be making such respect uniform across all UN constituents but we are more than confident this can be overcome. :)

UN Representative from Ithania:
Anravelle A. Harroway

(OOC: I'm waiting to see Safalra's opinion on this :))

We support this. For some reason, Rono Pyandran told me to tell the Witchcliff delegation he's in his room, combing his moustache...?

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"
Support Women's Rights (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=174)

In favor. Gay rights have been appropriately protected, and marriage is an issue best resolved by individual nations.

Predictably, we'll winge about it being a blocking resolution despite the fact that we agree with the sentiment and would rather the UN didn't force nations to recognise marriage (there is no State-recognised marriage in any of the three countries comprising The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra). The representative from Gruenberg will then accuse us of being stupid (although phrased more politely, or more eloquently, depending on his mood). The resolution will pass, and we will feel ambivalent.

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

Esterelis religious leaders deplore theocracies

Sunday 15 October 2006, 18h30 PPT (Parallel Pacific Time)

Few minutes ago, our editorial office received a shared communiqué written by Alejandro Fernandez, the Vagator’s Archibishop of the Catholic Theillardist Church, Omar Yamkhaish, the Imam of the Sufism Renaissance’s Great Mosque of Anjuna, and Hita Malaiya the Chairwoman of the Positive Jainism’s University of Kapshur. They are each, the spiritual leader of their respective church in Love and esterel and they wanted, with this shared communiqué, to react to the forthcoming UN proposal « Marriage Protection Act », which will reach the UN floor tomorrow.
Here is their communiqué:

“After long consultations with many believers of our respective churches, we decided to publicly release our shared concerns related to the following sentence of the UN proposal « Marriage Protection Act »:


« NOTING that some member nations are theocracies that will only recognise unions preformed in accordance with the doctrines of their religions. »

By justifying theocracies, this clause is once again, a move to associate "religions" with "fondamentalism" and "integrism" and to justify "fondamentalism" and "integrism". This is really sad and hurting for all religions around the world. How spiritual is it for a religion to favour a theocracy?

"Fondamentalism" and "integrism" are synonym with violence, forced conversions, lack of respect towards other religions or non-believers, initiative to force some beliefs, practices or traditions over other people or hostility towards scientific discoveries.

Once again we would like to say that "fondamentalism" and "integrism" are the opposite of our loving, compassionate, social-relationship-based, respective of sapients rights and duties, humanitarian and humanist, or we might say sapientist, religions.

Thank you.

Hita Malaiya, Chairwoman of the Positive Jainism’s University of Kapshur,
Alejandro Fernandez, Vagator’s Archibishop of the Catholic Theillardist Church, and
Omar Yamkhaish, Imam of the Sufism Renaissance’s Great Mosque of Anjuna."

The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia believes this resolution would be perfect if only it removed "marriage and civil union" after "DECLARES", which would make that line read DECLARES that it is the right of all UN member nations to define and regulate within their own borders as they see fit. (OOC: :p :D)

Nevertheless it is still suitable to BPL - DRE, so would support this proposal...

(OOC: ....But of course the UN can ASK and STRONGLY URGE and CONDEMN all it likes, however until it can back it up with :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: it's got no hope of any support in DRE (or if any of my other insane nations are delegate at the time ;))

We condemn certain anti-religious bigots in this body who would misspell and deliberately obfuscate the meaning of the word "fundamentalist" in order to demagogue this proposal. Merely acknowledging the existence of theocracies in the United Nations does not equate with condoning the acts of oppressive ones, you know. We likewise condemn the knee-jerk, anti-national rights reactionaries in this body who would oppose legislation just because it is a (*gasp!*) blocker!!! We condemn the excessive use of annoying smilies.

That said, the Federal Republic will abstain from voting on this proposal, because as we have repeatedly pointed out, we are shame-faced stat-wankers to the core, and, unlike Ceorana, we already have secured sufficient liberties among our citizenry and fear the consequences of unnecessarily excessive freedoms.

The government of the Empire of Kirisubo has made its wishes clear regarding this matter and they will support this well thought out proposal.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Deputy Kirisuban Ambassador to the NSUN

We support this. For some reason, Rono Pyandran told me to tell the Witchcliff delegation he's in his room, combing his moustache...?

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"
Support Women's Rights (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=174)

Panyer is on her way for a private "meeting" with Mr Pyandran as I speak. As she took several choice items from her torture implements collection with her, all I can say is, I do hope his health insurance is fully paid up.

To the representative from L&E, this proposal only recognises that theocracies exist, it certainly isn't supporting or condoning them. The abuses of theocracies can be tackled under other proposals, it doesn't need to be tackled with this one which is simply allowing all nations, whatever their politics, to define marriage to suit their own culture and laws.

Kirin
The Reformers
Witchcliff representative to the UN

OOC: I agree because I want mariage laws to be choosen by the country.

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.

.....

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

Twofold points of interest regarding the last clause. One -- interesting contrast, that. The second -- that last clause is the only thing keeping the Resolution legal, isn't it?

OOC: I suppose my point would be a beef with the rules more than anything.

IC: I would really have preferred to see stronger language used with the ASKS and STRONGLY URGES clauses. Norderia will be abstaining unless the luke warm reception we have given this Resolution changes.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Jey will be voting for. :D

With hardly any sign of emotion on her face, the representative from Mosiaca steps forward for nation's opinion on the matter at hand:

"We, the people of Mosiaca do not wish to be bothered with resolutions on marriage. We believe that marriage is a social institution, and has no place in politics, whatsoever. We feel that this resolution is a waste of our time, and would prefer to move on to the next item at hand. When other nations, or our own citizen complain that the UN never does anything productive, they are referring to resolutions like these.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that if marriage was to be regulated*, there is no provision which would protect the rights of homosexuals, and no deterrents to marriages sanctifying unions between humans and animals, which are known to happen in less-than civilized nations.

We understand that this resolution does not regulate marriage, but it can encourage the regulation of marriage within the separate nations of the UN. We therefore will vote against this resolution, as a deterrant to involving marriage and politics in any way shape or form."

As Alexandra sat back down, she thought, "they'd better not pass this. Mosiaca would never let me marry Betsy next year if they do."

With hardly any sign of emotion on her face, the representative from Mosiaca steps forward for nation's opinion on the matter at hand:

"We, the people of Mosiaca do not wish to be bothered with resolutions on marriage. We believe that marriage is a social institution, and has no place in politics, whatsoever. We feel that this resolution is a waste of our time, and would prefer to move on to the next item at hand. When other nations, or our own citizen complain that the UN never does anything productive, they are referring to resolutions like these.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that if marriage was to be regulated*, there is no provision which would protect the rights of homosexuals, and no deterrents to marriages sanctifying unions between humans and animals, which are known to happen in less-than civilized nations.

We understand that this resolution does not regulate marriage, but it can encourage the regulation of marriage within the separate nations of the UN. We therefore will vote against this resolution, as a deterrant to involving marriage and politics in any way shape or form."

As Alexandra sat back down, she thought, "they'd better not pass this. Mosiaca would never let me marry Betsy next year if they do."

With all due respect, you missed the point. The only thing this Resolution does is say "HEY! The UN can't take a stance on marriage!" It's actually the farthest thing from involving marriage in politics that the UN can do. Elsewise it leaves the door open to a ban or a legalization of certain kinds of marriage.

A fact that I find disappointing.

IC: I would really have preferred to see stronger language used with the ASKS and STRONGLY URGES clauses. Norderia will be abstaining unless the luke warm reception we have given this Resolution changes.Well, what else do you want it to do? Force nations to accept these kinds of unions? There's no place for it -- unless you actually think the UN should be indulging itself in trivia by regulating things like marriage ... or computers for schoolchildren ... or protecting dolphins ... or the kinds of measurements nations use .... The UN shouldn't have to be passing so-called "blockers" such as these; the only reason we do is that some delegations in this body simply cannot help themselves. The author's name on this is evidence enough that the UN has gone too far in some areas. It is entirely prudent for the United Nations simply to declare statements of principle on matters like these, without trying to force all parties to think the same way. I only wish HOCEK was still around to convince you of the folly of allowing international bureaucrats to meddle in cultural affairs.

Well, what else do you want it to do? Force nations to accept these kinds of unions? There's no place for it -- unless you actually think the UN should be indulging itself in trivia by regulating things like marriage ... or computers for schoolchildren ... or protecting dolphins ... or the kinds of measurements nations use .... The UN shouldn't have to be passing so-called "blockers" such as these; the only reason we do is that some delegations in this body simply cannot help themselves. The author's name on this is evidence enough that the UN has gone too far in some areas. It is entirely prudent for the United Nations simply to declare statements of principle on matters like these, without trying to force all parties to think the same way. I only wish HOCEK was still around to convince you of the folly of allowing international bureaucrats to meddle in cultural affairs.

No, the nations shouldn't be told how do handle their marriages, but I do think they oughta show some restraint and respect the bonds between foreign nationals.

With all due respect, you missed the point. The only thing this Resolution does is say "HEY! The UN can't take a stance on marriage!" It's actually the farthest thing from involving marriage in politics that the UN can do. Elsewise it leaves the door open to a ban or a legalization of certain kinds of marriage.

A fact that I find disappointing.

I don't care so much about the point of the resolution, just the laws that it passes:

"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."


The only beef I have is with the declaration. The other one is dealing with international rights, which cannot be avoided. The first one gives the nations full authority to define marriages, which is a validation on the part of the UN that the government should even have a right to define marriage.

I say that the government has no place to define marriage. Period.

The other problem I have with this resolution is that it is, as omigodtheykilledkenny pointed out (either by act of sarcasm or seriousness, I can't quite tell), pointless. It's a relatively trivial issue when compared to issues such as world-wide pollution, regulation of trade, world peace, or hunger in desolate places.

No, the nations shouldn't be told how do handle their marriages, but I do think they oughta show some restraint and respect the bonds between foreign nationals.No reason for the UN to involve itself in that, either. You move to or visit another nation, you should be expected to abide by their laws. If you don't like their marriage laws, don't live there.

I say that the government has no place to define marriage. Period.Goody. The have anarchy in your own nation. Nothing in this resolution prevents you from doing so.

The other problem I have with this resolution is that it is, as omigodtheykilledkenny pointed out (either by act of sarcasm or seriousness, I can't quite tell), pointless. It's a relatively trivial issue when compared to issues such as world-wide pollution, regulation of trade, world peace, or hunger in desolate places.Yes, and that's why we are considering a bill that keeps the UN out of the business of regulating marriage. Because it would be pointless, trivial and dare I say culturally imperialist to do otherwise.

I don't care so much about the point of the resolution, just the laws that it passes:

"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."

The only beef I have is with the declaration. The other one is dealing with international rights, which cannot be avoided. The first one gives the nations full authority to define marriages, which is a validation on the part of the UN that the government should even have a right to define marriage.

I say that the government has no place to define marriage. Period.



We'd like to raise one point in response to the honorable representative's comments....

First, the resolution does not "give" any nation the right to regulate marriage. They have that right now. The effect of the resolution is to put a stumbling block in the road of the NSUN if it should try -- as it has done in the past -- to force-fit a one-size-fits-all set of marriage rules on 30,000 nations with widely varied cultures and beliefs on the subject. If you would like to see the NSUN continue to do this, by all means vote against the proposal.

The representative states that he believes the government has no place to define marriage. We certainly respect that belief, while we may not agree with it. The proposal reserves the right to decide on the matter to the national government, which can, as we suspect would be the case in Mosiaca, decide to refrain from doing so. This proposal simply seeks to preserve that right.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Jack Patch adjusts the eye patch from which he takes his last name. "This resolution will have our full support."

Fellow delegates.

All over the world, many many unions are fit and well defined. However, there are some people out there that feel the need to engage in multiple marriages, or marry siblings... Let alone the wedlock between man and animal or man and object, assuming they don't find a way to marry themselves to such objects as thoughts or the wind or nature or such nonsense. Whilst many nations are quite fine, sadly there are nations which not only recognises such bizare practices... they activly promote it.

We wish to inform the floor of our opposition to this. The rightious people of Rackingham feel that it is offensive to be forced to not only recognise, but respect so called unions that range from silly, to simply being outright sick.

Further, it is unpalatable to allow foregners into our country who partake in such unions that are punishable by death in our homeland. Which brings us to our next point. Is it hypocritical, and unworkable, to insist that nations don't discriminate in aplication of law, yet explicitly insist that the law discriminate between foregners and residents?

As such, Rackingham strongly opposes this resolution.

Further, Rackingham wishes to strongly re-emphasise its stance that countrys need to inform its citizens in travel advice that anybody arriving is subject to the full extent of the law, and that any person whom is found to be in any sort of offensive union is subject to punishments such as death or extended forced labor under our current economic reforms.

Thank you.

Risottia approves and votes for.

Although I guess non-conventional couples, legally married in one country, will be object of some discrimination anyway in more traditionalist countries... oh well, at least there will be a legal basis to stop that - and you may also choose not to go where the locals frown upon seeing you and your partner kissing, just because your partner is a cat.

I think Rackingham should read the resolution again, and take careful note of the use of the word "asks". That clause is asking your nation to accept the marital status of visitors, it isn't forcing or mandating a damm thing.

Your nation isn't being forced to do bloody anything under this. Absolutly nada, nothing, zilch, zero. The only forceful clause in this resolution determines a nations right to recognise and regulate marriage within their borders however they wish, whether that is to regulate the crap out of it, or ignore it entirely is up to them. The other clauses are requests, which your nation is perfectly entitled to ignore, not orders.

(omissis)
yet explicitly insist that the law discriminate between foregners and residents?

Further, Rackingham wishes to strongly re-emphasise its stance that countrys need to inform its citizens in travel advice that anybody arriving is subject to the full extent of the law.

This is a good objection.
But I think that your embassies around the world could refuse the visa to those couples (or n-ples) that do not comply with your local laws about marriage, if this resolution passes. So your own rights as a country would be perfectly safe, don't you think?

Hoping that you will change your mind about the resolution,
Risottia

However, there are some people out there that feel the need to engage in multiple marriages, or marry siblings...Different strokes for different folks. It doesn't affect you, so kindly butt out.


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

This resolution doesn't seem especially significant tothe Kingdom of Devanika. Essentially it does two things: (1) 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, and (2) CONDEMNS the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals. The Declaration (1) is redundant. Despite the fact that the UN does not already have legislation declaring the regulation of civil union as a member nation's right, most nations already define and regulate civil union in this respective countries, and many other nations are not prevented from doing that already. Further, this proposed resolution's condemnation, while admirable, is at odds with (1). If a nation decides that it wants to instigate forced marriages, according to (1), it has every right to do so. A nation should not be condemned for exercising its rights and prerogatives as it deems fit, especially if in doing so it is complying with UN laws.
It should also be noted that the resolution at vote uses very flexible language (e.g. "ASKS, URGES") and changes very little in member nations. While the Kingdom of Devanika believes that the resolution's effects would be beneficial, it also notes that the entire resolution is essentially redundant and rather uninfluencial. This resolution is not worthy of UN member nations' time. However, based on the fact that it causes no harm and its policies (weak as they are) are in conjunction with the Kingdom of Devanika's views of marriage, the Kingdom of Devanika announces her assent.

As the spokesperson for the Joint Oversight Committee to the Second Plenitpotentiary Council as formed by Executive Order of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of the Interior that is enacted by the power of the Guangdongstan's Congress of People's Deputies, duly nominated by the Ruling Council of Guangdongstan, we are empowered by the Ruling Council to submit the following statement on the UN Resolution "Marriage Protection Act":

On the basis of the wording of the Act, the Joint Oversight Committee has no reason to oppose such the act. In fact, in line with the Ruling Council's economic policy, we believe that such an act would in fact, encourage the economic prosperity of Guangdongstan as we already have legalised gambling for all ages. In fact, we hope to emulate other great regions where gambling and marriage have brought an economic boon.

Further, with regards to the ambiguity of such an act, the respect of citizens travelling abroad to Guangdongstan would not need to worry as we would respect the rights of individuals that have already enamoured themselves permanently to another via rings, rituals and rights.

In consideration that the resolution is termed in the broadest of manner, in particular with respect to defining what a union between a couples is, and in light of the respect of liberties and individual rights to engage in such aforementioned union, and recognising the role of state in recognising the position of unions between couples, and finally vesting power within member states to define what civil unions and marriage are, the Joint Oversight Committee has instructed the Ruling Council, who will lend its support to this UN resolution.

Hu Go Yu Go
Spokesperson
Chair of Joint Oversight Committee
3rd secondary spokesperson of the Ruling Council
Guangdongstan

----

The Chair of the Ruling Council of Guangdongstan provides his assent for the following reasons:

1. The definition of marriage and union is dependent on state. Within the regimen of reasonability, individual states are still empowered to define what marriage/union is constituted by. The state's right to define what is reasonable and what is not still holds.

2. A crucial issue of respect of other states definitions of marriage/union is important. While individuals and leaders may find specific definitions of marriage/union to be ridiculous or blasphemous (such as gay marriage), this resolution means that if a couple is married or brought together in another state by their laws, and then travel freely within other UN member states, it allows them the respect and position that they have chosen to take despite laws of the state that they may be travelling in to the contrary effect. This could have a significant effect in terms of any form of discrimination that may take place and the ramifications. Individual's rights to define their union are protected and held more important than a conflicting belief where there may have a differing definition.

3. The non-discrimination clause means an equality basis that allows all participants in a state to achieve their marriage, on the proviso of the state definition. While this is contradictory to the first issue, we believe that rational human beings won't define this to the point of stupidity (such as animal marriages) and also have some limited restrictions on other forms of marriage. Again, the definition is set by the state itself.

4. The last section is an absolutist defence of liberal doctrine.

Thus, we render our support.

We wish to inform the floor of our opposition to this. The rightious people of Rackingham feel that it is offensive to be forced to not only recognise, but respect so called unions that range from silly, to simply being outright sick.



We suspect that, being very new to this Assembly, the representative of Rackingham is unaware of the difference between mandatory and non-mandatory clauses in proposals and resolutions. Your nation will not be forced to recognize or respect any marriages. The resolution ASKS that you do so. Should your nation choose not to -- perhaps in specific instances in which you find the union offensive -- you will not be required to do it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Peace and love to all! We dig this proposal!

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

After careful consideration, and with respect, the Kingdom of Altanar cannot support this proposal.

We do normally agree that the rights of member nations to decide how to handle their own social concerns should be respected and paramount. As a very independent-minded people, we would prefer the same courtesy. However, we do believe that there are some things that transcend even that noble right - and one is the right to love, and live, as one may choose.

It is our fear that this proposal, though well-intentioned, may give a green light for coercive states to practice the most cruel restrictions upon their citizens, simply based on who they love. By not taking a stronger stand against such practices, the UN would be, in our mind, turning a blind eye to such things. This is not in the best interest of the world, or the greater good.

We do not feel that the proposal as written provides anything resembling an adequate protection to individuals who, through no fault of their own, may earn the violent ire of their local governments based upon reasons that they are not to blame for, and cannot change. While attempting to rectify that would indeed be extremely difficult and costly, simply ignoring the problem is not the solution.

Altanar will be voting against this proposal.

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.


This line has us annoyed. It would be unfair to have tourists come to our country possessing more rights or less rights to marriage privacy and freedom than our citizens.

Say that Nation A has laws against group marriages. Citizens who violate this law are put in prison. Along comes the Smith family from Nation B, a nation which allows group marriages. The Smith family is a group of males and females who are all married to each other, and they want to visit Nation A together.

While Nation A's citizens rot in prison for the crime of bigamy, the Smith family should--by the above quoted line--be allowed to visit the nation with impunity as a married group? How is that fair and just?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you don't like what the Romans do, STAY OUT OF ROME!

After careful consideration, and with respect, the Kingdom of Altanar cannot support this proposal.

We do normally agree that the rights of member nations to decide how to handle their own social concerns should be respected and paramount. As a very independent-minded people, we would prefer the same courtesy. However, we do believe that there are some things that transcend even that noble right - and one is the right to love, and live, as one may choose.

It is our fear that this proposal, though well-intentioned, may give a green light for coercive states to practice the most cruel restrictions upon their citizens, simply based on who they love. By not taking a stronger stand against such practices, the UN would be, in our mind, turning a blind eye to such things. This is not in the best interest of the world, or the greater good.

We do not feel that the proposal as written provides anything resembling an adequate protection to individuals who, through no fault of their own, may earn the violent ire of their local governments based upon reasons that they are not to blame for, and cannot change. While attempting to rectify that would indeed be extremely difficult and costly, simply ignoring the problem is not the solution.

Altanar will be voting against this proposal.

We thank our new colleague from Altanar for respectfully and cogently stating that government's objections to the proposal. However, we would respectfully suggest that the proposal can only be properly evaluated in the context of existing NSUN law.

There is a very large segment of NSUN legislation, currently in effect, that bears upon the representative's concern. We would particularly commend his attention to NSUN Resolutions #7 ("Sexual Freedom"), #26 ("The Universal Bill of Rights"), #53 ("Universal Freedom of Choice"), #80 ("Rights of Minorities and Women"), #99 ("Discrimination Accord"), #115 ("Freedom of Conscience"), #118 ("The Sex Education Act"), and #121 ("Adoption and IVF Rights").

We hope that the Kingdom of Altanar will reconsider its position in light of all this existing law.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

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.


This line has us annoyed. It would be unfair to have tourists come to our country possessing more rights or less rights to marriage privacy and freedom than our citizens.

Yes, but isn't that the point of the word "asks"? It's not requiring you to "respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors", merely requesting that you do so. If your particular state wishes to practice barbaric and backwards practices upon both visitors and local residents alike, nothing would be stopping you.

Say that Nation A has laws against group marriages. Citizens who violate this law are put in prison. Along comes the Smith family from Nation B, a nation which allows group marriages. The Smith family is a group of males and females who are all married to each other, and they want to visit Nation A together.

I'm sure that a nation so devoted to looking to find ways to lock up people who wish to simply visit their nation (and spend their currency by the way) would find some other way to mess with peope who want to visit in peace. Polygamy is a sort of obvious case, but what if a nation has a genetic requirement that prohibits brown eyed people from marrying green eyed people on pain on death? Should a couple be sentenced to death for not knowing the 4,568th law of the nation who they are visiting?

And I need to say this one more time, visiting! We're not talking visas, or long term stays, or applications for citizenship, but visits to the nation in question. Do you really want UN member nations willy nilly arresting citizens of other UN member nations in a tit for tat war of bizzare political marriage regulations? I hope not!

We thank our new colleague from Altanar for respectfully and cogently stating that government's objections to the proposal. However, we would respectfully suggest that the proposal can only be properly evaluated in the context of existing NSUN law.

We in turn thank the representative from Ausserland for providing us the opportunity to educate ourselves further on existing NSUN law (as well as keeping the debate civil, which is appreciated).

After reviewing the existing law, we are quite pleased to note the strong protections the UN has set in place for people of all genders and sexual orientations. However, we remain concerned that phrasing in this particular document refers to "unusual marriage laws and customs". We also remain extremely concerned that the document does not take a stronger stance against the repression of those who are different from the norm in a given state. This seems to actually go against the spirit of much of the previous UN law cited, in our opinion. In addition, by creating a different standard for people visiting a country as opposed to those living there, it unintentionally creates a double standard of treatment that is unfair to the residents of said country, while at the same time not providing much protection for the visitors. While we would be glad to reconsider a different version of this proposal, as this one currently stands, our position has not changed.

We in turn thank the representative from Ausserland for providing us the opportunity to educate ourselves further on existing NSUN law (as well as keeping the debate civil, which is appreciated).

After reviewing the existing law, we are quite pleased to note the strong protections the UN has set in place for people of all genders and sexual orientations. However, we remain concerned that phrasing in this particular document refers to "unusual marriage laws and customs". We also remain extremely concerned that the document does not take a stronger stance against the repression of those who are different from the norm in a given state. This seems to actually go against the spirit of much of the previous UN law cited, in our opinion. In addition, by creating a different standard for people visiting a country as opposed to those living there, it unintentionally creates a double standard of treatment that is unfair to the residents of said country, while at the same time not providing much protection for the visitors. While we would be glad to reconsider a different version of this proposal, as this one currently stands, our position has not changed.

We do appreciate the willingness of the representative of Altanar to reconsider the matter. We're afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree.

We see no need for this proposal to "take a stronger stance against the repression of those who are different from the norm in a given state". The stance has already been taken, time after time, by the NSUN, as demonstrated by the resolutions we cited. Would the honorable representative have us simply repeat what is already law, serving no useful purpose and possibly running afoul of the rule against duplication in proposals?

We also cannot agree that the resolution "creates a double standard". It creates no standard. It asks nations to consider embracing the principle of reciprocity with regard to the issue of marital status. We consider this eminently reasonable.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I just want to say that the Rauschenburg Empire has chosen to not support this proposal, based on the legality of it. The UN is not a world congress and should not dictate such laws to other Nations. The Rauschenburg Empire has passed a law already that gives these freedoms. Let me reiterate, while we agree in principle to this proposal, we DO NOT agree that the UN should enforce such laws. Too often is this world body used to impose on other sovereign Nations. Thank you!

I just want to say that the Rauschenburg Empire has chosen to not support this proposal, based on the legality of it. The UN is not a world congress and should not dictate such laws to other Nations. The Rauschenburg Empire has passed a law already that gives these freedoms. Let me reiterate, while we agree in principle to this proposal, we DO NOT agree that the UN should enforce such laws. Too often is this world body used to impose on other sovereign Nations. Thank you!

Meaning no disrespect, but we have to wonder whether the representative of Rauschenburg actually even read the proposal. He has just made an impassioned argument in favor of the proposal he states he won't support.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Meaning no disrespect, but we have to wonder whether the representative of Rauschenburg actually even read the proposal. He has just made an impassioned argument in favor of the proposal he states he won't support.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large


OOC: Yeah, those drive-by, one-hit posters do that quite often.

I just want to say that the Rauschenburg Empire has chosen to not support this proposal, based on the legality of it. The UN is not a world congress and should not dictate such laws to other Nations. The Rauschenburg Empire has passed a law already that gives these freedoms. Let me reiterate, while we agree in principle to this proposal, we DO NOT agree that the UN should enforce such laws. Too often is this world body used to impose on other sovereign Nations. Thank you!

Ambassador Zyryanov sighed, and resisted the urge to bang her teacup against the desk. She didn't want to break a good cup over this, and it would just have splattered tea everywhere.

"I would ask the honourable delegate to read the proposal, and perhaps he will notice that it does exactly what he's saying he wants!"

Wolfgang's holographic liason stands.

"We agree, and find no reason not to support this blocker against NatSov violations of what we feel is a NatSov issue."

We see no need for this proposal to "take a stronger stance against the repression of those who are different from the norm in a given state". The stance has already been taken, time after time, by the NSUN, as demonstrated by the resolutions we cited. Would the honorable representative have us simply repeat what is already law, serving no useful purpose and possibly running afoul of the rule against duplication in proposals?

We also cannot agree that the resolution "creates a double standard". It creates no standard. It asks nations to consider embracing the principle of reciprocity with regard to the issue of marital status. We consider this eminently reasonable.

I would not have this great assembly repeat what is already law, but I would also not have it create law that, in spirit, goes against previous law. While I do not think that is the intent of the legislation, I fear that is what it does, with a quiet acknowledgement of practices that should be condemned, not tolerated. I will admit that the proposal does not "create a standard", and that may have been miswording on my part. But by asking nations that repress their own populace not to do the same to visitors, it affords those visitors rights the populace does not have, and should.

I do acknowledge that we will most likely have to agree to disagree on this proposal. However, once again, the civility in discussing it is appreciated.

The Republic of Whistleton cannot support this proposal.

Marriage is a dangerous and damaging social institution; a social contract which seeks to limit the future sexual freedoms of it's victims. This type of contract does not acknowledge that ones emotional and sexual desires will not change over the course of a liftime, imposing strong penalties when such desires inevitably do change or when infractions of the contractual obligations ("marriage vows") occur.

Along with the idea of marriage comes the perverse ideals that sexual relations have a high monetary value, leading to the hardships caused by alimonies, dowries, civil adultary penalties, and lavish wedding expenses. The fact that these economic penalties are overpriced can be seen by the regulation or outlawing of competing competing sexual outlets which may be sold for monetary value, such as the brothel, the strip club, or the topless car wash.

No, my friends, the Republic of Whistleton cannot condone such an abomination. We believe that people should be free to barter and re-negotiate their sexual liasons at any time. We cannot stand by this abomination of "marriage".

<SNIP>

Ambassador Zyryanov put her teacup down carefully - on the floor by her feet - before replying.

"I am curious. Has the... honourable representative actually bothered to read the damn proposal?"

Meaning no disrespect, but we have to wonder whether the representative of Rauschenburg actually even read the proposal. He has just made an impassioned argument in favor of the proposal he states he won't support. OOC: Yeah, those drive-by, one-hit posters do that quite often.We cannot stand by this abomination of "marriage".
So you oppose the very resolution that allows you to protect your nation from its effects?

Good one, Sparky. That'll teach 'em.

So you oppose the very resolution that allows you to protect your nation from its effects?

Good one, Sparky. That'll teach 'em.

The Republic of Whistleton does not need a UN resolution to "protect" itself from something that does not exist within it's borders. Your nation does not have the power to impose marriage upon us. What do we need protection from?

Furthermore, we will not support a resolution that even hints that marriage is something that should be tolerated within our borders, as this resolution does.

Should Whistleton accept this proposal, it would be tacit approval of the concept of marriage, and we would could then be portrayed as violating the spirit of the resolution when we did not recognize marriage for any visitor within our borders.

No, my friends, Whistleton is a marriage-free zone. We will not recognize any other nation's rules concerning marriage between man, woman, or beast.

The Republic of Whistleton does not need a UN resolution to "protect" itself from something that does not exist within it's borders. Your nation does not have the power to impose marriage upon us. What do we need protection from?


Let me put it this way. If this proposal succeeds, your nation will be free to do as it pleases, and to never have to implement marriage of any kind. If this proposal fails, on the other hand, these United Nations will remain free, at any time, to force a definition of marriage upon you, and to force you to implement it.

Does that make it a little clearer?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Let me put it this way. If this proposal succeeds, your nation will be free to do as it pleases, and to never have to implement marriage of any kind. If this proposal fails, on the other hand, these United Nations will remain free, at any time, to force a definition of marriage upon you, and to force you to implement it.

Does that make it a little clearer?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I believe the resolution is clear as it is worded.

It ASKS Whistleton to respect the marital status of vistiors. While we understand that this is a request, we cannot even bend to this tacit acknowledgement of such an abomination.

As for the extortion you place at our feet, with the threat of a forced marriage definition, I do not believe the great and varied nations of the UN would agree to a single definition of marriage. We of Whistleton have no fear that such an event would come to pass.

Official message from the bureau of His Excellency The Vice-Chancellor of International Affairs of the Dictatorship of Barathron :

"The Hon. Antiochus, supreme leader of our nation, states that the UN is not competent on issues regarding what would be considered as traditional or religious institutions. The Dictatorship of Barathron will therefore vote against this resolution, just to emphasize on this fact. The UN should spend more time on policies regarding international cooperation and ways to resolve conflicts instead of focusing on sterile and strictly personal issues."

The Hon. Seleucus, Vice-Chancellor.

[Official Government seal]

October 16th 2006, Ministry of International Affairs, Afidnai, Barathron.

As for the extortion you place at our feet, with the threat of a forced marriage definition, I do not believe the great and varied nations of the UN would agree to a single definition of marriage. We of Whistleton have no fear that such an event would come to pass.

You believe wrongly. It's already happened with resolution #173 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80), although that was later repealed.


The Hon. Antiochus, supreme leader of our nation, states that the UN is not competent on issues regarding what would be considered as traditional or religious institutions.

Oh, I give up...


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

There is nothing wrong with this proposal. It's just asking you to respect other countries definition of marriage, not change your own.

You believe wrongly. It's already happened with resolution #173 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80), although that was later repealed.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

And so, the honorable Ambassador proves my own point for me. Whistleton sends it's official thanks for the Ambassador's support.

And so, the honorable Ambassador proves my own point for me. Whistleton sends it's official thanks for the Ambassador's support.

Ambassador Zyryanov opened her mouth to explain the obvious, then thought better of it, sighed, and shook her head.

I'm getting too old for this. Maybe I should ask Jane (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Jane_Ranomezanjanahary-Souvanhnavongsa-Fincfeuiaki) or Sergei (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sergei_Vyacheslav_Telkijski) to take over while my sanity's still intact.

More or less intact.

She stood from her seat in the General Assembly, and made her way towards the door, heading for the Strangers' Bar.

More tea. That'll do the trick...

I want to explain what this resolution is, what it is for, and what it does.

This is a nat sov blocker, no ifs, buts or maybes. It was written to block any attempt by the NSUN to pass legislation that will affect how marriage law/regulation is applied in all member nations. Don't think that won't happen, it has before and without this, it would again, sooner or later.

The only active clause in this is the declaration that does the blocking job. The other clauses are non-mandating padding, or fluff. The visitors clause is to give the resolution some semblance of an international issue, which with marriage is bloody hard to do. The discrimination clause is me showing my leftist leanings, and the forced marriage line was added shortly before submission after a suggestion from another member in the draft thread.

What it all boils down to is that your nation, under this, has the right to define, regulate or ignore marriage within your nation as you see fit, and that includes whether you decide to follow the other clauses in the resolution or not. Nothing in it says you have to do a thing.

This will protect your nations right to decide from other well meaning, but misguided legislation. If you chose to read it as forcing your nation to do squat, then that is neither my fault or problem.

The UN has the right to define, recognize, and protect marital laws within its juristiction. It's as simple as that.

The Holy Empire of Colonial Dunsboro agrees in part with my respected friend from Witchcliff, but for the condemnation of forced marriage. We believe there are times when forced marriage between non-consenting adults is acceptable. There are times in human history which may bring forward questions of society's survival. Such an important and dire situation would, in our opinion, support forced marriages.

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.


This line has us annoyed. It would be unfair to have tourists come to our country possessing more rights or less rights to marriage privacy and freedom than our citizens.

Say that Nation A has laws against group marriages. Citizens who violate this law are put in prison. Along comes the Smith family from Nation B, a nation which allows group marriages. The Smith family is a group of males and females who are all married to each other, and they want to visit Nation A together.

While Nation A's citizens rot in prison for the crime of bigamy, the Smith family should--by the above quoted line--be allowed to visit the nation with impunity as a married group? How is that fair and just?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you don't like what the Romans do, STAY OUT OF ROME!You could just refuse them a visa.

Failing that, you could expel them from your country.

Instead, you choose the path of cruelty and immorality by imprisoning such people. Shame!

Community Property supports this resolution, and places The Tetrad on its watch list; should The Tetrad imprison any of our citizens, we will most certainly retaliate.The UN is not a world congress and should not dictate such laws to other Nations.Wanna bet?The Republic of Whistleton does not need a UN resolution to "protect" itself from something that does not exist within it's borders. Your nation does not have the power to impose marriage upon us. What do we need protection from?From the NSUN itself, because the NSUN can impose the institution of marraige on you, should it wish.

Think about that, and then reconsider your vote. We think you really want to vote “yes”.I do not believe the great and varied nations of the UN would agree to a single definition of marriage. We of Whistleton have no fear that such an event would come to pass.Wanna bet?And so, the honorable Ambassador proves my own point for me. Whistleton sends it's official thanks for the Ambassador's support.Is it yor government's usual practice to ignore reality by covering its ears and yelling “lalalalalalalala!”

That's what we thought. Whatever it is you've poured into your water, we don't want it.

The UN has the right to define, recognize, and protect marital laws within its juristiction. It's as simple as that.

The UN has the 'ability' to do all that, but whether it has the 'right' is what is up for debate right now.

If the majority think the UN should be allowed to define/regulate marriage, then the resolution will fail. If they think the UN should stay out of this area and has no business telling nations how to define/regulate their marriage laws, then the resolution will pass. Whether the UN has the 'right' to interfere is up to members, and only members, to decide.

The UN has the ability to pass legislation on just about any topic individual members chose to write about, but whether to accept that legislation or not has always been up to the membership as a whole.

I want to explain what this resolution is, what it is for, and what it does.

This is a nat sov blocker, no ifs, buts or maybes. It was written to block any attempt by the NSUN to pass legislation that will affect how marriage law/regulation is applied in all member nations. Don't think that won't happen, it has before and without this, it would again, sooner or later.

The only active clause in this is the declaration that does the blocking job. The other clauses are non-mandating padding, or fluff. The visitors clause is to give the resolution some semblance of an international issue, which with marriage is bloody hard to do. The discrimination clause is me showing my leftist leanings, and the forced marriage line was added shortly before submission after a suggestion from another member in the draft thread.

What it all boils down to is that your nation, under this, has the right to define, regulate or ignore marriage within your nation as you see fit, and that includes whether you decide to follow the other clauses in the resolution or not. Nothing in it says you have to do a thing.

This will protect your nations right to decide from other well meaning, but misguided legislation. If you chose to read it as forcing your nation to do squat, then that is neither my fault or problem.

You preach to me the dogma of fear. You claim that in the future, the UN could vote on marriage, as it has done so in the past. But your own argument works against you. In the future, the UN body could repeal your toothless agenda and impose marriage anyway. Your argument is flawed fearmongering.

Whistleton cannot make its decisions based upon such cowardly fearmongering about some nebulous future! No, we can only act upon the agenda before us. And it is repugnant.

You say that this law does nothing, and that it is mostly fluff. But, friends, the leaders of Whistleton are wise and know that a bit of fluff on the side can mean the difference between paradise and a life of living hell.

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are always unintended consequences. Gorbachev sought to strengthen his country's economy with simple-sounding feel-good measures. And instead, the entire soviet union collapsed into individual nations.

Just last night, I heard the cries of Whistleton's beautiful prostitutes. They were crying out in fear of this resolution. No, Whistleton's prostitutes will not take this resolution lying down! This will not stand!

All right-thinking nations should vote no to this resolution.

You preach to me the dogma of fear. You claim that in the future, the UN could vote on marriage, as it has done so in the past. But your own argument works against you. In the future, the UN body could repeal your toothless agenda and impose marriage anyway. Your argument is flawed fearmongering.

Whistleton cannot make its decisions based upon such cowardly fearmongering about some nebulous future! No, we can only act upon the agenda before us. And it is repugnant.

You say that this law does nothing, and that it is mostly fluff. But, friends, the leaders of Whistleton are wise and know that a bit of fluff on the side can mean the difference between paradise and a life of living hell.

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are always unintended consequences. Gorbachev sought to strengthen his country's economy with simple-sounding feel-good measures. And instead, the entire soviet union collapsed into individual nations.

Just last night, I heard the cries of Whistleton's beautiful prostitutes. They were crying out in fear of this resolution. No, Whistleton's prostitutes will not take this resolution lying down! This will not stand!

All right-thinking nations should vote no to this resolution.


Yes, you are right, part of the reason for this resolution is fear. My nation has no marriage laws, nor do we recognise the status those of our citizens who wish to call themselves married. That suits us as a nation, and is the status quo we wish to keep.

We do not want another nation passing legislation that not only forces us to recognise and regulate marriage, but also pushes that nations own ideas of what marriage should be onto our people in the process. Yes, this could be repealed in the future, if it passes, but until then nations will be protected from having another nations ideas of marriage rammed down their throats.

What the hell does this resolution have to do with prostitutes? That is already fully legal under another passed resolution. This resolution only concerns marriage, not prostitution.

When all is said and done, if you are so strongly against this resolution, then that is your right and business. Nothing we say will change your mind. The early voting on the floor is showing very strong support for this resolution though, so the majority will decide in the end.

You preach to me the dogma of fear. You claim that in the future, the UN could vote on marriage, as it has done so in the past. But your own argument works against you. In the future, the UN body could repeal your toothless agenda and impose marriage anyway.You're quite correct, someone, somewhere down the line could repeal this and then pass a resolution forcing marriage definitions in the future. But, what you fail to realize is that doing so is a lot more difficult than just passing one resolution.

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are always unintended consequences. Gorbachev sought to strengthen his country's economy with simple-sounding feel-good measures. And instead, the entire soviet union collapsed into individual nations.Who is this Gorbachev, and what is this soviet union of which you speak?

Just last night, I heard the cries of Whistleton's beautiful prostitutes. They were crying out in fear of this resolution. No, Whistleton's prostitutes will not take this resolution lying down! This will not stand!Uh, the debate on the repeal of "The Sex Industry Worker Act" is on the 12th floor, room 1205.

All right-thinking nations should vote no to this resolution.No, all right-thinking nations who want the to stay out of their marriage laws (or lack thereof) are voting FOR.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm sure that a nation so devoted to looking to find ways to lock up people who wish to simply visit their nation (and spend their currency by the way) would find some other way to mess with peope who want to visit in peace. Polygamy is a sort of obvious case, but what if a nation has a genetic requirement that prohibits brown eyed people from marrying green eyed people on pain on death? Should a couple be sentenced to death for not knowing the 4,568th law of the nation who they are visiting?

And I need to say this one more time, visiting! We're not talking visas, or long term stays, or applications for citizenship, but visits to the nation in question. Do you really want UN member nations willy nilly arresting citizens of other UN member nations in a tit for tat war of bizzare political marriage regulations? I hope not!

We, of course, were setting a hypothetical scene. We do not jail people for something as trivial as marital contracts. Our point is this: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You cannot have people from other countries visiting/passing through/whatever your own homeland whilst violating the laws that your citizens hold dear and are required to obey. It doesn't matter how trivial the law may seem compared to serious crimes. If I were to travel to Singapore, I should most definitely know that spitting on the sidewalk could land me in prison with a huge fine. Singapore is a very clean place with strict laws against pollution. I would either learn its ways, or face its consequences.

If you think the laws of a certain nation are too nit-picky, too complex, or just too many...you have the right to NOT GO THERE. Simple as that. Too often you see arrogant Americans visiting foreign nations as tourists without learning even the most basic of customs or phrases in their language. Then they get all puffed up and angry when a local doesn't understand them or tries to force them to comply with local laws.

As a matter of respect, you should absolutely know a nation's laws and customs before even THINKING of setting foot there. Not to mention learning something of their language so you can navigate once there. It's just not fair to expect (whether by force of law or by voluntary consideration) a country to treat its citizens with any less regard as it would a visitor.

What the hell does this resolution have to do with prostitutes? That is already fully legal under another passed resolution. This resolution only concerns marriage, not prostitution.

Are not wives potential competition against prostitutes? Do they not usually seek to prevent their husbands from engaging professionals in the sex industry? In Whistleton, it is illegal to interfere with a valid business transaction. Would not visitors' wives risk felony jail time in Whistleton by interfering with a husband's natural desire to partake of our beautiful tourist attractions? No, again, we cannot support a resolution that even gives tacit acknowledgement to the idea of marriage.


When all is said and done, if you are so strongly against this resolution, then that is your right and business. Nothing we say will change your mind. The early voting on the floor is showing very strong support for this resolution though, so the majority will decide in the end.

Ah, yes, the tyranny of the majority. Whistleton recognizes that this resolution has no real teeth, and so will pick up the easy vote of those who are ambivalent on the subject. We also recognized early on that the resolution would likely pass, but have no real effect on our country. However, we must still make a stand on prinicipal. The fact that 20% of the members are against this resolution should show that it seriously needs to be re-thought. I look forward to the repeal of this reprehensible Act.

You could just refuse them a visa.

Failing that, you could expel them from your country.

Instead, you choose the path of cruelty and immorality by imprisoning such people. Shame!

Community Property supports this resolution, and places The Tetrad on its watch list; should The Tetrad imprison any of our citizens, we will most certainly retaliate.

**The entire nation rolls its eyes collectively**

Ever heard of a hypothetical scenario?

We were simply making a point by using extreme examples...which is most definitely something all UN reps should practice when passing resolutions that affect many nations quite different than your own.

The UN has the right to define, recognize, and protect marital laws within its juristiction. It's as simple as that.

This rather lengthy essay (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4) says it's rather more complicated than that. I've substantiated my position on the issue (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11565395&postcount=3) of where the UN should act and where it should not. Have you done so too, or are you just making oversimplifying statements and passing them off as an authoritative perspective on the United Nations?

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Are not wives potential competition against prostitutes? Do they not usually seek to prevent their husbands from engaging professionals in the sex industry? In Whistleton, it is illegal to interfere with a valid business transaction. Would not visitors' wives risk felony jail time in Whistleton by interfering with a husband's natural desire to partake of our beautiful tourist attractions? No, again, we cannot support a resolution that even gives tacit acknowledgement to the idea of marriage.

So, in your country it's okay to prosecute wives for preventing their husbands from engaging the services or a prostitute, or woman who is not their wife?

Your nation is stupid.



Ah, yes, the tyranny of the majority. Whistleton recognizes that this resolution has no real teeth, and so will pick up the easy vote of those who are ambivalent on the subject. We also recognized early on that the resolution would likely pass, but have no real effect on our country. However, we must still make a stand on prinicipal. The fact that 20% of the members are against this resolution should show that it seriously needs to be re-thought. I look forward to the repeal of this reprehensible Act.


WAAAAAAAAAH. Waaaaaah. Stop your whining. The fact that 80% of the vote is for YES should tell you that your position is completely pointless.

Not only is there a majority here, there's a supermajority. Now shut up and stop bitching about something you can't stop!

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

The thirteenth sub-delegate to the spokesperson of the Collaborative Advisory Council attached to the UN Delegate from Guangdongstan is compelled to release this statement:

---

Given the fact that the wording of the statement is designed to be inoffensive and ambiguous, and notwithstanding the fact that this resolution doesn't require individual states to change to a single definitiion of what marriage or union actually constitutes (since this power still remains vested in the state itself), the first part of the resolution is about ensuring that individuals that travel cross boundaries in states have their rights respected based on the state that they originate from. This is not an issue that is akin to say, robbery or murder, where local laws definitely should apply, but an issue of individual choice where the person's liberty to is at question here, and the person's liberty from is protected. Individual's rights on something that is as harmless as the types of marriage one is engaged in should be respected beyond the borders of one's state.

The second half is not about actual application of legislation to enforce unions as such, but is about tolerence of what actually constitutes a union. Again there are two elements here: it needs to be read with the first half of the resolution. It is still within the bounds of a member state to define what constitutes a marriage or civil union actually is. In reality this is a bit contradictory, but it ensures that the state doesn't discriminate based on sex, role, age, race. This is applicable within reason. The last one having states enforce marriage I think is very much applicable to the first half as well. While it is within the state's role to define marriage and unions, it doesn't allow this to be acceptable.

Everyone here is presenting hypotheticals and extreme positions of the situation. Within the level of laws that exist in states and beyond states, there is a level of flexibility and ambiguity that comes with it. In extreme situations that have been suggested, these are the outlying statistical numbers that are dealt with via other means and purposes (such as a stong judiciary and modifications to legislation). This is no cause to say that x would happen because of the resolution, because they are currently hypotheticals and only possible issues that would arise.

The UN delegate of Guangdongstan reaffirms his state's support for the resolution, for an on behalf of the Ruling Council.

Yu Wang Er More
13th Sub delegate
Collaborative Advisory Council
UN delegation from Guangdongstan

Lord Baumgarten glances to Ariddia and and then smiling towards Ausserland speaks...

"First off I appreciate your conclusion that I have not read the proposal. I assure I have read it and understand it quite well! It states, and I quote,

"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"

"Then it goes on to add, "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."

"Finally it states, "Condems the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals.""

"Now I do not see how this proposal can "respect" the rights of Nations to define marriage as they see fit but then condem a practice that is common in certain areas of the globe, forced marriage is a custom in some nations. I laugh at the contradiction here! Hey lets add the condemnation of polygamy. I mean where is the line? When do we decide that one is not right and the other is? When is it the Nation's right to define and decide and not? Change the contradictions and the Rauschenburg Empire will support it!"

Lord Baumgarten glances to Ariddia and and then smiling towards Ausserland speaks...

"First off I appreciate your conclusion that I have not read the proposal. I assure I have read it and understand it quite well! It states, and I quote,

"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"

"Then it goes on to add, "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."

"Finally it states, "Condems the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals.""

"Now I do not see how this proposal can "respect" the rights of Nations to define marriage as they see fit but then condem a practice that is common in certain areas of the globe, forced marriage is a custom in some nations. I laugh at the contradiction here! Hey lets add the condemnation of polygamy. I mean where is the line? When do we decide that one is not right and the other is? When is it the Nation's right to define and decide and not? Change the contradictions and the Rauschenburg Empire will support it!"

For all its bowing to the NatSovers on civil issues, the UN is not so gutless as to not take a stand against such things as FORCED bonding between UNCONSENTING individuals. There are some concepts that the UN will not cater to, and that is one of them. THAT'S the line. Clear?

The UN will not abide by granting their member nations the power to force its citizenry into civil agreements that they do not consent to. Therefore, it was ensured that the Resolution only protected national rights to maintain their own laws for marriage, provided that they are benign.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Our rationale is fairly straightforward-- the legislation is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, it professes to protect nations' 'rights' to align public policy with religious doctrine (a practice with which we are in principled disagreement from the outset, on the basis that state sponsorship of religion undermines democratic pluralism), yet on the other hand it denounces arranged marriage, which is a tenet of some religious factions. These two positions are contradictory, and therefore make for poor policy. Either the proposition defends 'religious freedom,' including the freedom of some religious adherents to arrange marriages, or it does not. Either it places the internal policies of states above the purview or scrutiny of the international community, or it does not. In this case, the proposed legislation attempts to do both, in order to placate extremists and moderates alike-- in order to please everyone (or at the least, to offend no-one). In this regard, the proposal fails in any meaningful objective, and should be re-drafted or abandoned.

However we cannot stress enough that any attempt by the United Nations to legislate the relationship between national governments and religious entities is, in the opinion of the Techosai Imperium, misguided. Religion is among the most intimately personal of pursuits; the exploration of an individual's spirituality (or abstinence therefrom) ought to be as solitary or as communal as the individual so desires, a matter of personal freedom and choice, not imposed or enforced by anyone external to that individual. As such, any state sponsorship of any religion constitutes-- whether in actively or passively endorsing any given faith, or actively or passively deterring practice of any given faith-- an infringement upon the personal liberty of individuals to practice the religion of their choice, or to be free of the religion or religions not of their choice. The United Nations should not endeavour to "protect" any religion, nor should it seek to attack any religion. Such matters should be left entirely to individual human beings.

Our rationale is fairly straightforward-- the legislation is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, it professes to protect nations' 'rights' to align public policy with religious doctrine (a practice with which we are in principled disagreement from the outset, on the basis that state sponsorship of religion undermines democratic pluralism), yet on the other hand it denounces arranged marriage, which is a tenet of some religious factions. These two positions are contradictory, and therefore make for poor policy. Either the proposition defends 'religious freedom,' including the freedom of some religious adherents to arrange marriages, or it does not. Either it places the internal policies of states above the purview or scrutiny of the international community, or it does not. In this case, the proposed legislation attempts to do both, in order to placate extremists and moderates alike-- in order to please everyone (or at the least, to offend no-one). In this regard, the proposal fails in any meaningful objective, and should be re-drafted or abandoned.

However we cannot stress enough that any attempt by the United Nations to legislate the relationship between national governments and religious entities is, in the opinion of the Techosai Imperium, misguided. Religion is among the most intimately personal of pursuits; the exploration of an individual's spirituality (or abstinence therefrom) ought to be as solitary or as communal as the individual so desires, a matter of personal freedom and choice, not imposed or enforced by anyone external to that individual. As such, any state sponsorship of any religion constitutes-- whether in actively or passively endorsing any given faith, or actively or passively deterring practice of any given faith-- an infringement upon the personal liberty of individuals to practice the religion of their choice, or to be free of the religion or religions not of their choice. The United Nations should not endeavour to "protect" any religion, nor should it seek to attack any religion. Such matters should be left entirely to individual human beings.

With all due respect, we're rather at a loss to understand how the representative of The Techosai Imperium has managed to twist this proposal into a piece of legislation that "protects" religion. The proposal merely cites theocracies as examples of gevernments whose views on marriage might differ significantly from the norm. There is no attempt whatever to legislate on the relationship of government and religion.

We would also point out that the resolution says nothing about arranged marriages. It includes a condemnation of the pratice of forced marriages. There is a significant difference.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Lord Baumgarten glances to Ariddia and and then smiling towards Ausserland speaks...

"First off I appreciate your conclusion that I have not read the proposal. I assure I have read it and understand it quite well! It states, and I quote,

"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"

"Then it goes on to add, "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."

"Finally it states, "Condems the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals.""

"Now I do not see how this proposal can "respect" the rights of Nations to define marriage as they see fit but then condem a practice that is common in certain areas of the globe, forced marriage is a custom in some nations. I laugh at the contradiction here! Hey lets add the condemnation of polygamy. I mean where is the line? When do we decide that one is not right and the other is? When is it the Nation's right to define and decide and not? Change the contradictions and the Rauschenburg Empire will support it!"

We draw the line where the proposal draws the line. There is no contradiction. The proposal affirms the right of nations to determine their own marriage laws, but condemns a practice we find--as we hope the majority of our colleagues do--abhorrent.

We suppose the representative would also laugh at legislation that stated: "We affirm the right of people to have sexual relations, but we condemn rape". Or he'd sneer at a law which respected the right of people to earn money, but prohibited fraud.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

...

Jumpin' Jesus on a motherfucking pogo stick. This is what counts for debate in these halls? This damn thing's bringing out all the crazies.

The number of people opposing this because they want to select their own laws is mind-boggling. I'm trying to imagine how they're twisting logic to arrive at their conclusions.

Especially you people from Whistle-stop, or whatever the hell your backwater jerkhole is called. Aparently your objection is that even the faintest mention of the word "marriage" is odious. Get over yourselves and think for a bloody minute.

Screw this. The Hack officially urges all nations to vote this down, and then promptly vote in the most draconian and inexplicably obscure marriage regulations possible; perhaps outlawing everything except incestuous homosexual unions. Then maybe people will actually think before popping off at the mouth.


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

inexplicably obscure marriage regulations possible; perhaps outlawing everything except incestuous homosexual unions.

What do you mean inexplicably obscure?

...

Jumpin' Jesus on a motherfucking pogo stick. This is what counts for debate in these halls? This damn thing's bringing out all the crazies.

The number of people opposing this because they want to select their own laws is mind-boggling. I'm trying to imagine how they're twisting logic to arrive at their conclusions.Don't, you'll just end up with a headache. Besides they're not using logic.

Screw this. The Hack officially urges all nations to vote this down, and then promptly vote in the most draconian and inexplicably obscure marriage regulations possible; perhaps outlawing everything except incestuous homosexual unions. Then maybe people will actually think before popping off at the mouth.You know, I'm tempted to try and do just that (for the Silly Proposals thread of course), of course if I were to do that my old kindergarden teacher (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/MrsThistletwat) will be spinning in her grave, and she isn't even dead yet.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The holo-wolf stands and applauds Dr. Leary. "Well said. We'd rather have title-voting ReadNothings than people who read without actually thinking about what they read! Oh, and, I find that lots of this Exedrine stuff helps keep the headaches away."

OOC: LMAO, THISTLETWAT! Hillarious!

What do you mean inexplicably obscure?Obscure (esoteric, occult, bizzarre) with no rational reason or guiding logic behind it.

And I'm running with the original definition of "occult" there. No offence to any witchy-types out there.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Obscure (esoteric, occult, bizzarre) with no rational reason or guiding logic behind it.

And I'm running with the original definition of "occult" there. No offence to any witchy-types out there.

I think he was being funny.

I think Rackingham should read the resolution again, and take careful note of the use of the word "asks". That clause is asking your nation to accept the marital status of visitors, it isn't forcing or mandating a damm thing.

Your nation isn't being forced to do bloody anything under this. Absolutly nada, nothing, zilch, zero. The only forceful clause in this resolution determines a nations right to recognise and regulate marriage within their borders however they wish, whether that is to regulate the crap out of it, or ignore it entirely is up to them. The other clauses are requests, which your nation is perfectly entitled to ignore, not orders.

Forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question, and If I have some reading to do, feel free to point me in the right direction... But what is the point of this resolution if Part 1 essentialy says that nations can make laws... adding nothing as nations can do so already, Part 2 (apart from being contradictory with Part 3) simply asks nations to do something yet they are free to totally ignore it, part 3 is down as "Strongly Urges" so depending on your reading, it is either somthing that adds nothing because nations can ignore it, or mandates something already protected under resolutions #26 & #99.

The way I see it, all that this one does is outlaw forced marriage (Which, whilst not explicitly stated in a previous resolution, would seem to be covered by previous resolutions anyway). Why not simply repeal resolution 53 "Universal Freedom of Choice" and reimplment it with amendments to cover this?

Forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question, and If I have some reading to do, feel free to point me in the right direction... But what is the point of this resolution if Part 1 essentialy says that nations can make laws... adding nothing as nations can do so already, Part 2 (apart from being contradictory with Part 3) simply asks nations to do something yet they are free to totally ignore it, part 3 is down as "Strongly Urges" so depending on your reading, it is either somthing that adds nothing because nations can ignore it, or mandates something already protected under resolutions #26 & #99.

The way I see it, all that this one does is outlaw forced marriage (Which, whilst not explicitly stated in a previous resolution, would seem to be covered by previous resolutions anyway). Why not simply repeal resolution 53 "Universal Freedom of Choice" and reimplment it with amendments to cover this?

It doesn't outlaw forced marriage. That line is just a statement saying "we don't like that sort of thing". These two quotes, previous posts of mine, should I hope explain what this resolution really is and what it was written to do. They were both aimed at another person, so please don't take anything in the personally.

I want to explain what this resolution is, what it is for, and what it does.

This is a nat sov blocker, no ifs, buts or maybes. It was written to block any attempt by the NSUN to pass legislation that will affect how marriage law/regulation is applied in all member nations. Don't think that won't happen, it has before and without this, it would again, sooner or later.

The only active clause in this is the declaration that does the blocking job. The other clauses are non-mandating padding, or fluff. The visitors clause is to give the resolution some semblance of an international issue, which with marriage is bloody hard to do. The discrimination clause is me showing my leftist leanings, and the forced marriage line was added shortly before submission after a suggestion from another member in the draft thread.

What it all boils down to is that your nation, under this, has the right to define, regulate or ignore marriage within your nation as you see fit, and that includes whether you decide to follow the other clauses in the resolution or not. Nothing in it says you have to do a thing.

This will protect your nations right to decide from other well meaning, but misguided legislation. If you chose to read it as forcing your nation to do squat, then that is neither my fault or problem.

Yes, you are right, part of the reason for this resolution is fear. My nation has no marriage laws, nor do we recognise the status those of our citizens who wish to call themselves married. That suits us as a nation, and is the status quo we wish to keep.

We do not want another nation passing legislation that not only forces us to recognise and regulate marriage, but also pushes that nations own ideas of what marriage should be onto our people in the process. Yes, this could be repealed in the future, if it passes, but until then nations will be protected from having another nations ideas of marriage rammed down their throats.

What the hell does this resolution have to do with prostitutes? That is already fully legal under another passed resolution. This resolution only concerns marriage, not prostitution.

When all is said and done, if you are so strongly against this resolution, then that is your right and business. Nothing we say will change your mind. The early voting on the floor is showing very strong support for this resolution though, so the majority will decide in the end.

So, in your country it's okay to prosecute wives for preventing their husbands from engaging the services or a prostitute, or woman who is not their wife?

Your nation is stupid.


I'm not sure I speak the child-like language of your nation..but please, let me try: Your nation is a poopy-head.

We have no wives. How can we prosecute them? I fail to see your logic.

But were one woman to prevent a man from engaging the services of another woman, through coercion or threats, that woman would be guilty of interference in a legitimate business enterprise. How else does one protect free enterprise?

Especially you people from Whistle-stop, or whatever the hell your backwater jerkhole is called. Aparently your objection is that even the faintest mention of the word "marriage" is odious.


Yes, you have it precicesly. Must I bang my shoe on the podium to make my position more clear?


Screw this. The Hack officially urges all nations to vote this down


You are the ambasasdor to a most wise nation. it is only a matter of time before other nations see our collective wisdom. We thank you for your support.

Before stating my government's views on the proposal at vote, I seek the indulgence of the Assembly to apologise for statements (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11806537&postcount=118) that were made during the "water" debate. Ardchoille is a completely secular state. We have no state church, our citizens have been described as "apatheists" and, although we have a government official known as "the High Priest", this is an ancient survival that would be translated, in today's terms, as "University Vice-Chancellor". We therefore regret deeply a misunderstanding, for which I take full responsibility, that led to a junior member of our delegation inadvertently appearing to proselytise the Assembly. Thank you.

Now, as to the current proposal, it would appear to my government that marriage laws exist, broadly, to protect the welfare of the individuals marrying and of any dependants of the marriage, and to govern the distribution of marital property.

Marriage customs, vows and suchlike exist, again very broadly, to deal with the spiritual or psychological state of the individuals marrying.

The United Nations has already set out a number of principles of human rights which must be observed by member nations in all contexts.

It is my government's view that it is the obligation of national governments to sort out for themselves how to achieve those rights in various contexts within their nation, including in the context of marriage. They must meet the requirements of the UN on rights; they must meet the requirements of their citizens on custom or law; they must combine the two appropriately.

For the United Nations to be forced to attend to such microscopic detail would be wasteful, tedious and ultimately unsuccessful.

This proposal protects the UN from having to undertake such an excruciatingly complex task.

At the same time, it clearly declares the need for nations to respect such laws and customs as exist in other nations within the UN's general standards of human rights. It does not impose one nation's laws or customs on another, or on all others. It is a reinforcement of a general principle, a reinforcement that, from some statements here, is sorely needed.

Therefore, Ardchoille votes FOR this proposal.
__________________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

Baumgarten's face turns red as he clearly gets irritated.

"THIS proposal is about marriage. NOT RAPE or SEX! So I will ignore that statement. It is about protecting and respecting the right of Nation's to define marriage by their beliefs and moral standards, since they varey. CUSTOMS and CULTURE varey!

"As for the comment by Ausserland: "We draw the line where the proposal draws the line. There is no contradiction. The proposal affirms the right of nations to determine their own marriage laws, but condemns a practice we find--as we hope the majority of our colleagues do--abhorrent."

"The proposal states that every Nation has the right to define marriage, then it condems a COMMONLY practiced custom. Therefore it is contradicting. Rauschenburg Empire certainly finds forced marriage disgusting and it would never happen in my empire. However we respect other cultures and in such will not support this proposal."

Baumgarten takes his seat and sips from a cup of water.

I think he was being funny.So hard to tell these days, ya know?


Yes, you have it precicesly. Must I bang my shoe on the podium to make my position more clear?Wow. Just... wow.

Tell me, what other words have you stricken from your dictionaries? Perhaps "sarcasm"? Or did you just ban dictionaries completely?


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

Screw this. The Hack officially urges all nations to vote this down, and then promptly vote in the most draconian and inexplicably obscure marriage regulations possible; perhaps outlawing everything except incestuous homosexual unions. Then maybe people will actually think before popping off at the mouth.



Dude, I got really high and came up with this:

UN Marriage Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The UN,

NOTING that the issue of marriage has created a great rift among nations, particularly between those that are sane and those that are not, as well as between those that who have two brain cells to rub together and those that do not,

RESOLVING to close this rift once and for all,

BANS all marriages in all UN member nations that do not involve at least one goat, dolphin, or one-eyed midget as one of the parties to the union.

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

We have no wives. How can we prosecute them? I fail to see your logic.

Then why in the bloody hell are you going off about wives interrupting the services of prostitutes, if you don't have wives at all?

But were one woman to prevent a man from engaging the services of another woman, through coercion or threats, that woman would be guilty of interference in a legitimate business enterprise. How else does one protect free enterprise?

With magic and starshine. Don't play cutesy with me.



Yes, you have it precicesly. Must I bang my shoe on the podium to make my position more clear?

If by "podium" you mean "head," then go right ahead.

Have you even read the fucking proposal?

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.

Now go away and stop bothering the rest of us with your claptrap.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassdor to the UN

Then why in the bloody hell are you going off about wives interrupting the services of prostitutes, if you don't have wives at all?


As stated, the resolution ASKS the nation of Whistleton to repsect the marriage laws of other countries. As such, WIVES will enter our country with the expectation that they can use that abhorrant tradition to restrain free and legal trade. And then we would arrest them. This doesn't seem to be the best solution.

We find this particular request of the Act odious, regardless of whether or not we are required to implement it. Were I to ASK you to have sex with a goat, you likely would not, and would also likely be offended, even though having sex with a goat would not be REQUIRED.

Then again, maybe not....if you find yourself so inclined, or if your nation is full of such deviants, Whistleton is prepared to open an export agreement with your nation exclusively for the trade of virginal goats.


With magic and starshine. Don't play cutesy with me.

We have neither magic nor starshine in our country, though we did have starshine once. It is blocked out now by the glare of our basketweaving and pizza factories working night and day.

And rest assured, I would never play cutesy with you. Prostitutes earn less than Ambassadors.


If by "podium" you mean "head," then go right ahead.


Using your head would perhaps be more constructive. I find it hard to believe that the people of your nation cannot comprehend the simple concepts I am putting forth. Perhaps you should allocate more public monies toward education...

Baumgarten's face turns red as he clearly gets irritated.

"THIS proposal is about marriage. NOT RAPE or SEX! So I will ignore that statement. It is about protecting and respecting the right of Nation's to define marriage by their beliefs and moral standards, since they varey. CUSTOMS and CULTURE varey!

"As for the comment by Ausserland: "We draw the line where the proposal draws the line. There is no contradiction. The proposal affirms the right of nations to determine their own marriage laws, but condemns a practice we find--as we hope the majority of our colleagues do--abhorrent."

"The proposal states that every Nation has the right to define marriage, then it condems a COMMONLY practiced custom. Therefore it is contradicting. Rauschenburg Empire certainly finds forced marriage disgusting and it would never happen in my empire. However we respect other cultures and in such will not support this proposal."

Baumgarten takes his seat and sips from a cup of water.

It is always easier to ignore arguments than respond to them, isn't it? Apparently the idea of using an analogy to make a point is offensive to the representative of Rauschenburg, so, out of concern for his blood pressure, we will refrain from using that mode of argument.

We're not sure how commonly practiced forced marriage is in the world of NationStates. We don't know how the representative can make such an assertion, but perhaps he has information we do not.

The resolution states that nations must be free to establish their own marital laws (or establish no such laws, if they choose) without interference by the NSUN. It then makes a statement of principle, condemning the practice of forced marriage. On the one hand, it sets up a procedural barrier. On the other, it expresses the opinion of those voting in favor of the resolution. If the representative is unable to understand the difference, that's to be regretted, but we see no way to overcome it. The resolution simply is not contradictory, no matter how red-in-the-face the representative gets or how loudly he yells.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'm sure that a nation so devoted to looking to find ways to lock up people who wish to simply visit their nation (and spend their currency by the way) would find some other way to mess with peope who want to visit in peace. Polygamy is a sort of obvious case, but what if a nation has a genetic requirement that prohibits brown eyed people from marrying green eyed people on pain on death? Should a couple be sentenced to death for not knowing the 4,568th law of the nation who they are visiting?

And I need to say this one more time, visiting! We're not talking visas, or long term stays, or applications for citizenship, but visits to the nation in question. Do you really want UN member nations willy nilly arresting citizens of other UN member nations in a tit for tat war of bizzare political marriage regulations? I hope not!

I think the imporant note here is matter of jurisdiction, they may be visiting nation A from B, but their marriage is a legal standing and jurisdiction of Nation B, not A... So technically nation A cannot arrest people with perfectly legal marriages regulated under nation B's laws, merely because they are visiting, simply from the fact that, even if they have multiple spouses, they broke no law in Nation A obtaining them.... To arrest visitors, as such, would be an act of war upon the laws of Nation A, and Nation B would be justified in taking military action against the government of Nation A for disregard of it's citizens abroad.

As stated, the resolution ASKS the nation of Whistleton to repsect the marriage laws of other countries. As such, WIVES will enter our country with the expectation that they can use that abhorrant tradition to restrain free and legal trade. And then we would arrest them. This doesn't seem to be the best solution.

Okay... first off, it's a non-binding clause. It doesn't force you to respect the marriage laws of other nations, merely requests that you do.

Secondly, why the hell does it matter? I believe it was pointed out several times that if you have a problem with married folk entering your country, you could just NOT LET THEM IN THE COUNTRY. I don't know about your nation, but in the Great Star Empire, we are very careful about who we let into the country- we have very tight control over out borders.

We find this particular request of the Act odious, regardless of whether or not we are required to implement it. Were I to ASK you to have sex with a goat, you likely would not, and would also likely be offended, even though having sex with a goat would not be REQUIRED.

What in the name of god are you talking about? Sonofabitch, not another one of those "OMG it doesn't require me to do anything but I'm going to oppose it anyway" idiots.

Then again, maybe not....if you find yourself so inclined, or if your nation is full of such deviants, Whistleton is prepared to open an export agreement with your nation exclusively for the trade of virginal goats.

The goat market in Allech-Atreus isn't very large, and it's not our concern to prop it up. We thank you for the offer of goat-trading, though.

Goat milk is really only popular in Danaae... I can't say why. Sheep are much more common in the Empire.

Oh, wait- you were talking about having SEX with the goats. I'm sorry- I guess I was thinking about more important things than the sexual proclivities of people I don't even know. Sorry about that one!


Prostitutes earn less than Ambassadors.

Maybe in your nation. I know for a fact that some of the courtesans on may capital planet make more money than the common planetary governor- which is WAY more than I make in a year.

Using your head would perhaps be more constructive. I find it hard to believe that the people of your nation cannot comprehend the simple concepts I am putting forth. Perhaps you should allocate more public monies toward education...

I find it hard to believe that you can object to a proposal that doesn't require you to do something, simply for the cause of objecting to it. To me, it sounds like you can't find something substantial to complain about, so you're just going with whatever you can find.

Perhaps you should go away.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Gets Paid Less than an Imperia Prostitute

I think the imporant note here is matter of jurisdiction, they may be visiting nation A from B, but their marriage is a legal standing and jurisdiction of Nation B, not A... So technically nation A cannot arrest people with perfectly legal marriages regulated under nation B's laws, merely because they are visiting, simply from the fact that, even if they have multiple spouses, they broke no law in Nation A obtaining them.... To arrest visitors, as such, would be an act of war upon the laws of Nation A, and Nation B would be justified in taking military action against the government of Nation A for disregard of it's citizens abroad.

It’s nice to see some intelligent conversation for a change. You have a valid point, but this was not exactly what I was addressing. First of all the resolution simply, “asks each UN member nation to respect and recognize the marital status of international visitors.” This brings the question of what might be important in relation to a marital status.

Let’s consider a couple of things that “married” couples can take for granted as a matter of course. One obvious example is booking a common room at a hotel. My Google Fu is quite weak, but I know there are known problems with trying to gain entry into a country for an unrecognized spouse even for purposes of visitation. (There was an infamous case in the RW US a while back where a Canadian homosexual couple was refused entry into the United States under the forms as a legally married couple.)

In the end, however, this is a mild clause, asking not requiring. Still actions which are legal for married people may not be legal for non married people. Some rights, which others might consider absolutely fundamental are strangely lined through marital status. The right of a spouse to visit in a hospital’s emergency room is a major thing to a visiting couple that was unfortunate enough to be in an accident.

For these reasons I really like the clause in the resolution, even if it is only a mild one. It takes a pure blocker and adds something I firmly believe is a strong benefit to all traveling people.

As stated, the resolution ASKS the nation of Whistleton to repsect the marriage laws of other countries. As such, WIVES will enter our country with the expectation that they can use that abhorrant tradition to restrain free and legal trade. And then we would arrest them. This doesn't seem to be the best solution.Well, it's a situation that you're going to face unless the N.S.U.N. simply parrots your country's policies and bans marriage altogether.

And the chances of that happening are slim and none, and Slim has left the building.I think the imporant note here is matter of jurisdiction, they may be visiting nation A from B, but their marriage is a legal standing and jurisdiction of Nation B, not A... So technically nation A cannot arrest people with perfectly legal marriages regulated under nation B's laws, merely because they are visiting, simply from the fact that, even if they have multiple spouses, they broke no law in Nation A obtaining them.... To arrest visitors, as such, would be an act of war upon the laws of Nation A, and Nation B would be justified in taking military action against the government of Nation A for disregard of it's citizens abroad.Actually, this raises a problem we have with most “marry whomever you wish” proposals: such proposals permit “divorce through immigration”, which could be problematic.

Let's say Bob Dobbs marries Barb Dobbs, and they have three kids: Betty, Bart, and Benny Dobbs. Now Bob decides he wants out of the marriage. While Community Property sees “no fault” and “on demand” divorce as good things, we believe that Bob have marital obligations to Betty, Bart, Benny, and possibly Barb. If Bob can get a divorce simply by moving to Whistleton, and be utterly free of all obligations upon doing so, then the world has a problem.

This is why Community Property believes that we need a resolution requiring universal adherence to legal contracts; let Bob flee to Whistleton and get an effective divorce, but without the right to ignore such things as the need to pay alimony, child support, and such, or to ignore community property laws (as opposed to Community Property laws, for those who might be case-challenged).Screw this. The Hack officially urges all nations to vote this down, and then promptly vote in the most draconian and inexplicably obscure marriage regulations possible; perhaps outlawing everything except incestuous homosexual unions. Then maybe people will actually think before popping off at the mouth.We'll get on it immediately!

And then again, given our time constraints...You know, I'm tempted to try and do just that (for the Silly Proposals thread of course), of course if I were to do that my old kindergarden teacher (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/MrsThistletwat) will be spinning in her grave, and she isn't even dead yet.You and I could simply endorse Cluichistan's excellent proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11820919&postcount=90). Besides, were you aware that Cluichistan has a friggin' Death Star?!?

The NSUN has the legal right to define, enforce, and protect mariatal laws within its juristiction. This resolution would inhibit the abillity for us to do this. All it would do is limit the NSUN's capacity to protect the marriages of its citizens, accomplishing nothing. All the other clauses look nice and have a feel of fairness to them, but the language includes words like "condems", "urges", and, even milder, "asks". No where does it say these noble causes will be enforced in any way, shape, or form. Those clauses are there to trick you into ignoring the fundmental issue of the resolution, rescricting the United Nations' ability to protect marriage in the member nations.

Isn't this resolution similar to the "Full Faith and Credit" provision of the U.S. Constitution? (Except that it's limited to marriage.)

Isn't the main thrust that, if a couple (or whatever) is legally married in one U.N. nation, and then moves to another, they will still be regarded as "married" in that new nation, even if that new nation's marriage laws wouldn't have allowed them to marry there in the first place?

Personally I believe the U.N. Charter is more of a "United Nations" thing than just a random social gathering of ambassadors if the member nations are required to "extend full faith and credit" to one another's acts.

Has anyone else already posted thoughts about it this way?

--------
Chiarizio

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

Oneechan will have to oppose this resolution. Simply on the grounds of the indicated passage. This would contradict the resolutions stance to respect each UN member nation's right to their own marriage laws and traditions.

In Oneechan no-one marries for love. All partnerships are government selected and approved. A single person wishing to have a partner submits an application to the State. The State then selects an appropriate companion for the applicant.

In Oneechan, you have no civil rights. You are a minion. The government owns you. There is no such thing as migration from Oneechan, nor are there any refugees leaving our borders. Well none leaving alive, anyway.

The Shark Infested Custard of Oneechan.
UN Delegate for Strongbadia.

The NSUN has the legal right to define, enforce, and protect mariatal laws within its juristiction. This resolution would inhibit the abillity for us to do this. All it would do is limit the NSUN's capacity to protect the marriages of its citizens, accomplishing nothing. All the other clauses look nice and have a feel of fairness to them, but the language includes words like "condems", "urges", and, even milder, "asks". No where does it say these noble causes will be enforced in any way, shape, or form. Those clauses are there to trick you into ignoring the fundmental issue of the resolution, rescricting the United Nations' ability to protect marriage in the member nations.

The NSUN has the legal right to choose to restrict its own actions to areas of appropriate international concern. It is exercising that right. So why don't you just stop whining already?

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

And then again, given our time constraints...You and I could simply endorse Cluichistan's excellent proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11820919&postcount=90). Besides, were you aware that Cluichistan has a friggin' Death Star?!?Of course I'm aware that the Cluichistanis have a Death Star. Hell, DEFCON has their headquarters on it.

Personally I believe the U.N. Charter is more of a "United Nations" thing than just a random social gathering of ambassadors if the member nations are required to "extend full faith and credit" to one another's acts.

We have a charter?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Isn't this resolution similar to the "Full Faith and Credit" provision of the U.S. Constitution? (Except that it's limited to marriage.)

Isn't the main thrust that, if a couple (or whatever) is legally married in one U.N. nation, and then moves to another, they will still be regarded as "married" in that new nation, even if that new nation's marriage laws wouldn't have allowed them to marry there in the first place?

Personally I believe the U.N. Charter is more of a "United Nations" thing than just a random social gathering of ambassadors if the member nations are required to "extend full faith and credit" to one another's acts.

Has anyone else already posted thoughts about it this way?

--------
Chiarizio

We'd like to thank our new colleague from Chiarizio for his interesting comment and for raising the level of this debate several notches. We hadn't thought of the proposal in terms of "full faith and credit" exactly, but rather in terms of a quite similar concept more commonly encountered in international relations: reciprocity. The old "do unto others" business. Since there is no formal charter for the NSUN, there's no "full faith and credit" requirement in place. But reciprocity is alive and kicking among nations with a sensible attitude toward foreign relations.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

What in the name of god are you talking about? Sonofabitch, not another one of those "OMG it doesn't require me to do anything but I'm going to oppose it anyway" idiots.

If this Act is so trivial, then why is it being defended so vigorously?


Maybe in your nation. I know for a fact that some of the courtesans on may capital planet make more money than the common planetary governor- which is WAY more than I make in a year.

This is likely due to the unfair monopoly on sexual services that wives enjoy and the governmental protections thereof. Remove that monopoly, and I believe you would find that sexual favors from beautiful courtesans would reach market equilibrium at a much more affordable rate.


Perhaps you should go away.


And perhaps I won't.

Oneechan will have to oppose this resolution. Simply on the grounds of the indicated passage. This would contradict the resolutions stance to respect each UN member nation's right to their own marriage laws and traditions.

In Oneechan no-one marries for love. All partnerships are government selected and approved. A single person wishing to have a partner submits an application to the State. The State then selects an appropriate companion for the applicant.

In Oneechan, you have no civil rights. You are a minion. The government owns you. There is no such thing as migration from Oneechan, nor are there any refugees leaving our borders. Well none leaving alive, anyway.

The Shark Infested Custard of Oneechan.
UN Delegate for Strongbadia.

A clarification, please.... Does the State select the partner from among others who have applied?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

"That would make them willing, and thus not really in violation, I feel."

Actually, this raises a problem we have with most “marry whomever you wish” proposals: such proposals permit “divorce through immigration”, which could be problematic.

Let's say Bob Dobbs marries Barb Dobbs, and they have three kids: Betty, Bart, and Benny Dobbs. Now Bob decides he wants out of the marriage. While Community Property sees “no fault” and “on demand” divorce as good things, we believe that Bob have marital obligations to Betty, Bart, Benny, and possibly Barb. If Bob can get a divorce simply by moving to Whistleton, and be utterly free of all obligations upon doing so, then the world has a problem.

This is why Community Property believes that we need a resolution requiring universal adherence to legal contracts; let Bob flee to Whistleton and get an effective divorce, but without the right to ignore such things as the need to pay alimony, child support, and such, or to ignore community property laws (as opposed to Community Property laws, for those who might be case-challenged).

According to this Act, Whistleton is not required to respect the so-called marriages of other nations. I believe several members of this body have shouted this very thing from the pulpit, as if we are simpletons.

In your hypothetical example, were Bob to immigrate to Whistleton, his marriage would not be recognized.

Your stance that we should do something about that is exactly why we oppose this Act in the first place. No matter how toothless and feel-good these acts are, they are always a small step towards a bigger encroachment on our rights to define marriage as we wish...and in our nation's case, to be free to continue the longstanding tradition of a marriage-free society.

According to this Act, Whistleton is not required to respect the so-called marriages of other nations. I believe several members of this body have shouted this very thing from the pulpit, as if we are simpletons.

In your hypothetical example, were Bob to immigrate to Whistleton, his marriage would not be recognized.

Your stance that we should do something about that is exactly why we oppose this Act in the first place. No matter how toothless and feel-good these acts are, they are always a small step towards a bigger encroachment on our rights to define marriage as we wish.

Actually, if you had the slightest knowledge of the history of the United Nations, you would know that there was in fact a resolution defining marriage that encroached rather massively on that right you so treasure, that it was repealed, and that this is the attempt to keep there from being another one.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

If this Act is so trivial, then why is it being defended so vigorously?Because it's a blocker, to stop the efforts of conservative nations to pass some kind of asinine garbage about marriage being a sacred bond between ONE (1) man (i.e., MALE HUMAN) and ONE (1) womand (i.e., FEMALE HUMAN).

Which means that if Whistleton had a lick of sense, it would support this measure.This is likely due to the unfair monopoly on sexual services that wives enjoy and the governmental protections thereof. Remove that monopoly, and I believe you would find that sexual favors from beautiful courtesans would reach market equilibrium at a much more affordable rate.An odd position for a capitalist nation to take. Even communists like us understand why cars built by Allemande's (http://www.nationstates.net/Allemande) AMW (Allemander Auto Works) fetch a significantly higher price than cars produced by Yekrut's (http://www.nationstates.net/Yekrut) Izmat Motor Company...

(And for the feeble minded out there, it's not labor cost: auto workers in Allemande earn virtually the same thing as their counterparts in Yekrut, and productivity is also virtually the same. All you have to do is compare the statistics for the one (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Allemande&nationstring=Allemande:Ayaddha:Ayoddha:Ayuddha:Baalallilah:Baalullilah:Ayad:Quur_and_Quum:Quumah) against the other (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Yekrut).

In other words, price differences don't just reflect labor costs, productivity, and the state of competition; they also sometimes reflect differences in quality.)Actually, this raises a problem we have with most “marry whomever you wish” proposals: such proposals permit “divorce through immigration”, which could be problematic.

Let's say Bob Dobbs marries Barb Dobbs, and they have three kids: Betty, Bart, and Benny Dobbs. Now Bob decides he wants out of the marriage. While Community Property sees “no fault” and “on demand” divorce as good things, we believe that Bob have marital obligations to Betty, Bart, Benny, and possibly Barb. If Bob can get a divorce simply by moving to Whistleton, and be utterly free of all obligations upon doing so, then the world has a problem.

This is why Community Property believes that we need a resolution requiring universal adherence to legal contracts; let Bob flee to Whistleton and get an effective divorce, but without the right to ignore such things as the need to pay alimony, child support, and such, or to ignore community property laws (as opposed to Community Property laws, for those who might be case-challenged).Your stance that we should do something about that is exactly why we oppose this Act in the first place. No matter how toothless and feel-good these acts are, they are always a small step towards a bigger encroachment on our rights to define marriage as we wish...and in our nation's case, to be free to continue the longstanding tradition of a marriage-free society.Your people (or at least your N.S.U.N. delegation) are clearly intellectually challenged. Is it the water, or just inbreeding?

You utterly misunderstand our comments. We are stating that there is a problem due to the fact that a couple who are married in one country might not be married in another, thus permitting one party to a marriage the ability to flee the effects of the marriage contract in such a way as to deny the other party (or parties) any legal compensation for the breach of that contract whatsoever. Your “solution” to the problem is to ignore it.

We're not asking that you permit marriage; we're suggesting that you (and other nations) not permit those married elsewhere the ability to escape the legal consequences of divorce by fleeing to your country.

Or don't contracts mean anything in Whistleton?In your hypothetical example, were Bob to immigrate to Whistleton, his marriage would not be recognized.And so Bob could escape his contractual obligations without those harmed by this act (e.g., his children) being able to have recourse to the courts for the sake of a redress of the injury done to them?!?

What kind of country are you, where breach of contract is not just permitted, but encouraged?!?

Actually, if you had the slightest knowledge of the history of the United Nations, you would know that there was in fact a resolution defining marriage that encroached rather massively on that right you so treasure, that it was repealed, and that this is the attempt to keep there from being another one.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce


Those acts were already mentioned, though their numbers were erroneously reported.

UN Resolution 81 defined marriage, and in it's growing maturity and wisdom, the greater UN body then repealed that act via Resolution 173.

I believe I have already discussed this very thing with another Ambassador, and take it as proof that the UN as a whole will not long tolerate a strict definition of marriage, thus this Act as a "blocker" is unecessary.

Furthermore, other Ambassadors have already begun to hint that this Act will be the first step to requiring UN nations to recognize each other's foul definitions of marriage, thus further proving Whistleton's wisdom in rejecting it.

Are you not paying attention?

In other words, price differences don't just reflect labor costs, productivity, and the state of competition; they also sometimes reflect differences in quality.)Your people (or at least your N.S.U.N. delegation) are clearly intellectually challenged. Is it the water, or just inbreeding?

So, you are telling me that your wives are of such inferior quality that the price of courtesans soars by comparison? I am glad we do not support the concept of marriage, if that is the case..


Or don't contracts mean anything in Whistleton?And so Bob could escape his contractual obligations without those harmed by this act (e.g., his children) being able to have recourse to the courts for the sake of a redress of the injury done to them?!?

Clearly, the capitalist nation of Whistleton would not take business advice from a nation with an Imploded economy.
Why would Whistleton allow itself to be bound by the all of the various contract laws of all other nations? That is rediculous. We may from time to time make treaties with other nations to recognize certain contractual rights across borders. But a blanket recognition? That is a disaster waiting to happen. No wonder your economy is so poor. Might I suggest that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to business?


I'm sorry..Whistleton is new to the UN body. In our own country we would not speak with such language. But insults appear to be the diplomatic norm here. Would this be the appropriate time for me to call you a "dumbass"?

Those acts were already mentioned, though their numbers were erroneously reported.

UN Resolution 81 defined marriage, and in it's growing maturity and wisdom, the greater UN body then repealed that act via Resolution 173.

I believe I have already discussed this very thing with another Ambassador, and take it as proof that the UN as a whole will not long tolerate a strict definition of marriage, thus this Act as a "blocker" is unecessary.

Well, isn't that nice. Your lack of a grasp of UN history is still dangling. You see, some folks have a habit of replacing repealed resolutions with another resolution that they think is "better" but still takes away nation's rights. For example, "Promotion of Solar Panels" was repealed, and then quickly replaced by the "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act", a resolution with the same aims and a method that was somewhat better than that it replaced, but still not good, and ultimately still abridged national rights unjustifiedly.

Furthermore, other Ambassadors have already begun to hint that this Act will be the first step to requiring UN nations to recognize each other's foul definitions of marriage, thus further proving Whistleton's wisdom in rejecting it.

You'll just have to understand if I consider my hints a lot more educated and much more likely to be correct than those other Ambassadors.

Are you not paying attention?

I don't always stand around the General Assembly listening to folks whine, and as a result I didn't hear your earlier conversation.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Well, isn't that nice. Your lack of a grasp of UN history is still dangling. You see, some folks have a habit of replacing repealed resolutions with another resolution that they think is "better" but still takes away nation's rights. For example, "Promotion of Solar Panels" was repealed, and then quickly replaced by the "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act", a resolution with the same aims and a method that was somewhat better than that it replaced, but still not good, and ultimately still abridged national rights unjustifiedly.

The nation of Whistleton made itself cognizant of all prior UN acts before joining this assembly.
We agree that the process is imperfect, and that many times good intentions can lead to bad resolutions. We feel that this is one of those times, for the reasons stated.


I don't always stand around the General Assembly listening to folks whine, and as a result I didn't hear your earlier conversation.


Noted. Whistleton will in the future grant your arguments the weight due to one who mouths off without being fully informed of the facts.

UN Resolution 81 defined marriage, and in it's growing maturity and wisdom, the greater UN body then repealed that act via Resolution 173.

I believe I have already discussed this very thing with another Ambassador, and take it as proof that the UN as a whole will not long tolerate a strict definition of marriage, thus this Act as a "blocker" is unecessary.

Furthermore, other Ambassadors have already begun to hint that this Act will be the first step to requiring UN nations to recognize each other's foul definitions of marriage, thus further proving Whistleton's wisdom in rejecting it.

Are you not paying attention?

We believe the distinguished representative of HotRodia is indeed paying attention, despite the childish sneer of the representative of Whistleton.

The representative takes the repeal of "Definition of Marriage" as "proof" that an intrusive proposal on marriage would not be passed by this body. We fail to find any substance in this "proof". Those of us who have been members of this Assembly for some time have seen marked swings back and forth in the predispositions of the members to pass certain types of legislation. Unless the representative of Whistleton has a crystal ball, we cannot accept his claim.

Further, we're afraid that his statement that "this Act will be the first step to requiring UN nations to recognize each other's foul definitions of marriage" simply displays his ignorance of how this body operates and what this proposal does. He obviously has not read, has failed to understand, or has chosen to ignore the explanations provided by others. So we'll try one more time....

The resolution reserves the right to nations to "define and regulate marriage and civil union within their own borders as they see fit". With this resolution in place, the NSUN cannot do as the representative fears. Period. Such a proposal would be in violation of the contradiction rule, and would be deleted by the moderators. In order for such a proposal to be legal, this resolution would first have to be repealed. It places a stumbling block in the path of NSUN micro-management of marital law.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The nation of Whistleton made itself cognizant of all prior UN acts before joining this assembly. We agree that the process is imperfect, and that many times good intentions can lead to bad resolutions. We feel that this is one of those times, for the reasons stated.

Noted. Whistleton will in the future grant your arguments the weight due to one who mouths off without being fully informed of the facts.

That's pretty ironic coming from somebody who thinks that a blocker can be used as a stepping-stone to UN meddling despite the simple fact that it cannot. That particular slope ain't slippery.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Isn't this resolution similar to the "Full Faith and Credit" provision of the U.S. Constitution? (Except that it's limited to marriage.)

No.

The Full Faith and Credit is a really nasty provision (even limiting it to marriage) which requires states to accept marriages in other states. People who are married in other states can move into the state and expect all the rights and privilidges of marriage because they hold a valid marriage license from another state. Not only that, but people from a state can go to another state, get married and move back to the original state with a legal marriage in hand.

This provision only applies to foreigners and to visiting foreigners. It doesn't mention rights and priviledges. It doesn't allow your own citizens to go to some UN nation with different laws and return claiming that you have to recognize their new marriage license as legally binding between your state and the new couple. It doesn't apply to foreigners applying for citizenship in your country. Because of this, it is not really the same as the Full Faith and Credit provision.

So, you are telling me that your wives are of such inferior quality that the price of courtesans soars by comparison? I am glad we do not support the concept of marriage, if that is the case..<drops head into hands, shakes head>

No, we're explaining to people who don't understand economics why courtesans in Allech-Atreus fetch such high prices in comparison with the diseased tarts you have in Whistleton.Clearly, the capitalist nation of Whistleton would not take business advice from a nation with an Imploded economy.Clearly you need it, not understanding economics. As for our economy, are you incapable of understanding that every economic choice carries with it a social cost, and every social choice an economic one? Perhaps we in Community Property prefer a simple agrarian life in our pristine tropical wilderness, in harmony and cooperation with one another, rather than caught up in the breakneck, “dog-eat-dog”, “keep-up-with-the-Joneses” materialism so deplorably common in our moderm world. No, unlike some of our less-aware socialist colleagues - especially those obsessed with the Soviet model - we don't expect to live as capitalists in a socialist society.

So don't lecture us on economics; rest assured that we have forgotten more about the subject than you ever knew.Why would Whistleton allow itself to be bound by the all of the various contract laws of all other nations? That is rediculous. We may from time to time make treaties with other nations to recognize certain contractual rights across borders. But a blanket recognition? That is a disaster waiting to happen.Certainly Whistleton doesn't encourage people to break their contracts freely? Certainly you don't deny the right of aggrieved parties to seek redress from the courts?

Or maybe you do...No wonder your economy is so poor. Might I suggest that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to business?May we suggest that you are a bunch of intellectually challenged simpletons, not understanding the concept of conscious choice?

Rest assured that if our economy ever rose above a ranking of “Imploded”, we would take that as a sign that we were doing something wrong and move to correct the imbalance immediately.I'm sorry..Whistleton is new to the UN body. In our own country we would not speak with such language. But insults appear to be the diplomatic norm here. Would this be the appropriate time for me to call you a "dumbass"?No. Once you've been around for a while, you'll understand that calling someone a “dumbass” is poor diplomatic form, especially coming from a country whose leaders likely couldn't find their bottoms in the dark with both hands, a flashlight, and a book on anatomy.

The resolution reserves the right to nations to "define and regulate marriage and civil union within their own borders as they see fit". With this resolution in place, the NSUN cannot do as the representative fears. Period. Such a proposal would be in violation of the contradiction rule, and would be deleted by the moderators. In order for such a proposal to be legal, this resolution would first have to be repealed. It places a stumbling block in the path of NSUN micro-management of marital law.

OOC: Since this mentions moderators, not a roleplay entity (unless you count the HotRodian car by that name)...

Ausserland is correct. Because of the UN proposal rules, specifically the one regarding contradiction, this resolution would need to be repealed before anyone could make a resolution that defined or regulated marriage in member nations.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

OOC: Since this mentions moderators, not a roleplay entity (unless you count the HotRodian car by that name)...

Ausserland is correct. Because of the UN proposal rules, specifically the one regarding contradiction, this resolution would need to be repealed before anyone could make a resolution that defined or regulated marriage in member nations.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia


ooc: I'm aware of that :)

<drops head into hands, shakes head>
No, we're explaining to people who don't understand economics why courtesans in Allech-Atreus fetch such high prices in comparison with the diseased tarts you have in Whistleton.

I believe this statement is simply the rantings of a jealous beatnik that cannot scrape together the money necessary to afford one of our gloriously attractive, yet affordably priced prostittues.


So don't lecture us on economics; rest assured that we have forgotten more about the subject than you ever knew.

And yet still you attempt to lecture us on a subject in which you allegedly don't even remember the basic rules of. Interesting. No matter. Whistleton sees your nation's poor economic performance, and takes it as proof that your economic arguments carry no weight.

I can see, however, that you've completely abandoned any argumentation in support of this flawed legislation. Whistleton recognizes the gesture thanks you for your support in this matter, even if made with attempts to save face upon your exit from the debate proper.

I believe this statement is simply the rantings of a jealous beatnik that cannot scrape together the money necessary to afford one of our gloriously attractive, yet affordably priced prostittues.Yeah, right.
And yet still you attempt to lecture us on a subject in which you allegedly don't even remember the basic rules of. Interesting.This from a delegation that doesn't recognize the relationship between quality and demand, and hence the relationship between demand and price. Interesting.No matter. Whistleton sees your nation's poor economic performance, and takes it as proof that your economic arguments carry no weight.Whistleton has already proven its ability to see only what it wants to see, so your (lack of) vision carries no weight.I can see, however, that you've completely abandoned any argumentation in support of this flawed legislation. Whistleton recognizes the gesture thanks you for your support in this matter, even if made with attempts to save face upon your exit from the debate proper.You wish.

Look, this has been pointed out to you umpteen times; your failure to see it is proof of your poor abilities when it comes to logical analysis: The resolution is a “blocker”; it is meant to deter future N.S.U.N. legislation with regards to marriage, and achieves this goal:


To enact new marriage legislation, any bloc of would-be marriage activists would have to repeal this resolution, and then push a new resolution through this body in the wake of that repeal. That's a lot of work to enact a change, and the time required to achieve it would give those opposed to marriage legislation that much more of an opportunity to organize resistance against it.


In addition, while this body has a history of passing ill-conceived, poorly-worded, and just plain stupid legislation at the drop of a hat, so-called “replacements” get far more scrutiny than original legislation, especially when offered on the heels of a repeal.


These two facts conspire to prevent the passage of “quick and dirty” resolutions, for the following reasons:


People who write stupid resolutions generally don't take the time to make sure that their resolutions are legal, so they get deleted from queue. After a few tries at getting the measure to a vote, such people usually give up.


People who are more serious and are willing to push for a repeal to clear the way for new legislation end up mounting an effort that tips off the rest of us to their efforts; they usually get beaten at repeal, unless there is broad support for the measure they are trying to pass.


Measures passed in the wake of a repeal are seldom stupid; they have been extensive debated and usually get rewritten to reflect the objections offered.


The result is less bad legislation and more deliberation in the passage of good legislation. But then, that is the whole point of blockers: to raise the bar with regards to what this body does. Ask Texan Hotrodders, who pretty much invented the concept.


The proof is in the pudding: we used to see constant efforts to ban nuclear weapons; now we see none. Efforts to ban homosexuality get nowhere; efforts to establish minimum wages and standard work weeks are much harder to mount.

The tactic works.


The past history of this body in meddling with national rules regarding marriage has been established, and the repeal of DoMA in no way indicates that we are safe from this. Many who voted for DoMA did so not because they wish to see marriage unregulated, but because they wish to define it as being strictly between one man and one woman. The need for a blocker is obvious to anyone who has been around here for any time.

Which you, by your own admission, have not been.


To read into this resolution an endorsement of or a mandate requiring marriage is the height of perversity; its neutrality on the matter could not be more obvious.


Regardless of whether this passes or not, you will face the issue of married foreign travelers arriving at your shores. The only way you wouldn't would be if the N.S.U.N. were to ban marriage, and even then you'd still have to deal with visits from the citizens of non-members.

Needless to say, the N.S.U.N. isn't going to ban marriage. Ever.

This is a point we raised earlier and one you ignored. And no wonder! It is a point you can not answer. Regardless of the passage of this resolution, your situation will remain exactly the same.Yet, given the foregoing, you continue to oppose legislation that is in your country's best interests.

And you wonder why we question the competence of your government.

blah blah blah whore blah blah blah prostitutes blah blah blah

Oh, I assure you, the Imperial courtesans are very high class.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/kuroutesshin/juunihitoe3.jpg

Now sir, would you not care to spend an evening with such a fine lady? She is trained in the secret arts of love.

Or, if you like guys, we've got some of them too.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador
Baron

with a pro gay vote of 5:1 in the UN resolution currently up for vote, I'm happy that none of you are involved in REAL politics. This is sick! This the same law that wasn't upheld in Greece and Rome right before their fall.

Personally, and politcally, I am all for :fluffle:. I also, on the other hand, think that we don't need this legislation. It is saying that we can legally do something (define marriage and recognize it) that was already legal! No one ever said that we couldn't do it, so why do we have to be told we can? Also, I find that some of the closing statements are actually encroaching on the definition of marriage. If a religion has a tradition of arranged marriages, then it must recognized according to this legislation, but because the two persons actually may not consent, it is also illegal according to this legislation. I cannot stand by a resolution that dissagrees with itself, let alone that it was unessecary to begin with.

Personally, and politcally, I am all for :fluffle:. I also, on the other hand, think that we don't need this legislation. It is saying that we can legally do something (define marriage and recognize it) that was already legal! No one ever said that we couldn't do it, so why do we have to be told we can? Also, I find that some of the closing statements are actually encroaching on the definition of marriage. If a religion has a tradition of arranged marriages, then it must recognized according to this legislation, but because the two persons actually may not consent, it is also illegal according to this legislation. I cannot stand by a resolution that dissagrees with itself, let alone that it was unessecary to begin with.

We'd respectfully ask the representative of Rhelan to take a few minutes to read some of the previous posts in this thread. The purpose the resolution will serve has been explained time and time again. We must also point out that the resolution says nothing about arranged marriages. It condemns forced marriages, and there's a great difference.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

with a pro gay vote of 5:1 in the UN resolution currently up for vote, I'm happy that none of you are involved in REAL politics. This is sick! This the same law that wasn't upheld in Greece and Rome right before their fall.

Contrary to the mindless rant of the homophobic troll from Armed n Dangerous, there is nothing pro-gay or anti-gay about this resolution. Period.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

with a pro gay vote of 5:1 in the UN resolution currently up for vote, I'm happy that none of you are involved in REAL politics. This is sick! This the same law that wasn't upheld in Greece and Rome right before their fall.

Your ignorance is matched only by your idiocy. Go away, adults are talking.

Contrary to the mindless rant of the homophobic troll from Armed n Dangerous, there is nothing pro-gay or anti-gay about this resolution. Period.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Agreed...

The vote is more like 3.7 to 1 now, though.

Well done. You've got our vote, just as soon as the damned UN Office approves our membership application.

If this Act is so trivial, then why is it being defended so vigorously?If it's so trivial, why are you attacking it so vigorously?

Those acts were already mentioned, though their numbers were erroneously reported.

UN Resolution 81 defined marriage, and in it's growing maturity and wisdom, the greater UN body then repealed that act via Resolution 173.

I believe I have already discussed this very thing with another Ambassador, and take it as proof that the UN as a whole will not long tolerate a strict definition of marriage, thus this Act as a "blocker" is unecessary.And with nations leaving and joining the UN constantly, who's to say that the balance of power won't shift in the future towards the side who want the UN to meddle in every intranational affair they can.

with a pro gay vote of 5:1 in the UN resolution currently up for vote, I'm happy that none of you are involved in REAL politics. This is sick! This the same law that wasn't upheld in Greece and Rome right before their fall.Have you been smoking with the Cluichistani ambassador?

St Jello Biafra;11824139']Well done. You've got our vote, just as soon as the damned UN Office approves our membership application.
While the UN is a soulless bureaucracy I highly doubt that that automatically damns them to hell.;)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Oh shi--

I forgot to do this in my earlier post.


Norderia has officially determined to follow the following (ha!) course of action:

Norderia
ABSTAAAIIINSSSsssSSSsssssssss

Ahem. Thank you for bearing witness to the most extreme and long-winded abstaining of all time (reduced for consideration of those with smaller monitors.)

You broke the page.

You broke the page.

Sorry. 17 inch laptop. I'll fix it.

I believe in the ideals behind this resolution. While we should leave the definition of marriage up to the individual nations, we should push for nations to recognize the marriages of foreign visitors.

however, we have an issue. it would seem that this resolution could be considered to be in contradiction with UN Resolution #99. I would like to see a provision or amendment to the current resolution that deals with this situation. i do not see how we, in good conscience, can support or pass a resolution that goes against another resolution without first repealing the earlier resolution. seeing as how the previous resolution is an equal rights resolution, i would hesitate in repealing it without having another one ready to be voted on.

is there a good way of getting around this issue?

There is no contradiction with R99. This allows nations to set marriage laws as they see fit, provided those laws don't violate any existing Resolution. R99 doesn't magically vanish just because this Proposal doesn't mention it.

I also, on the other hand, think that we don't need this legislation. It is saying that we can legally do something (define marriage and recognize it) that was already legal! No one ever said that we couldn't do it, so why do we have to be told we can?

"If I may... Ambassador, this point has already been clarified. The purpose of this proposal is to prevent the United Nations from imposing a definition of marriage on you in future. Should this proposal fail, the United Nations would remain free at any time to force you into compliance with a definition you may disagree with."

Kim Min-Sun (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kim_Min-Sun)
Secretary to Ambassador Zyryanov
Filling in while the Ambassador is in the Strangers' Bar
Wishing Ambassador Zyryanov would hurry up and come back

The only concern we have is the request to honor the marriages of other nations. Some of those nations have ideas about marriage that we cannot support.

If it's so trivial, why are you attacking it so vigorously?

Because obviously, to Whistleton, this is not a trivial Act. Our quest was in response to another ambassador's characterization of the Act as not really affecting nations at all.


And with nations leaving and joining the UN constantly, who's to say that the balance of power won't shift in the future towards the side who want the UN to meddle in every intranational affair they can.

This argument is logically nonsensical. If the balance of power swings that far, the current act under consideration is useless anyway, as it can be repealed and replaced.

Whistleton's only concern with this resolution is the provision that asks us to respect the validity of marriages by citizens of another country. Yes, we understand it is not a requirement. And yet, we still feel it is problematical. Observe, even in this debate before the Act is finalized, how some nations feel that we must acknolwedge that concept. I feel that this act, as written, will give those nations moral leverage for just such a push. I believe such a sentiment has been expressed by three different nations just within this very debate. Note the call for an act that will protect contractual rights made outside of a soveriegn nation, for instance. Or the call by the Metacosm: "we should push for nations to recognize the marriages of foreign visitors".

It is a concern.

The only concern we have is the request to honor the marriages of other nations. Some of those nations have ideas about marriage that we cannot support.

Then don't support those. There is nothing saying that you must do this. It's a request that you do, not a mandate.

This argument is logically nonsensical. If the balance of power swings that far, the current act under consideration is useless anyway, as it can be repealed and replaced.

If you look at it that way, then every single resolution on the books is useless, since every one can, in theory, be repealed and replaced, with the exception of the repeals. That argument is nonsensical.

Whistleton's only concern with this resolution is the provision that asks us to respect the validity of marriages by citizens of another country. Yes, we understand it is not a requirement. And yet, we still feel it is problematical. Observe, even in this debate before the Act is finalized, how some nations feel that we must acknolwedge that concept. I feel that this act, as written, will give those nations moral leverage for just such a push. I believe such a sentiment has been expressed by three different nations just within this very debate. Note the call for an act that will protect contractual rights made outside of a soveriegn nation, for instance. Or the call by the Metacosm: "we should push for nations to recognize the marriages of foreign visitors".

It is a concern.

This shouldn't really be an issue. If you do not want to respect the validity of marriages by other nations, then don't. If you feel that the customs of another nation are not to your liking, ignore them. No one is pushing anyone to do anything. This is a rather silly argument. I really don't understand why so many are against it. If your nations wants to recognize the marriage of people from another nation when they are within the boarders of your nation, then do so. If you want to ignore it, fine. Do that.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I believe in the ideals behind this resolution. While we should leave the definition of marriage up to the individual nations, we should push for nations to recognize the marriages of foreign visitors.

Why is it so important that a foreign nation recognize a visitor's form of marriage? What difference does it make to the visitor?

If my house rules state that nudity around my 1 year old baby girl is forbidden, I'm not going to change that rule for an out-of-town visitor who's sleeping on my couch for the weekend!

Come into my house, obey my rules!

Come into my nation married to your dog, you'll still be arrested for bestiality...I don't care what the UN says about it! If we have to step down and raise shields...so be it! YOU WILL RESPECT OUR LAWS AND CUSTOMS WHILST VISITING OUR NATION! PERIOD.

with a pro gay vote of 5:1 in the UN resolution currently up for vote, I'm happy that none of you are involved in REAL politics. This is sick! This the same law that wasn't upheld in Greece and Rome right before their fall.

Have you been smoking with the Cluichistani ambassador?


Hey, Flib-dude, my weed doesn't make you a homophobic dumbass. Please don't go blamin' me for the stuff said by that wankstain, man.

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

A clarification, please.... Does the State select the partner from among others who have applied?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The state primarily selects from the list of applicants. However there has been on occasion a marriage particpant that had not submitted an application. This was a situation simply reliant on a genetic requirement.

Govt. Oneechan
UN Delegate for Strongbadia

<drops head into hands, shakes head>

No, we're explaining to people who don't understand economics why courtesans in Allech-Atreus fetch such high prices in comparison with the diseased tarts you have in Whistleton.

I believe this statement is simply the rantings of a jealous beatnik that cannot scrape together the money necessary to afford one of our gloriously attractive, yet affordably priced prostittues.

We would offer to open up a a branch of Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21) (CPESL) in Whistleton, but we don't want to subject our servicewomen to the sophomoric gropings of the Whistletonian men. Still, the easy money to be made from those one-pump chumps is tempting...

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
CPESL's VP of marketing and public relations

If you look at it that way, then every single resolution on the books is useless, since every one can, in theory, be repealed and replaced, with the exception of the repeals. That argument is nonsensical.

I'm glad we both agree the argument is non-sensical. It makes no sense to argue for or against an Act based upon the chance that the balance of power in the UN may or may not swing a certain way in the nebulous future.


If your nations wants to recognize the marriage of people from another nation when they are within the boarders of your nation, then do so. If you want to ignore it, fine. Do that.


The Republic of Whistleton intends to do just that. However, we observe that the language, as written, already gives other nations ideas about expanding the scope of this act. We once again state it is a concern, and register our concern by voting against the act, which acknowledging that the act will likely pass as written.

The Republic of Whistleton intends to do just that. However, we observe that the language, as written, already gives other nations ideas about expanding the scope of this act.

Then let other nations expand the scope. Why should you concern yourself with how my nation interprets the resolution? Why should I concern myself with the way you interpret the resolution?

We once again state it is a concern, and register our concern by voting against the act, which acknowledging that the act will likely pass as written.

Of course this is going to pass as written. Once a proposal has been submitted, there is no way to change anything. This particular proposal is very well written, and I still don't see why so many are having issues with it.

If you don't like it, then you could attempt to repeal and replace it. If this is the case, I wish you luck. You're really going to need it.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Come into my nation married to your dog, you'll still be arrested for bestiality...I don't care what the UN says about it! If we have to step down and raise shields...so be it! YOU WILL RESPECT OUR LAWS AND CUSTOMS WHILST VISITING OUR NATION! PERIOD.


....and with an attitude like that, I can just see people positively beating down the door to visit your wonderfully tightly-clenched land...

The state primarily selects from the list of applicants. However there has been on occasion a marriage particpant that had not submitted an application. This was a situation simply reliant on a genetic requirement.

Govt. Oneechan
UN Delegate for Strongbadia

We thank the representative for his response. We wanted to make sure we understood the situation before responding to the representative's earlier post, which we quote in part:

In Oneechan no-one marries for love. All partnerships are government selected and approved. A single person wishing to have a partner submits an application to the State. The State then selects an appropriate companion for the applicant.

We felt this was a good opportunity to highlight the difference between a forced marriage, which the resolution condemns, and an arranged marriage, which is not even mentioned in the resolution.

If the marriage partners selected by the State have both applied for a partner, then this is an example of an arranged marriage. Both partners, through the act of applying, have consented to the union. It could not be construed as being forced. On the other hand, if one partner has not applied, and that person does not consent, then this would be forced marriage.

We realize this does not eliminate the representative's concern, and that he will still oppose the resolution. We just wanted to take the opportunity to clarify the difference between the two terms.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Note the call for an act that will protect contractual rights made outside of a soveriegn nation, for instance.You do understand that marriage is not just the state's way of blessing our sexual liaisons, right?

Or maybe you don't.

Free men and women don't need the state's permission to fornicate; they don't need its blessing either; nor do they need their parents, the church, the prying neighbors, the community, or anybody else to give them permission to do what is as natural and important as breathing.

But when people form committed unions and start commingling their assets and assuming joint obligations - like the rearing of children, natural or adopted - then we have a problem should one skip out on the other with, say, all of the assets and, say, none of the obligations. And don't think that people don't do this; they do it all the time.

It is for that reason (as well as others, such as corporate executives moving offshore to make it possible for them to invalidate legally binding contracts without the risk of judicial redress) that Community Property laments the present absence of legislation that would prevent this and suggests that it would be a good idea for this body to pass future legislation addressing this issue, because we don't believe this legislation does so.

So much for your argument that we believe the resolution now before this body obligates you to honor marital contracts made in other places; it does not. Mind you, it would be a good idea if you were to do so, but there is nothing in this resolution that even remotely places you under any kind of moral obligation or legal presumption to do so.

Again, you fail to understand what we're voting on, just as you fail to understand the legal purpose of marriage (but then, that was obvious from the beginning, when you began mumbling something about “wives preventing their husbands from whoring around” and this being “bad for business”, as if this were some kind of issue. Please!).

If you're going be effective in this institution, of which you are admittedly a novice member, then you will have to do a better job of understand how both resolutions and floor debate work.

Whistleton's only concern with this resolution is the provision that asks us to respect the validity of marriages by citizens of another country. Yes, we understand it is not a requirement. And yet, we still feel it is problematical. Observe, even in this debate before the Act is finalized, how some nations feel that we must acknolwedge that concept. I feel that this act, as written, will give those nations moral leverage for just such a push. I believe such a sentiment has been expressed by three different nations just within this very debate. Note the call for an act that will protect contractual rights made outside of a soveriegn nation, for instance. Or the call by the Metacosm: "we should push for nations to recognize the marriages of foreign visitors".

It is a concern.

It may be a concern to you, but it is not a concern to those members of this Assembly who understand the workings of the NSUN. The nature of this resolution as a "blocker" has been repeatedly explained to you by experienced members and even a Moderator. You, in what you obviously consider to be your superior wisdom, brush that aside. You continue to drag the red herring of the slippery slope across the floor and continue to insist that this resolution makes more likely exactly what it makes more difficult.

The lessons of the history of this body are lost to you. You simply refuse to recognize them. Logic has no place in your discourse. You sneer at those who try to correct your misunderstanding and object to your misstatements. You do nothing but devalue this debate by tediously repeating your groundless and forceless arguments.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Come into my nation married to your dog, you'll still be arrested for bestiality...It is just this sort of attitude that shows why we're having a problem in this area.

As we understand it, being married to a dog and having carnal relations with a dog are two different things. Go ahead and arrest people who engage in marital relations with their dogs while visiting The Tetrad; but don't arrest visitors who are memerly married to one, especially where they left the dog at home; that would be remarkably draconian, not to mention unjust.

Hey, Flib-dude, my weed doesn't make you a homophobic dumbass. Please don't go blamin' me for the stuff said by that wankstain, man.

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

Well I figured that the only way he could've thought that that was a good arguement was that he was high.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I endorse this act. Marrige should be set by the country not the UN. Not every nation is the same, so marrige within them sholud also be different.


Padishah Emperor Indriss XI

This proposal sounds good to me, except for the last line:
"CONDEMNS the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals."
It sort of goes against the rest of the resolution. I mean it says time and again that the individual nations will decide the laws of marriage. That is what I think the point of this resolution is, to create some standard of what marriage is in all nations. Each individual nation decides what those standards are. But then it condemns a completely valid type of marriage: Arranged marriage.
Many cultures use arranged marriages to unite tribes, buisnesses, and families that are in conflict with one another. Many cultures, arranged marriage is tradition. Are we to spit in the face of these cultures, by condemning their traditions?
How about another example of forced marraige found in many, many cultures: Say an unmarried woman gets pregnant; many cultures say that the man who did the deed has to marry the woman. Is this just quaint folk-justice? Do we write it off as traditional or outdated? Is it immoral and unethical to force a man to marry his "baby's mama" and be part of raising the child?
Of course, I might just be knit-picking about the details. I don't know.

This proposal sounds good to me, except for the last line:
"CONDEMNS the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals."
It sort of goes against the rest of the resolution. I mean it says time and again that the individual nations will decide the laws of marriage. That is what I think the point of this resolution is, to create some standard of what marriage is in all nations. Each individual nation decides what those standards are. But then it condemns a completely valid type of marriage: Arranged marriage.
Many cultures use arranged marriages to unite tribes, buisnesses, and families that are in conflict with one another. Many cultures, arranged marriage is tradition. Are we to spit in the face of these cultures, by condemning their traditions?
How about another example of forced marraige found in many, many cultures: Say an unmarried woman gets pregnant; many cultures say that the man who did the deed has to marry the woman. Is this just quaint folk-justice? Do we write it off as traditional or outdated? Is it immoral and unethical to force a man to marry his "baby's mama" and be part of raising the child?
Of course, I might just be knit-picking about the details. I don't know.

There is a difference between 'arranged' and 'forced' marriages. Most arranged marriages tend to be put in place when the people who are to be married are still infants. This resolution does not condemn 'arranged' marriages.

Yes, forcing some one into marriage just because they went and got pregnant or got some one pregnant is immoral. It's no reason to get married. Individuals can be very active in a child's life with out marrying the mother or father of that child. Forcing them into it will do more harm than good. Would you want to grow up in a home where mommy and daddy were 'forced' to marry each other just because daddy couldn't keep it in his pants and got mommy pregnant? Now, mommy and daddy hate each other and you get the backlash. Yeah. That's a happy childhood.

I wonder why people can't comprehend this. To me, it's fairly simple and straight forward. Maybe some one has been stealing the Cluichstani ambassadors stash. I've been told that it does have an effect on your ability to judge.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

This proposal sounds good to me, except for the last line:
"CONDEMNS the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals."
It sort of goes against the rest of the resolution. I mean it says time and again that the individual nations will decide the laws of marriage. That is what I think the point of this resolution is, to create some standard of what marriage is in all nations. Each individual nation decides what those standards are. But then it condemns a completely valid type of marriage: Arranged marriage.
Many cultures use arranged marriages to unite tribes, buisnesses, and families that are in conflict with one another. Many cultures, arranged marriage is tradition. Are we to spit in the face of these cultures, by condemning their traditions?
How about another example of forced marraige found in many, many cultures: Say an unmarried woman gets pregnant; many cultures say that the man who did the deed has to marry the woman. Is this just quaint folk-justice? Do we write it off as traditional or outdated? Is it immoral and unethical to force a man to marry his "baby's mama" and be part of raising the child?
Of course, I might just be knit-picking about the details. I don't know.

We'd ask our new colleague from Nullarni to please go back and read some of the earlier discussion in this thread. We've explained several times that an arranged marriage is not necessarily a forced marriage. Marriages are often arranged with the full consent of the couple. The resolution says nothing about those.

On the second point the representative raises.... Yes, forcing a man to marry a woman he has impregnated would be a forced marriage and condemned under the resolution. We would suggest there are alternatives, such as requiring the man to support the child, which are far better than forcing the couple into a legal relationship which might (and, in fact, probably will) be unhealthy and burdensome to both.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

with a pro gay vote of 5:1 in the UN resolution currently up for vote

Pro-gay? I don't recall there being any pro-gay clauses in the text, and the debate certainly isn't focusing on homosexuality, thank Supercarious. I hated the sort of micromanagement that the resolution "Gay Rights" represented. Fortunately, that one was repealed by the UN. How wonderfully "pro-gay" of us. I would accuse you of building a straw man that you could knock down more easily, but the truth is you didn't even bother to build a straw man, and instead launched into an attack on a nearby cornstalk.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I'm happy that none of you are involved in REAL politics. This is sick! This the same law that wasn't upheld in Greece and Rome right before their fall.

OOC: I'm sure we're all equally happy that you aren't involved in REAL politics, such as it is. Frankly, I've not been impressed with real politicians. They tend to be corrupt, lacking in a basic grasp of economic principles and socio-political dynamics, and psychologically unstable. Hardly a recipe for a successful government.

As for your reference to the downfall of Greece and Rome, try to keep in mind that what is necessary for a successful society is strong social traditions. It doesn't matter if those traditions are heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or just really kinky. The important thing for societal stability is a set of agreed-upon and upheld traditions. What those traditions are is pretty much irrelevant to a society's failure to maintain itself.

Before you go calling what other people do sick, you might want to look at yourself. There's a mighty big log to move before you can start getting splinters out of other folk's eyes. I recommend starting by asking yourself very seriously why you're so worried about some gay folks getting hitched when there is poverty and injustice experienced by millions of other people in this world every day, corrupt politicians growing wealthy on the bribes of special interest groups and molesting women and children instead of helping their fellow citizens, and terrorists willing to blow us all to hell because they think they'll be going to heaven for it. Get a sense of priorities, mmkay?

The Republic of Whistleton does not need a UN resolution to "protect" itself from something that does not exist within it's borders. Your nation does not have the power to impose marriage upon us. What do we need protection from?

Furthermore, we will not support a resolution that even hints that marriage is something that should be tolerated within our borders, as this resolution does.

Should Whistleton accept this proposal, it would be tacit approval of the concept of marriage, and we would could then be portrayed as violating the spirit of the resolution when we did not recognize marriage for any visitor within our borders.

No, my friends, Whistleton is a marriage-free zone. We will not recognize any other nation's rules concerning marriage between man, woman, or beast.


The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia looks at the leader of The Republic of Whistleton.

"Your problem really is quite easy to fix, just do what I did...So Excruciatia would not be infected by the disease of democracy through "fluffy kitten" UN Resolutions, I invaded a smaller neighbouring nation, killed everyone there, installed a friendly government and now use that nation as UN representative." (OOC: Start a puppet nation)

While of course in theory passed UN resolutions have undesired effects on the puppet nation, in practice an army group permanently based on the border ready to go in at any time and settle problems means that the puppet is the same as the parent nation.

So if the resolution passes the UN will "ASK" you to respect and recognise the marital status of international visitors...So what? Let the UN ask all it likes. It has no army so has no voice. Just take any visiting offenders straight from the plane to your dungeons or death row or where-ever. Or if it's a problem in puppet nation send in the army to restore order."

We've explained several times that an arranged marriage is not necessarily a forced marriage.

Thats correct, arranged marriage is not necessarily a forced marriage. But it still can be. Basicly what is being said is: "My parents have told me who I am going to marry. But I am only going to marry the person my parents told me to, because I give my consent."
Forcing someone to marry is unethical, (according to the non-traditionalist,) but they think it is perfectly ethical to raise a child believing that his or her only option is to marry an individual of their parents choosing; and the child gives their consent because they don't know any better. I submit the second is much less ethical than the first. At least in the former statement the person is aware of their lack of choice. Would you rather be thrown into prison at age 21, or grow up in prison never knowing what freedom is, so you stay imprisoned by choice.
Of course, this may have already been addressed. I do indeed need to go back and read the previous postings.

There's been much confusion over this, so please allow me to ask a clarifying question.

This resolution does include a controversial clause beginning with the operative verb "ASK." Is this indeed merely an endorsement of what the clause describes, or is it to be an enforced international law that must be strictly adhered to?

Thank you.

OOC: Yes, basically a game mechanics question, poorly disguised as an IC post. Feel free to respond IC or OOC.

This proposal sounds good to me, except for the last line:
"CONDEMNS the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals."
It sort of goes against the rest of the resolution. I mean it says time and again that the individual nations will decide the laws of marriage. That is what I think the point of this resolution is, to create some standard of what marriage is in all nations. Each individual nation decides what those standards are. But then it condemns a completely valid type of marriage: Arranged marriage.
Many cultures use arranged marriages to unite tribes, buisnesses, and families that are in conflict with one another. Many cultures, arranged marriage is tradition. Are we to spit in the face of these cultures, by condemning their traditions?
How about another example of forced marraige found in many, many cultures: Say an unmarried woman gets pregnant; many cultures say that the man who did the deed has to marry the woman. Is this just quaint folk-justice? Do we write it off as traditional or outdated? Is it immoral and unethical to force a man to marry his "baby's mama" and be part of raising the child?


Exactly!
This resolution "SHOULD" tell other nations (and the UN) to Keep out of Our Affairs (pun intended) when it comes to Marriages.
If we want to have "Arranged" Marriages, we should be allowed to do that.
If we want to "Force" a man to marry the Mother of "HIS" Child, we should be allowed to do that.

This Resolution could jepardize those freedoms we now enjoy.

VOTE NO ON THIS>>>PLEASE!!!

St Jello Biafra;11826305']There's been much confusion over this, so please allow me to ask a clarifying question.

This resolution does include a controversial clause beginning with the operative verb "ASK." Is this indeed merely an endorsement of what the clause describes, or is it to be an enforced international law that must be strictly adhered to?

Thank you.

OOC: Yes, basically a game mechanics question, poorly disguised as an IC post. Feel free to respond IC or OOC.

OOC:

ASKS is one of a set of what are known as non-binding clauses, considered to be clauses that don't have the full force of international law.

Hope that helps.

OOC:

ASKS is one of a set of what are known as non-binding clauses, considered to be clauses that don't have the full force of international law.

Hope that helps.
OOC: Thanks, that's what I figured. Good to know for sure from a Mod though, thanks.

Exactly!
This resolution "SHOULD" tell other nations (and the UN) to Keep out of Our Affairs (pun intended) when it comes to Marriages.
If we want to have "Arranged" Marriages, we should be allowed to do that.
If we want to "Force" a man to marry the Mother of "HIS" Child, we should be allowed to do that.

This Resolution could jepardize those freedoms we now enjoy.



Okay. Yet another person who has not read past the title. Or so it would seem. If you have read past the title, then you obviously don't understand what you've read.

If you want to have arranged marriages in your nation, go right ahead and do so. Besides, this says nothing about not being allowed to.

If you want to force people to marry each other, be our guest. This says that it condemns the act, but not that you have to live by this condemnation. In other words, do whatever the hell you want.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Yes, forcing some one into marriage just because they went and got pregnant or got some one pregnant is immoral. It's no reason to get married. Individuals can be very active in a child's life with out marrying the mother or father of that child. Forcing them into it will do more harm than good. Would you want to grow up in a home where mommy and daddy were 'forced' to marry each other just because daddy couldn't keep it in his pants and got mommy pregnant? Now, mommy and daddy hate each other and you get the backlash. Yeah. That's a happy childhood.

It surprises me how people are so quick to mock the past traditions, thinking their point of view is far superior. The tradition of forcing two individuals who have had a child together to marry has been rooted in human society almost continually since the dawn of time, (periods of "enlightened thinking" excluded, i.e. the Roman empire and other such periods of time.) Is there any validity to the idea that two unmarried people raising a child together, (but seprately, of course,) is better and more unified than two individuals forced to marry and raise a child together? I think in the first there would be much more of a conflict of interest than in the second. If two people, who obviously have something going, (they had a kid after all,) are forced to marry, they will both have to compramise in order for both of them to be happy. After all, they live together. But If they do not, then, you can fight and back-bite all you want. Why? Because you can just go home, where you don't have to deal with the person. In this situation, why comprimise?
Lets not ignore the traditions of our ancestors. After all, they have brought us so far. I am not aware of any scientific studies to prove either side of this issue, but lets not toss away one side because its just "old fashioned".

* ooc: Whistleton, you've made my day. ;) *

The New Cultural Revolution has placed its vote in favour of this fine resolution.

Benedictions,

*snip*

To start off, I never said that my point of view was far more superior to any one else's.

Let's look at it this way. A woman is raped and gets pregnant. Should she be forced to marry the man who raped and impregnated her? I think not.

If two people were in a relationship, and then that relationship ended, then the woman found out she was pregnant, should they get married for the sake of the child? No. There are times when having mommy and daddy living a part from each other is a good thing.

I am not willing to force people in my nation to get married. Marriage should be a choice. This resolution still allows people the freedom of choice. It also stops any other proposal from trying to infringe on a nations ability to decide their marriage laws. To me, this is a good thing.

I do realise that things like arranged marriages have been around for a long time. But times do change. People change and so does their view of things.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Thats correct, arranged marriage is not necessarily a forced marriage. But it still can be. Basicly what is being said is: "My parents have told me who I am going to marry. But I am only going to marry the person my parents told me to, because I give my consent."
Forcing someone to marry is unethical, (according to the non-traditionalist,) but they think it is perfectly ethical to raise a child believing that his or her only option is to marry an individual of their parents choosing; and the child gives their consent because they don't know any better. I submit the second is much less ethical than the first. At least in the former statement the person is aware of their lack of choice. Would you rather be thrown into prison at age 21, or grow up in prison never knowing what freedom is, so you stay imprisoned by choice.
Of course, this may have already been addressed. I do indeed need to go back and read the previous postings.

We're pleased to have the chance to continue this discussion with the honorable representative of Nullarni. He's quite correct. Some arranged marriages are forced marriages; some aren't. In some cases, the wishes of the prospective partners are taken into account; in others they aren't.

Our point was simply that the resolution speaks only to forced marriages. It simply muddies the waters to talk about arranged marriages as if they were necessarily the same thing.

On the second point.... It's a good one. The resolution does not really address it. Under Ausserland law, "consent" is always taken to mean informed consent. This is based on the ipremise that someone cannot consent if he or she doesn't know there is an aternative. That certainly wouldn't be the case in all nations, though.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I am in support of the resolution, right up to the very last statement. That is where I keep getting caught. I do not want to infringe on these traditions. That is why I can not support this.

And Karmcaria, this isn't meant to be a personal jab but mocking others point of view, ("I wonder why people can't comprehend this. To me, it's fairly simple and straight forward. Maybe some one has been stealing the Cluichstani ambassadors stash. I've been told that it does have an effect on your ability to judge.") is a sure sign that you view your opinion to be far more superior.

After rereading both resolutions, the current resolution up for discussion is indeed in direct conflict with UN Resolution #99. Ther is NOTHING in the current resolution about allowing exceptions for previous UN resolutions.

The current resolution suggests that each member country be allowed to define marriage as they see fit. this implies that if a nation wishes to limit marriage as the union of one man and one woman, they would be legally allowed to do so. technically, this would qualify as descrimination on account of sexual orientation.

however, UN Resolution 99 clearly states:

"§ The UN condemns discrimin"ation 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 UN Resolution 99 is not to be repealed, and I believe that it shouldn't be, then the current resolution (as is, with no amendments or corrections) is in direct violation of UN Resolution 99.

After rereading both resolutions, the current resolution up for discussion is indeed in direct conflict with UN Resolution #99. Ther is NOTHING in the current resolution about allowing exceptions for previous UN resolutions.

The current resolution suggests that each member country be allowed to define marriage as they see fit. this implies that if a nation wishes to limit marriage as the union of one man and one woman, they would be legally allowed to do so. technically, this would qualify as descrimination on account of sexual orientation.

however, UN Resolution 99 clearly states:

"§ The UN condemns discrimin"ation 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 UN Resolution 99 is not to be repealed, and I believe that it shouldn't be, then the current resolution (as is, with no amendments or corrections) is in direct violation of UN Resolution 99.

I do believe he is correct. Feather in your cap there Metacosm.

Wrong. The "aforementioned rights" mentioned in the clause you quoted do not include marriage. Reread the Discrimination Accord. There's no conflict.

I am not willing to force people in my nation to get married. Marriage should be a choice. This resolution still allows people the freedom of choice. It also stops any other proposal from trying to infringe on a nations ability to decide their marriage laws. To me, this is a good thing.

I do realise that things like arranged marriages have been around for a long time. But times do change. People change and so does their view of things.

Hmmm (looks at his crib notes from his secret service) ...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... :D

Did you say marraige should be a "choice?"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... :D

Nevermind, carry on with this debate. I think I know someone with a vested interest in seeing this resolution pass. Hopefully her father doesn't watch UN debates. ;)

Wrong again. Marriage is not safe from this. Resolution #99 is all inclusive. Marriage is a right granted to citizens, and that means it falls under, "5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;"

I wonder why people can't comprehend this. To me, it's fairly simple and straight forward. Maybe some one has been stealing the Cluichstani ambassadors stash. I've been told that it does have an effect on your ability to judge.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Whoa...I'm gonna be pretty pissed if anyone's been nickin' from my stash.

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

Wrong again. Marriage is not safe from this. Resolution #99 is all inclusive. Marriage is a right granted to citizens, and that means it falls under, "5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;"

Please tell me where in international law the right to marriage is granted.

Thats what this whole proposal is about. Making marriage at least available in all nations. Besides, if you don't like that quote from resolution 99, try this one: "RESOLVES upon protecting all persons and groups in member nations from discrimination by their respective member governments."
Same jist, better wording.

If marriage is not protected by UN Resolution #99 and we, in turn, pass the current Resolution up for consideration, we will in effect be stating that Marriage is not a right for citizens.

This would occur because we would be condoning discrimination and, according to UN Resolution 99, member nations cannot condone or practice descrimination in regards to rights of citizens.

Because of these rules, we would in effect be plainly stating that Marriage is not a right for citizens. If marriage is not a right, then what place do we have limiting forced marriages?

After rereading both resolutions, the current resolution up for discussion is indeed in direct conflict with UN Resolution #99. Ther is NOTHING in the current resolution about allowing exceptions for previous UN resolutions.

The current resolution suggests that each member country be allowed to define marriage as they see fit. this implies that if a nation wishes to limit marriage as the union of one man and one woman, they would be legally allowed to do so. technically, this would qualify as descrimination on account of sexual orientation.

however, UN Resolution 99 clearly states:

"§ The UN condemns discrimin"ation 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 UN Resolution 99 is not to be repealed, and I believe that it shouldn't be, then the current resolution (as is, with no amendments or corrections) is in direct violation of UN Resolution 99.

Res 99 is already in effect, and I will guess that your nation is already in compliance with it. So any marriage laws you have already on the books are already legal under res 99? This resolution protects your right to keep your laws as they are without another nation interfering with them, nothing more. I don't think that wasting characters on stating the obvious about previous resolutions was necessary. This resolution is to preserve the status quo with the laws nations already have, or don't have, in place for marriage/civil union. It isn't an open door that allows nations to ignore all passed resolutions.

When this was in the draft stage, it was up in a draft thread on this forum for about 3 weeks or more. In that time it was read by a number of very experienced UN members, none of whom raised a single concern about contradiction with passed resolutions. If there had been any chance of that, which is illegal under the proposal rules, then I would have been told by one of them, or by one of at least 3 mods who regularly read the UN forum.

When this was in the draft stage, it was up in a draft thread on this forum for about 3 weeks or more. In that time it was read by a number of very experienced UN members, none of whom raised a single concern about contradiction with passed resolutions. If there had been any chance of that, which is illegal under the proposal rules, then I would have been told by one of them, or by one of at least 3 mods who regularly read the UN forum.

So your arguement is: None of the expirienced UN members noticed this conflict, so it doesn't exist.
Do I need to waste my time shooting this down, or does everyone see the error in the logic here?

If that is the case, then why is the clause needed to URGE nations not to descriminate when it comes to marriage. If marriage is protected by Resolution 99, then shouldn't it already be illegal to descriminate with marriage? If that is the case, then Resolution, at worst, is redundant and the clause should be stricken.

Otherwise the Resolution are in conflict OR Marriage is NOT a right covered by Resolution 99.

Thats what this whole proposal is about. Making marriage at least available in all nations.
No, it's not. Read:
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.
The resolution states here that some member nations do not recognize marriage or civil unions. This resolution is meant to apply to those nations that do have such institutions.
Besides, if you don't like that quote from resolution 99, try this one: "RESOLVES upon protecting all persons and groups in member nations from discrimination by their respective member governments."
Same jist, better wording.
Right, the United Nations is seeking to protect all groups from discrimination; that's the overarching premise behind the Discrimination Accord. However, RESOLVES is not a clause that implements national policies, it's a clause that defines the purpose of a document. Even if it was the intent of the Discrimination Accord to make marriage an option for all groups, its wording doesn't actually do so.
If marriage is not protected by UN Resolution #99 and we, in turn, pass the current Resolution up for consideration, we will in effect be stating that Marriage is not a right for citizens.

According to international law, marriage isn't a right for citizens. It's only a right when granted via national law.
Otherwise the Resolution are in conflict OR Marriage is NOT a right covered by Resolution 99
You got it right on the second try.

So your arguement is: None of the expirienced UN members noticed this conflict, so it doesn't exist.
Do I need to waste my time shooting this down, or does everyone see the error in the logic here?

Sigh, I also mentioned 3 moderators. 2 of whom have/had the ability to delete this resolution at any time while it was in the proposals list if it went against the rule of contradiction. Heck, one of them wrote the rule of contradiction. If this broke any proposal rule, I have no doubts whatsoever that one of them would have picked the illegality up and this resolution wouldn't have been allowed to hit the floor, end of story.

To The Metacosm. The urge to not discriminate is not a mandating clause. As I've said earlier in this thread, it is a padding, or fluff, clause, used to pad the resolution out, and is me showing my leftist leanings. Using a non-mandating clause to reinforce something already in effect isn't illegal to my knowledge.

This resolution is a blocker, all it really does is block further legislation on this subject, and protect a nations right to keep their marriage/civil union laws as they are without outside interference. That is all it needs to do.

St Jello Biafra;11826847']Right, the United Nations is seeking to protect all groups from discrimination; that's the overarching premise behind the Discrimination Accord. However, RESOLVES is not a clause that implements national policies, it's a clause that defines the purpose of a document. Even if it was the intent of the Discrimination Accord to make marriage an option for all groups, its wording doesn't actually do so.

SO what you are saying is: The UN wants to stop discrimination, but in legal terms it really does nothing to stop it.

I understand, and your argument makes perfect sense. Now, my worry is that not only have we fallen short of saying that Marriage is a right, but we have now dictated that is most definitely NOT a right. Marriage will never be able to be made a right unless this resolution is first repealed.

SO what you are saying is: The UN wants to stop discrimination, but in legal terms it really does nothing to stop it.

Regarding marriage, yes. Regarding the terms outlined in the Discrimination Accord, however, it does stop it.

I understand, and your argument makes perfect sense. Now, my worry is that not only have we fallen short of saying that Marriage is a right, but we have now dictated that is most definitely NOT a right. Marriage will never be able to be made a right unless this resolution is first repealed.

And why exactly must we make marriage a right?

St Jello Biafra;11826905']Regarding marriage, yes. Regarding the terms outlined in the Discrimination Accord, however, it does stop it.

Ok.

Oh, I'm not saying that we must. I just want everyone who votes on this that we ARE in fact legalizing the Prohibition of Marriages by the State. Since Marriage is not a protected right of citizens, we are making it illegal for people for force citizens into marriage, but for imprisoning citizens for trying to marry.

Sigh, I also mentioned 3 moderators. 2 of whom have/had the ability to delete this resolution at any time while it was in the proposals list if it went against the rule of contradiction. Heck, one of them wrote the rule of contradiction. If this broke any proposal rule, I have no doubts whatsoever that one of them would have picked the illegality up and this resolution wouldn't have been allowed to hit the floor, end of story.

There are currently 181 UN Resolutions. I doubt that it is an impossible senario that moderators can overlook small parts and technicalities in a resolution. If they miss something it is our duty to pick up the slack. Moderators are not omniscient.

Oh, I'm not saying that we must. I just want everyone who votes on this that we ARE in fact legalizing the Prohibition of Marriages by the State. Since Marriage is not a protected right of citizens, we are making it illegal for people for force citizens into marriage, but for imprisoning citizens for trying to marry.

It's always been legal for governments to do that though. This resolution is a BLOCKER. It doesn't institute any new laws, it merely blocks future legislation. Don't read too much into it.

There are currently 181 UN Resolutions. I doubt that it is an impossible senario that moderators can overlook small parts and technicalities in a resolution. If they miss something it is our duty to pick up the slack. Moderators are not omniscient.

We are not omniscient, no. But I did just review #99 quite thoroughly, and could not find any contradiction violation.

If you believe there is a contradiction, I'd really like to see the specific quoted portions that you think conflict.

I understand, and your argument makes perfect sense. Now, my worry is that not only have we fallen short of saying that Marriage is a right, but we have now dictated that is most definitely NOT a right. Marriage will never be able to be made a right unless this resolution is first repealed.

Simply put, yes you are right. Marriage cannot be made a 'right' with this resolution in place. Thing is though, not all nations have state recognised marriage, including mine, and we don't want it forced on us and our citizens as a 'right'.

My nation is mostly female and our few males, only a quarter of the population, are encouraged to spread their seed, if you get my drift. If they wish to settle down with one woman, or each other, they aren't prevented from doing that, but the state will not recognise the couple as 'married' and they get no state benefits as a result of their union. The same goes for females who decide to form families. They aren't in any way prevented from doing so, but there is no state recognition. We don't want, or need, another nation deciding our marriage laws for us, especially if those laws are this one man one woman crap.

This resolution will protect our nation's right to decide our own laws on this subject, that best suits our nation, culture and customs. When you really get down to it, that is what marriage really is, a social institution made up of a nations customs and culture, and in some cases, religion. That is why this is an area the UN needs to stay out of and let nations decide. There is just too much involved for any proactive marriage legislation to cover.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR the resolution "Marriage Protection Act" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region. This the position currently shared by the large majority of UN voters who have registered their votes.

Hellar Gray

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR the resolution "Marriage Protection Act" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region. This the position currently shared by the large majority of UN voters who have registered their votes.

Hellar Gray

Our official response to Gatesville's support is "Woot."

I just don't understand how so many delegates can support a resolution that makes in legal for a nation to imprison its citizens who wish to get married.

I just don't understand how so many delegates can support a resolution that makes in legal for a nation to imprison its citizens who wish to get married.

This resolution doesn't legalise or illegalise anything. Nations already have that right, if they can manage it with all the anti-discrimination based resolutions that have already passed, including dare I say it, the Discrimination Accord. This resolution doesn't over-ride any previous ones. Nations still have to make their laws in compliance with all passed resolutions, and that will include any marriage law.

We've already made it clear that Marriage is NOT a right. There is nothing preventing nations from discriminating in regards to Marriage because of this resolution. Therefore, it is perfectly legal for nations to make marriage illegal for THEIR citizens. If they can make it illegal, they can imprison those who break such a law. While these powers may not be GRANTED to the nations from this resolution, they are implicitly endorsed. How can we sit back and pass a resolution that says it's okay for nations to make marriage illegal for THEIR citizens and imprison those citizens who try to go against it?

Absence of condemnation doesn't imply endorsement.

We've already made it clear that Marriage is NOT a right. There is nothing preventing nations from discriminating in regards to Marriage because of this resolution. Therefore, it is perfectly legal for nations to make marriage illegal for THEIR citizens. If they can make it illegal, they can imprison those who break such a law. While these powers may not be GRANTED to the nations from this resolution, they are implicitly endorsed. How can we sit back and pass a resolution that says it's okay for nations to make marriage illegal for THEIR citizens and imprison those citizens who try to go against it?

Simply put, because another nation's marriage laws are none of our business. With the exeception of international visitors, marriage law doesn't cross borders and isn't an international issue. I understand your concern for human rights, and under just about any other issue would be fighting with you for them, but this one issue is one of the few areas where I do firmly believe the UN needs to keep its collective nose out of nations business.

I don't think you'd be able to stop nations making marriage illegal and punishable even if this doesn't pass, because a recently passed resolution enshrined a nations right to decide its own criminal laws and punishments without interference from the UN (can't think of the name right now, and am too lazy to go look it up).

Edit: Just looked it up. Fair Sentencing Act.

Right to Marry Act.

Believing all citizens of adult age or above in all UN nations must have the right to enter freely and without coercion into a union with another non-related person(s) for the purpose of forming a family unit.

Noting the absence in this body of legislation affirming and protecting the right of all citizens of UN nations of adult age or above to formalise such unions, and have them recognised by the state.

Defines formal union as including but not limited to marriage, civil unions, jumping the broom and hand fasting. Nations may consider de facto relationships as formal unions if they wish.

Mandates:

1: All UN nations must allow and recognise under their law the formal unions of two citizens who are of adult age or above. Nations retain the right to set the minimum age lower, and allow multiple unions if they wish.

2: No nation may discriminate against any person or group for the purpose of preventing formal unions on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, occuptation, ethnicity or social status, or any other reason not exempted in this legislation.

3: No religious body can be forced to perform formal union ceremonies for anyone who does not follow their teachings. The state must recognise both religious ceremonies and civil ceremonies as totally equal.

This was a failed attempt by me to write a right to marriage proposal a few months ago, when it seemed pretty clear DOM was under threat.

It was the difficulty I had just getting this much down, and the many problems raised by other members of the forum this came from, that finally convinced me that writing a right to marriage proposal that covered everything it had to, and still attempted to take nations culture and customs into account, was pretty much impossible.

It was also incredibly intrusive, even for me, and I rarely give the nat sov position a second thought when I want to write up an idea :p.

St Jello Biafra;11827096']Our official response to Gatesville's support is "Woot."

OMG someone wooted Gatesville. :eek:

OMG someone wooted Gatesville. :eek:

I'm going to whoot them too.

First time Gatesville have supported anything I've written, though from what I heard, OSSA had them in a bit of a tizzy :D.

I'm going to whoot them too.

First time Gatesville have supported anything I've written, though from what I heard, OSSA had them in a bit of a tizzy :D.

The Gatesville debate of OSSA was indeed quite interesting. Nonetheless, if you continue to write blockers on controversial domestic issues, Gatesville is quite likely to support them. Also, if you ever wish to collaborate in writing a resolution or repeal, you are welcome to visit Gatesville and seek our input.

Hellar Gray

The Teenage Gentleman fully supports this resolution.

It is not the responsibility of the UN to dictate how individual nations run their laws regarding marriage.

As explained in the proposal religion oftens takes presidence over politics. It is not our place to say what the rules are.

These decisions should be left to the individual nations. Only a law affected every UN member state then the UN should consider intervining, but until then we should stay out.

Regards,

The Teenage Gentleman

I haven't read the last few pagees, but this seems to be quite a debate with 1 against all. I shall say, let the resolution stay, until a new one is made. Than, we can repeal it.

Wrong again. Marriage is not safe from this. Resolution #99 is all inclusive. Marriage is a right granted to citizens, and that means it falls under, "5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;"Not in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites it's not, our government considers marriage to be a completely religious matter and as such stays out of it completely.

St Jello Biafra;11826702']Please tell me where in international law the right to marriage is granted.It isn't.

Thats what this whole proposal is about. Making marriage at least available in all nations. Besides, if you don't like that quote from resolution 99, try this one: "RESOLVES upon protecting all persons and groups in member nations from discrimination by their respective member governments."
Same jist, better wording.And as long a government doesn't recognize any marriages then there's no discrimination.

If marriage is not protected by UN Resolution #99 and we, in turn, pass the current Resolution up for consideration, we will in effect be stating that Marriage is not a right for citizens.

This would occur because we would be condoning discrimination and, according to UN Resolution 99, member nations cannot condone or practice descrimination in regards to rights of citizens.

Because of these rules, we would in effect be plainly stating that Marriage is not a right for citizens. If marriage is not a right, then what place do we have limiting forced marriages?And where exactly does this resolution limit forced marriages? All it does is condemn them, which is just saying "we don't like them."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

if we are, in fact, simply expressing our displeasure with forced marriages, then all it stands for is an act of hypocrisy. the UN speaks with a single voice, and that includes nations that practice forced marriages. how can a nation condemn something that it practices on a regular basis without being hypocritical?

if we are, in fact, simply expressing our displeasure with forced marriages, then all it stands for is an act of hypocrisy. the UN speaks with a single voice, and that includes nations that practice forced marriages. how can a nation condemn something that it practices on a regular basis without being hypocritical?

By virtue of the fact that the UN is not actually one voice. While the stance of a majority is written in Resolution, the UN is not an omnipotent voice. When it does not specifically mandate something, the individual nations are not beholden to do as it says.

Simply put, it's not hypocritical to have an opinion contrary to UN stances.

Interesting thing this contradiction thing.

Lets take a state that decides that it outright bans marriage. Now lets pick a religion - Catholocism is the first that comes to mind, so I will play with that as an example.

Now, Catholics as per their religion can not have sexual relations outside of wedlock right? Now in a nation where marriage is outright banned, if your local Catholic population want to contribute to population growth, they are elect to keep to their faith, they are barred from doing so, otherwise the law simply means that they must go directly against their faith and have sex out of wedlock. Either way, an outright ban on wedlock is discriminatory.

Due to the above pardox, I would argue that resolution 99 does indeed (intentionally or not) protect a citizens right to marriage, and as this resolution can not override or contradict a prior resolution, indeed this reafirms a nations right to set laws govorning marriage (or indeed not legislate on the issue) but in no way does it allow a nation to ignore the protections provided in res 99 and outright ban it.

This bill is ridiculous

It asks UN to as below:

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.

(Comment: all though TahTah has issues with arranged marriages, marriage if adults to minors we do believe we can’t prevent this from happening in some nations due to cultural traditions)

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

(Comment: this contradicts the first point, you can’t ask the UN to force nations to recognize visitor’s marriages due to the UN not being able to define or regulate marriage in nation’s borders)

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

(This is a nothing statement)

CONDEMNS the practice of forced marriage between non-consenting individuals

Comment: again you can’t ask for the UN does make this law as the first statement says “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”

That means force marriage between non-consenting individuals can be accepted.

Primarily I think this is a pathetic attempt at approving gay marriage. However it is a nothing resolution that creates more questions then answers.

(Comment: this contradicts the first point, you can’t ask the UN to force nations to recognize visitor’s marriages due to the UN not being able to define or regulate marriage in nation’s borders)Utter nonsense. You can ask nations to do something without requiring it. That's rather the point of asking.

Primarily I think this is a pathetic attempt at approving gay marriage. However it is a nothing resolution that creates more questions then answers.Yes, yes. Of course. Everything the UN does is part of the Great Homosexual Plan For World Domination. As the Dead Milkmen said, "You you know what the queers are doing to soil?!"


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

Primarily I think this is a pathetic attempt at approving gay marriage. However it is a nothing resolution that creates more questions then answers.

Wonderful, another drive-by homophobe. Here, have a flower.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/environment/opium23904.jpg

Dude, this proposal doesn't mention gay marriage at all, but under it, if you want to allow it in your nation, you're free to do so. You're also free to ban it, if that's what you wanna do. Yeah! Freedom, baby!

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

Interesting thing this contradiction thing.

Another very interesting thing is looking at the text of resolution #99. Let's do that, shall we?

Here is the section with binding clauses, broken up and analysed for your convenience:


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,

No marriage there.

2. The right to participate in government,

None here either.

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

Nothing about marriage here either.

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 doesn't fit this, either.

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


Marriage ain't one of those rights granted by requirement of international law.

Not only is marriage never mentioned as a right, marriage doesn't even fit in any of the categories mentioned by the proposal's binding clauses. So I find it very hard to believe that a proposal specifically dealing with marriage (the one at vote, for example) contradicts #99.

We should have planetwide standards for the concept of marriage. That's what I think. Oh yeah and I support my fearless leader, Gas Gougers.

It’s nice to see some intelligent conversation for a change. You have a valid point, but this was not exactly what I was addressing. First of all the resolution simply, “asks each UN member nation to respect and recognize the marital status of international visitors.” This brings the question of what might be important in relation to a marital status.

Let’s consider a couple of things that “married” couples can take for granted as a matter of course. One obvious example is booking a common room at a hotel. My Google Fu is quite weak, but I know there are known problems with trying to gain entry into a country for an unrecognized spouse even for purposes of visitation. (There was an infamous case in the RW US a while back where a Canadian homosexual couple was refused entry into the United States under the forms as a legally married couple.)

In the end, however, this is a mild clause, asking not requiring. Still actions which are legal for married people may not be legal for non married people. Some rights, which others might consider absolutely fundamental are strangely lined through marital status. The right of a spouse to visit in a hospital’s emergency room is a major thing to a visiting couple that was unfortunate enough to be in an accident.

For these reasons I really like the clause in the resolution, even if it is only a mild one. It takes a pure blocker and adds something I firmly believe is a strong benefit to all traveling people.

A positive point as well, and I am in agreement on that as well. It's a basic responsibility of each and every nation in the UN to recognize the basic right to self-government of each other one...

The Chancellery of The Constitutional Monarchy of Erdaldún

“We believe that each person has the right to sole dominion over all his life decisions, as long as he does not harm the life or property of another.”

“We also believe that no government, even a democratically elected one, or organization should have the authority to interfere in these personal decisions”

“We also believe that as a personal decision between consenting adults, marriage falls outside the proper scope of government”.

“Thus government may not promote one sort of marriage over another, or even promote marriage at all.”

The Chancellery of The Constitutional Monarchy of Erdaldún

“We believe that each person has the right to sole dominion over all his life decisions, as long as he does not harm the life or property of another.”

“We also believe that no government, even a democratically elected one, or organization should have the authority to interfere in these personal decisions”

“We also believe that as a personal decision between consenting adults, marriage falls outside the proper scope of government”.

“Thus government may not promote one sort of marriage over another, or even promote marriage at all.”

Nice speech, now are you for or against the resolution. Although from what you said I'd assume that you'd be for it as it'll keep the UN from forcing you to do anything about marriage.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We should have planetwide standards for the concept of marriage. That's what I think. Oh yeah and I support my fearless leader, Gas Gougers.

From what I think, not all regions are on the same region RPing wide.

I find it very ironic that there is a UN proposal that the UN stay out of the issue of marriage. If the UN stays out of the issue then there is no need for the proposal and having this pass through the UN makes a mockery of the whole process.

I STRONGLY RECOMMEND that all nations vote AGAINST this proposal.

But seeing as my message is buried beneath 15 pages of replies, I doubt that my recommendation will be heard.

The Kingdom of Chang-wung
--
New member and already a cynic of the effectiveness of the UN

If the UN stays out of the issue then there is no need for the proposal and having this pass through the UN makes a mockery of the whole process.You have it backwards.

If the UN would stay out of these sorts of things, it wouldn't need to be told to. Sadly, the UN can't resist sticking its nose into everything.

But seeing as my message is buried beneath 15 pages of replies, I doubt that my recommendation will be heard.You'd be surprized.

As inhabitants of Sinless Singleness, we do not believe there exists such a thing as "marriage". So logically we should have voted yes, since we do not care, but we see this resolution as a will to inforce the existence of such a concept. This dilemma couldn't be solved easily....

So we played it head and tails, as we usually do in our region, the Bodycoded Islands.

As a consequence of the draw, we had no choice but to vote against the resolution.

Of course we truely respect what other countries do, and even ourselves somtimes get mated, or married as you call it, but this is totally out of state buisness (I would have had to say it differently if the outcome of the draw would have been different.... of course).

And most important, come and visit us, and experience the true life of permanent sexual mating recomposition !

If the UN would stay out of these sorts of things, it wouldn't need to be told to. Sadly, the UN can't resist sticking its nose into everything.

So any future propositions should be voted against also, rather than debate an Act does not actually achieve anything and undermines the UN.

So any future propositions should be voted against also, rather than debate an Act does not actually achieve anything and undermines the UN.Mmm. Straight to scortched earth debating.

As inhabitants of Sinless Singleness, we do not believe there exists such a thing as "marriage". So logically we should have voted yes, since we do not care, but we see this resolution as a will to inforce the existence of such a concept. This dilemma couldn't be solved easily....

So we played it head and tails, as we usually do in our region, the Bodycoded Islands.

As a consequence of the draw, we had no choice but to vote against the resolution.

Of course we truely respect what other countries do, and even ourselves somtimes get mated, or married as you call it, but this is totally out of state buisness (I would have had to say it differently if the outcome of the draw would have been different.... of course).

And most important, come and visit us, and experience the true life of permanent sexual mating recomposition !

No it doesn't force anything, especially making nations recognise marriage. If that were so, then I'd be undermining my own nation with my own resolution because Witchcliff also doesn't have or officially recognise any form of social formal union between citizens. The fact some nations don't have marriage is mentioned twice in the proposal. Once in the preamble, and once when only those nations that DO recognise it, are urged to not discriminate.

This resolution will protect your right to ignore marriage to you hearts content, or not ignore it, or regulate the heck out of it, or ban it, or make it madatory, or whatever else your nation wants to do with it.

Would you rather be voting on something like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500537), or perhaps this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11619705), or if you aren't convinced yet, how about this group (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11713308).

This resolution will protect all nations from having anything like the legislation above forced onto them by well meaning, but unwanted proposals. I don't trust the UN enough to believe that an intrusive marriage based proposal won't ever be passed again. It would happen sooner or later, but with this in place, it will be a darn sight harder to push through.

This resolution will protect all nations from having anything like the legislation above forced onto them by well meaning, but unwanted proposals. I don't trust the UN enough to believe that an intrusive marriage based proposal won't ever be passed again. It would happen sooner or later, but with this in place, it will be a darn sight harder to push through.

Interesting but kind of irrelevant for us. This is not that we have banned marriage, or that we believe that state should have nothing to do with that... We think it does not exist as such.

It's as if you ask to decide if you prefer chocolate with or without milk, if you do not know what chocolate is, you cannot answer. Actually you can try to answer "yes" to that question, but it will only trigger laughter for some bodycoders...

As I told you, heads and tails is the only way for a question who's logic is out of the sphere of your reasonning.

Also do you really think that this would REALLY prevent another proposal from the UN ?

Interesting but kind of irrelevant for us. This is not that we have banned marriage, or that we believe that state should have nothing to do with that... We think it does not exist as such.

It's as if you ask to decide if you prefer chocolate with or without milk, if you do not know what chocolate is, you cannot answer. Actually you can try to answer "yes" to that question, but it will only trigger laughter for some bodycoders...

As I told you, heads and tails is the only way for a question who's logic is out of the sphere of your reasonning.

Also do you really think that this would REALLY prevent another proposal from the UN ?

As long as this is on the books, yes, because any other proposal on the subject would probably be deemed illegal for contridiction. This will protect you from having another member force marriage laws onto your nation, and mine for that matter, until it is repealed, which hopefully won't be for a long time.

Another very interesting thing is looking at the text of resolution #99. Let's do that, shall we?

...

Not only is marriage never mentioned as a right, marriage doesn't even fit in any of the categories mentioned by the proposal's binding clauses. So I find it very hard to believe that a proposal specifically dealing with marriage (the one at vote, for example) contradicts #99.

Intersting breakdown. Yup your right. Not covered when you take it as just those clauses... But when you solely take it as just those clauses, its actually a pretty damn weak resolution which sounds impressive but doesn't really cover much. But lets include the full resolution shall we

Discrimination Accord

...

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.

Bingo. Reread my proposal. I will leave it to you as to if condemn means "illigal" or or simply "considered very very bad", but unless my logic is failing somewhere, my example shows that you can not outright ban marriage without discriminating against recognised religion (and arguably sexual orientation)

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

Bingo Again. Reguardless of if you figure the word condemn != outlaw, there is no arguing the meaning of the word "disallow"

Although, I guess the loophole to my argument is that the UN, so far as I know, records no list of "recognized religions" and as such could simply chose not to recognise them....

As long as this is on the books, yes, because any other proposal on the subject would probably be deemed illegal for contridiction. This will protect you from having another member force marriage laws onto your nation, and mine for that matter, until it is repealed, which hopefully won't be for a long time.

See, is not a blocker resolution a double edged sword in that it sure its a blocker, but if it were ever repealed, it would provide momentum for an unfortunate marriage resolution following through just after it?

See, is not a blocker resolution a double edged sword in that it sure its a blocker, but if it were ever repealed, it would provide momentum for an unfortunate marriage resolution following through just after it?

Hum wait a second, I need a coin.... Heads ? Totally agree on this.
(Could not grasp a single thing sorry....).

See, is not a blocker resolution a double edged sword in that it sure its a blocker, but if it were ever repealed, it would provide momentum for an unfortunate marriage resolution following through just after it?

Sure, just as the repeal of DOM heralded the swathe of new, intrusive, and bad marriage proposals I linked to in my post above. Heck, this resolution was only written because DOM was repealed.

In the future this resolution could well be repealed, not the near future though. Resolutions that pass by the majority this one is set to pass by are pretty safe from repeal for quite a while. Not totally safe, no resolution is, but it would take a major effort, and vast numbers of UN members deciding that their national soveringty isn't that important after all for it to be dumped. In the current climate of the NSUN, I can't see that happening.

Until and unless that happens, it will protect all nations, including yours and mine, from new unwanted and intrusive legislation being passed.

Khenas supports this resolution, as what constitutes a marriage is, to be quite frank, none of the UN's buisiness.

Okay, Rack. Let's try a different tactic. Regardless of the legality of this Resolution, it cannot be deleted at this point. As a limitation of the system, items that are At Vote are impossible for Moderators to delete. Items that are voted in are likewise impossible to delete.

And, while technically, Administrators are capable of removing anything, they have not done so since the move to Jolt, and have made it perfectly clear that they have no intention to ever do so, unless something exceedingly vile should somehow make it to the books. And, to be perfectly blunt, this kind of semantic issue hardly rises to the level of "exceedingly vile".

Therefore, arguments of legality at this point are completely and utterly irrelevent.

No it doesn't force anything, especially making nations recognise marriage.

As Our Empire is located in the same region as the The Free Land of Sinless Singleness, we do not totally agree with their representant about the subject, because we do have a perfectly logical marriage procedure.
We are against this resolution mainly be cause we do think that the union of a large set of specific procedures cannot have the status of a generic one. Consequently we did not had to come back to the well known decision making procedure in the Bodycoded Islands (i.e. coin tossing).

Any logical person will agree that:
1. a procedure like marriage can be defined as a relationship between people (N-ary relationship) Rk(p1,p2,...,pN), for the nation k
2. the union of such procedures is also formely a relationship, it's :
R(p1,...,pN) = R1(p1,...pN) OR R2(p1,...,pN) OR .. OR RK(p1,...pN)
3. but the probability for this relationship to be always true is very high
4. a relationship which is always true is not relevant; it contains no information (I mean in the Kolmogorov or Shannon sense)

So this resolution is meaningless, and We in the Empire of Logical Wits do not approve meaningless resolutions.

We thought we'd respond to the representatives of Sinless Singleness and Rackingham in one post, since they raise interesting and related points.

Also do you really think that this would REALLY prevent another proposal from the UN ?

No, you're quite right. This will not prevent a marriage proposal from being introduced and passed. That's impossible. Nothing is ever 100% certain. But it will make it more difficult. First, someone would have to repeal this one. And performance technology teaches us that when you make a task more difficult, you lower the probability of success.

See, is not a blocker resolution a double edged sword in that it sure its a blocker, but if it were ever repealed, it would provide momentum for an unfortunate marriage resolution following through just after it?

We were interested to hear that the representative of Rackingham recognizes the idea of legislative momentum. We agree that such a thing does exist. We've tried to convince people of that in advising them about the timing of submissions (not very successfully). And repeal of this resolution could do as the representative suggests. We say "could" because we believe that there are a whole host of factors that would influence that, e.g., timing, the nature of the arguments for repeal, etc. So, a double-edged sword? Yes, we'd have to agree. But we consider the blocking edge to be reasonably sharp, while the other is pretty darn dull.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Nothing is ever 100% certain.

Speaking in the name of the Empire of Logical Wits, I ensure you that you are wrong. Logic propositions are of course 100% certain. All our economic and political system rely on this assertion. For instance, it is certain that 1+1=2 in any classical arithmetical framework.

May be the fact that the subject of the discussion is the marriage influence your judgement, but our whole Empire can ensure you that certainty exists.

logically yours
Wits

For instance, it is certain that 1+1=2 in any classical arithmetical framework.1+1 is clearly 10.

We would like to congratulate the ambassador from Logical Wits on a successful completion of half a semester of Logic.

That being said, please show how that is possibly relevant to the issue at hand.

Intersting breakdown. Yup your right. Not covered when you take it as just those clauses... But when you solely take it as just those clauses, its actually a pretty damn weak resolution which sounds impressive but doesn't really cover much. But lets include the full resolution shall we

You can include all of the text you want. It's not going to help though.

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.

Bingo. Reread my proposal. I will leave it to you as to if condemn means "illigal" or or simply "considered very very bad", but unless my logic is failing somewhere, my example shows that you can not outright ban marriage without discriminating against recognised religion (and arguably sexual orientation)

I do read "condemns" as "considered very very bad". And your logic isn't failing, it's just irrelevant.

Bingo Again. Reguardless of if you figure the word condemn != outlaw, there is no arguing the meaning of the word "disallow"

Look again...

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

There is also no arguing against the meaning of "previously described rights", which is that the DISALLOWS clause only applies to the rights enumerated in the binding clauses I mentioned earlier. And as you've aleady conceded, marriage isn't one of those rights.

Once again, your point is irrelevant.

Although, I guess the loophole to my argument is that the UN, so far as I know, records no list of "recognized religions" and as such could simply chose not to recognise them....

Thanks for the help, but I really didn't need to use that loophole in your argument. ;)

1+1 is clearly 10.

you're right, because 2=10 for you. So logically I deduce that you count in base 10, or that you use any nonclassical framework.

St Jello Biafra;11835266']We would like to congratulate the ambassador from Logical Wits on a successful completion of half a semester of Logic.

I'd congratualte him, too, but all the stuff he's regurgitating from his uni lectures is killin' my buzz, man.

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

you're right, because 2=10 for you. So logically I deduce that you count in base 10, or that you use any nonclassical framework.

Logically I deduce that you finished all your homework for the week and got bored. Can you PLEASE explain how this is relevant?

1+1 is clearly 10.

you're right, because 2=10 for you. So logically I deduce that you count in base 10, or that you use any nonclassical framework.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who know binary and those who don't. Clearly the rep from Logical Wits is the latter.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who know binary and those who don't. Clearly the rep from Logical Wits is the latter.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It's always fun to watch people who flaunt their intellectual superiority step in brown stuff, isn't it? ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

2 + 2=5 (for extremely large values of 2)

Last UN Decision

The resolution Marriage Protection Act was passed 11,301 votes to 3,260, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Thank God it's over. http://209.85.48.9/8812/43/emo/angry021.gif

See, is not a blocker resolution a double edged sword in that it sure its a blocker, but if it were ever repealed, it would provide momentum for an unfortunate marriage resolution following through just after it?We disagree.

In the absence of a blocker, all you need is a “stealth” resolution, one that slides into queue without a lot of attention. This can happen at times when interest in NS wanes, such as the two weeks before Christmas, or the middle of August, when people are preoccupied with classes, family gatherings, vacations, final exams, and whatnot. And while we have passed things one month and repealled them the next, that's relatively rare.

In contrast, a blocker is a wakeup call: it lets people know that an effort is underway to legislate in a controversial area (generally, these are the ones that get blockers). It's an extra check in the system, to slow this body down and make it think (more than usual, anyway) about what it's doing.

As for momentum, we don't see it. People are as likely to react adversely to a controversial proposal as favorably, if for no other reason that shattering whatever compacency opponents of such measures may have.

Remember that roughly half of all NSUN members don't vote. You can chalk this up to apathy, but sometimes its due to people spending time elsewhere.

Congrats to the home team.

Congratulations on having this pass. It was obvious from the beginning that it would. Good job!

Thank God it's over. http://209.85.48.9/8812/43/emo/angry021.gif

Amen.


Thanks to everyone who supported and voted for this resolution, and special thanks to all who defended it in this thread :).

THANK YOU

...to all those who approved the proposal and supported and voted for the resolution.

Thanks also to those who politely expressed reasonable objections and concerns.

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

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs