NationStates Jolt Archive

Please urge your WA delegates to support this proposal! It would be a great step towards the strengthening of Human Rights amongst WA nations.



Freedom of Marriage Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Mendosia

Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,

DETERMINED to further the rights of persons that have been oppressed and discriminated against for ages,

RESOLVED to provide a legal framework that enhances the social recognition of these minorities,

RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,

ADOPT the following resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

B ) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have some form of protection for the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

B ) The protection referred to in the previous section can be materialized in a state-sponsored contract or in allowing the free celebration of contracts between any two individuals, without State interference.

C) The protection referred to in the previous sections do not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.

(d) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence.

Article 3 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

b ) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

C) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.

Why should an international organization such as the World Assembly get involved in what it essentially an intranational matter?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

When it's an issue of discrimination?

I'm a little confused by the whole "protections" business -- it's not very clearly defined what sort of thing you're talking about here. I'm not sure it matters greatly because Article 3 is the important one, but you might find that you attract more support with clearer language.

Honestly, as far as these things go, it's not too bad. Nations, like the Hack, that don't have any form of state-sponsored unions ("marriage" is a contract between two or more people; the state isn't involved) aren't screwed by this, by being forced to recognize marriage. It does allow for reasonable discrimination (ie: no 40-year-olds marrying 3-year-olds), doesn't trump existing unions, and... well... seems about as reasonable as one could expect.

It does need some typographical editing ("(a)" is followed by "B )" is followed by "C)"?), and I would put it at "Significant" and not "Strong", but... not too shabby. I don't think it stands a snowball's chance of passing, but...


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

Aside from the previously mentioned typographical errors, I don't really feel one way or another about this. Just wanted to give you a bit of advice - when doing a telegram campaign, it's best if you link to the proposal. Many WA delegates are too lazy too search it up to decide whether to vote or not.

I'm one of them.

I haven't actually written up this proposal, only campaigning for it, so hopefully Mendiosa will consider all the points you have raised.

Though, thanks for those who have supported the proposal so far!

Thank you everyone for participating, and thank you Jammy85 for supporting this proposal.

I would now like to address some of the criticism and suggestions made to this proposal.

Firstly, I firmly believe that a proposal of this nature, which is designed to expand Human Rights, falls perfectly on the competences and the very goal of the Human Rights Council of the World Assembly. The need to adopt such a resolution is underlined by the content of other competing resolutions that would outlaw or even command the immediate execution of homosexuals, some of which have been summarily removed by the administration due to the use of offensive language.

Secondly, the somewhat excessive legalese of article 2 is just a consequence of previous criticism from delegates that would not approve the proposal because they felt it would require countries to introduce a state-sponsored marriage where it did not exist previously. If the current proposal does not make it to the full World Assembly I will make an honest effort to simplify article 2.

You will also see that the proposal being now under appreciation by the Human Rights Council does not contain the typos people have been referring to.

Finally, I would like to say that I was convinced that at this stage, the Delegates were supposed to approve resolutions that they feel are worthy of consideration by the World Assembly in terms of consistency and also in what respects the importance of the matters they try to address. However, many delegates won't approve a given proposal because they don't agree with the solutions presented -- that is, they make a judgment on the merits. That, in my view, should be left to the plenary of the World Assembly, which is the truly representative body of all nation-states.

That, in my view, should be left to the plenary of the World Assembly, which is the truly representative body of all nation-states.

Nice theory, but in essence it's a rubber stamp for the 'Ad-hoc Committee' made up of regional delegates. If it makes it through the Approval process, an awful lot of nations (who should know better) will pass it with only casual scrutiny.

Fact is, Delegates should Approve only those proposals they consider worthy of the WA's attention. Different nations take different approaches to what they consider 'international issues', and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to withhold approval.

Besides, with the GA's infamous Lemmings vote, a lot of crap passes that shouldn't. Blocking proposals in the queue is sometimes the only way to prevent them from passing.

I think this proposal is a good idea but what about nations whose religous persuasion prevents them from supporting this? Obviously religion is not an excuse for homophobia, but surely it's also wrong to force them to accept something which is against their faith.

What about nations whose religious persuasion prevents them from supporting this?

The proposal refers to civil contracts only, and it excludes any bearing on religious rites altogether. In practice, nations which, at present, only recognize unions celebrated in the context of religious practices should allow the celebration of civil contracts between any two individuals, regardless of gender.

Clearly, a nation-state or its individual citizens may hold religious beliefs that are contrary to this proposal. Maybe many hold beliefs contrary to other human rights or basic principles of law and justice. Therefore I don't see why any particular religious belief should be relevant on the discussion of this or any other proposal for that matter as long as the rites and practices of those religions are respected. In essence, if in a given Nation every citizen is a strict adherent of a religion that condemns same-sex couples then this proposal will have no effect because no one will ever want to celebrate a union with someone of the same sex. This proposal, however, purports to defend the rights of those who, despite the prevalent religious belief of the society they happen to live in, wish to share a life together with equal social and legal dignity.

Nice theory, but in essence it's a rubber stamp for the 'Ad-hoc Committee' made up of regional delegates. If it makes it through the Approval process, an awful lot of nations (who should know better) will pass it with only casual scrutiny.

Fact is, Delegates should Approve only those proposals they consider worthy of the WA's attention. Different nations take different approaches to what they consider 'international issues', and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to withhold approval.

There are many examples of proposals that passed the 'Ad-hoc Committee' and failed to be approved by the plenary, including the last one which was put to a vote.

And while I do agree that Delegates should serve as a sieve against spurious or impertinent proposals, I don't see why they should necessarily only approve proposals for consideration with which they agree.

Now, it is clear that each Delegate has the right not to approve a proposal with no further justification. I don't question the legitimacy, I question the practice. For if one does not believe in Democracy, why have the plenary at all?

Why should an international organization such as the World Assembly get involved in what it essentially an intranational matter?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I agree. This resolution, as well as others I have seen, actually inhibit a government's law-making ability, as well as further degrading any sovereignty and freedoms it possesses.

Also, this is not a global affair. The cultures/traditions/opinions of the people of one country may directly contrast against the cultures/traditions/opinions of another country's people. This should be strictly intranational, and should be left with individual governments to decide. So far as I can see, this is meant only to be a way to justify the marriage of minorities and to promote other such alternative/looked down upon by society marriage combinations, when it may be the people hold a different view.

Or are we also banning the right to vote and to voice opinions with this resolution, as well?

The governments of nations that join the world's governing body while denying any obligation to be governed by that body into offering basic equal and fair protection for all their people deserve approximately the same degree of respect as the opinions of representatives who attempt to cloak their homophobia in appeals to tradition.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional LiaisonOffice of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I agree. This resolution, as well as others I have seen, actually inhibit a government's law-making ability, as well as further degrading any sovereignty and freedoms it possesses.

So, in your opinion, any resolution whose aim is the strengthening of human rights is a violation of national sovereignty? That is an wholesale invalidation of one of the fundamental missions of the World Assembly.

Or are we also banning the right to vote and to voice opinions with this resolution, as well?

I don't see how this resolution would do that. In fact, this resolution expands the ability of many people to express themselves. Many people that have heretofore lived in the shadow, being considered second-class citizens.

The governments of nations that join the world's governing body while denying any obligation to be governed by that body into offering basic equal and fair protection for all their people deserve approximately the same degree of respect as the opinions of representatives who attempt to cloak their homophobia in appeals to tradition.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional LiaisonOffice of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

High language aside, what is basically being said here is that if a nation joins such a world body as the WA, we should be mindless and not have any viewpoints of our own on how to govern our own nations fairly.
We should just let the WA pass anything they want, because we must accept everything that is passed as a "gospel truth".
Sorry, but it is the position of Malfactopia that this logic is not only highly flawed, but dangerous to the world community as a whole.
And besides that point, it is an issue of a national level, not a global level. So it should be dealt with according to each nation's government.

So, in your opinion, any resolution whose aim is the strengthening of human rights is a violation of national sovereignty?
Yes. Who are you to say a nation would pass the same laws as the WA would with this proposal? Perhaps they have a completely different view on how to run the nation without such insults as this. It is as if we are children, incapable of making this decision for ourselves.
And you also cannot speak for the people of a nation. The culture of one nation may mean that certain... alternative marriages are immoral. I believe that were it made legal like this, a greater violation of human rights would begin to escalate, perhaps even to violence on a riot level. That is worst case scenario, however.

That is an wholesale invalidation of one of the fundamental missions of the World Assembly.
So we infringe on one right to correct another? Tell me how the end justifies the means, again. When we start "substituting" rights, we begin failing at that "mission".
What next? Murder thousands so that a country who believes nuclear weapons are key to its defense can be disarmed of said nuclear weapons? To what heights of immorality and injustice are you willing to escalate to?



I don't see how this resolution would do that.
It was meant to be sarcastic. Also, you have taken it out of context;
This is how it looked originally posted:
Also, this is not a global affair. The cultures/traditions/opinions of the people of one country may directly contrast against the cultures/traditions/opinions of another country's people. This should be strictly intranational, and should be left with individual governments to decide. So far as I can see, this is meant only to be a way to justify the marriage of minorities and to promote other such alternative/looked down upon by society marriage combinations, when it may be the people hold a different view.

Or are we also banning the right to vote and to voice opinions with this resolution, as well?

Perhaps I confused you too much by having that space there. I apologize.


In fact, this resolution expands the ability of many people to express themselves.

Your logic = FAIL
Many people that have heretofore lived in the shadow, being considered second-class citizens.
But it is the position of Malfactopia that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I'm sure many nations agree.
However, that is beside the point. The point is you are robbing a nation of the right to enact its own laws concerning its own citizens in relation to the issue "covered" in this proposal. You are infringing upon the very rights the WA supposedly protects. The proposal itself is highly flawed by infringing on the cultures and traditions of nations, as well, as not all nations think alike.

That's not at all what I'm saying. One can acknowledge a right without sanctioning the action. The WA has the right to pass certain laws. Its members have the right to lobby against, speak against, vote against, and should they pass attempt repeals of such laws. The two do not stand in contradiction. For example, we opposed the WA Resolution 'Fair Criminal Trial', while acknowledging the WA's essential right to pass such a resolution.

Anyway, this is all pretty boring and old. Not my fault if you can't be bothered to read/have difficulty understanding the fairly clear stickies in this forum. The more pertinent question:

Why is the persecution of homosexuals so integral to your culture that the WA attempting to mitigate such will bring out the Apocalypse?

-- Samantha Benson

That's not at all what I'm saying. One can acknowledge a right without sanctioning the action. The WA has the right to pass certain laws. Its members have the right to lobby against, speak against, vote against, and should they pass attempt repeals of such laws.
That is precisely what I am doing, however.
The two do not stand in contradiction. For example, we opposed the WA Resolution 'Fair Criminal Trial', while acknowledging the WA's essential right to pass such a resolution.
Oh, I'm not against the WA's "essential right", per se, but I'm against the resolution that was passed. Hence, the repeal, as I view it as "highly flawed", and it infringes on the rights of nations everywhere by forcing them into only "one style" of a legal system, without the possibility of alternatives that could be made available in certain situations. Such as if the government is not a democracy.


Anyway, this is all pretty boring and old. Not my fault if you can't be bothered to read/have difficulty understanding the fairly clear stickies in this forum.
I didn't start anything. You did. IF that is what you are implying. Too bad I feel you are being very vague.

The more pertinent question:

Why is the persecution of homosexuals so integral to your culture that the WA attempting to mitigate such will bring out the Apocalypse?

-- Samantha Benson

Who said anything about homosexuals? I never said that. Of course, I suppose one good "words in mouth" turn deserves another. Touche.
It is not the position of Malfactopia to "persecute homosexuals" as you put it. Where you got this idea, I'll never know.

Perhaps because you're posting in a thread about gay marriage? Otherwise you're simply rambling off-topic.

Question about 3 (b): does 'conditions' include a requirement that divorce laws be equitably applied?

-- Samantha Benson

Yes. Who are you to say a nation would pass the same laws as the WA would with this proposal? Perhaps they have a completely different view on how to run the nation without such insults as this. It is as if we are children, incapable of making this decision for ourselves.

I am curious about one thing then. What is, in your perspective, the role of the World Assembly? If Human Rights, those that are understood to be so fundamental that antedate the very existence of the State, are not global issues, which are?

Would you say that a resolution banning slavery would be an infringement on a country's sovereignty? What about a resolution banning any laws against interracial marriage?

You seem to deny the existence of a concept called 'International Community'.


But it is the position of Malfactopia that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I'm sure many nations agree.
However, that is beside the point. The point is you are robbing a nation of the right to enact its own laws concerning its own citizens in relation to the issue "covered" in this proposal. You are infringing upon the very rights the WA supposedly protects. The proposal itself is highly flawed by infringing on the cultures and traditions of nations, as well, as not all nations think alike.

The same way I would gladly "rob" a nation from its "right" to indiscriminately murder its citizens, from keeping slaves or from infringing any other human right. It is the position of Mendosia that people and its rights come before the State and are above it.

Moreover, I don't see how enacting this proposal constitutes a substitution of rights. We are expanding the rights enjoyed by a portion of the population to a minority that cannot enjoy it at present. You seem to be so fond of the rights of the State, what about the rights of the individual? Shouldn't people be allowed to celebrate unions between themselves without having the State have a say about what is moral and what is not? Isn't social persecution enough? Should we have legal persecution to go with it?

Question about 3 (b): does 'conditions' include a requirement that divorce laws be equitably applied?


Article 3 (b) is designed to avoid that a Nation should establish two contracts with similar goals by hand picking the characteristics it wants to give certain unions while excluding others. This prevents creating a "special" status to same-sex unions. So the answer is yes, divorce laws, wherever they exist, should be applied equally to all sorts of unions between two people.

How is marriage an international issue? Well, it is kind of nice to have one's marriage recognized outside of one's homeland even if one travels. While I don't like it should my beloved go to the hospital, I would like to be able to visit him without our union coming into question. Just sayin'.

Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

I still don't see how that makes this an international issue. Last time I checked, visiting loved ones in the hospital was not an international right.

One could argue that it can be an international issue. I think there was a example of this on the US/Canada border a year to two back. But I think such an approach would come up with other more complex complaints against it.

I still don't see how that makes this an international issue. Last time I checked, visiting loved ones in the hospital was not an international right.

If you don't think individual rights can be the object of international regulation then there isn't much more that can be said about the pertinence of this proposal, or of any other which purports to expand human rights.

This proposal is designed to abolish a pervasive form of discrimination against some couples and that may include, indeed, equal rights of visitation at hospitals amongst many others, but the core of the proposal is this: abolish a form of discrimination.

One could argue that it can be an international issue. I think there was a example of this on the US/Canada border a year to two back. But I think such an approach would come up with other more complex complaints against it.

From the strictly legal point of view there are many arguments for this to be seen an international issue, but I believe these are second order arguments.

In any event, issues pertaining to international recognition of changes in marital status, application of anti-bigamy laws at international level, effects of marriage in immigration, etc.

There are many scenarios where international law has to apply. Imagine the case where a same-sex union is recognized in State A, but not in State B. So, let's say John marries Gary in A and then moves to B. In B, John gets nasty and marries Cindy. Now, John is married to two people (from the point of view of State A, for which he is committing bigamy). In the eyes of State B, however, he has done nothing wrong because the union with Gary was not recognized in the first place. Can State A request to extradite John in order to trial him for bigamy?

The resolution we propose would automatically solve these problems.

I am curious about one thing then. What is, in your perspective, the role of the World Assembly? If Human Rights, those that are understood to be so fundamental that antedate the very existence of the State, are not global issues, which are?

Would you say that a resolution banning slavery would be an infringement on a country's sovereignty? What about a resolution banning any laws against interracial marriage?

You seem to deny the existence of a concept called 'International Community'.

As do you, as you won't even consider the possibility this may not be the best resolution.



The same way I would gladly "rob" a nation from its "right" to indiscriminately murder its citizens, from keeping slaves or from infringing any other human right. It is the position of Mendosia that people and its rights come before the State and are above it.

That is good to hear. However.... it is also the position of Malfactopia that human rights, such as education, welfare, etc, are vital to a nation's health. So in some instances, Human rights come before the State. In some instances, mind. I can see where you came up with this one though. As soon as you hear the word "dictatorship" you immediately think all nations that are dictatorships are murdering third-world scumbags.
I regret to inform you that Malfactopia is no such nation. So by "robbing" my nation's rights, you would be against the very thing you preach. Since I have not murdered anyone, nor do I threaten other countries with war... we are just trying to keep peace between our neighboring countries.


Moreover, I don't see how enacting this proposal constitutes a substitution of rights.
You need to think outside the box, then.
We are expanding the rights enjoyed by a portion of the population to a minority that cannot enjoy it at present. You seem to be so fond of the rights of the State, what about the rights of the individual?
It is the position of Malfactopia that the people do not always know the best way to govern a nation. But we do consider their rights.
Shouldn't people be allowed to celebrate unions between themselves without having the State have a say about what is moral and what is not? Isn't social persecution enough? Should we have legal persecution to go with it?
I see you played the "mindless i-repeat-everything-I-am-told-to" trump card.
It is not social persecution to simply deny marriage to a certain group. For all you know there could be other reasons for it.
Do not be so quick to judge, Herr Ambassador.

Come on guys, we only need 36 more votes!

As do you, as you won't even consider the possibility this may not be the best resolution.

It may not be, but that was not what you claimed before.



You need to think outside the box, then.


The burden of argument is on your side. You said it was a substitution of rights, so do care to elaborate.


I see you played the "mindless i-repeat-everything-I-am-told-to" trump card.
It is not social persecution to simply deny marriage to a certain group. For all you know there could be other reasons for it.
Do not be so quick to judge, Herr Ambassador.

If there is any reason you would care to advance that justifies denying the right to marry to couples of the same sex I would like to hear it. I'm sure everyone here would like to hear it. After all that's why this is a forum. You keep playing this word game while pretending to have a serious discussion. That is the sort of strategy that will have you be ignored by everyone.

In any event, given your contempt for Democracy I don't expect you to have any sympathy for individual rights, let alone the rights of the minorities.

Actually, I don't think I made an actual "factual" claim, there, if you mean this little bit of text:

"So we infringe on one right to correct another? Tell me how the end justifies the means, again. When we start "substituting" rights, we begin failing at that "mission".
What next? Murder thousands so that a country who believes nuclear weapons are key to its defense can be disarmed of said nuclear weapons? To what heights of immorality and injustice are you willing to escalate to?"

I don't think I was actually stating we WERE substituting rights, but when we start to do that, then it will become a problem.
My mind is drawing a blank.
And again with the same sex thing. When did I mention homosexuality? Really, now, Mendosia. I never said anything about it specifically. Yes, I stated our position on marriage. No, I did not mention homosexuality and/or go into a large winded argument about why it's wrong, immoral, etc.

And I don't have a "contempt" for democracy. I have sympathy for individual rights, and the rights of 'minorities'. But, since you brought it up, what do you mean calling them a minority? I thought that applied to race, mostly. Maybe religion.
But to a lifestyle/choice?

And I pray you never get those 36 votes in time. It is an intranational affair, separate from the WA and for each individual nation to decide.

And again with the same sex thing. When did I mention homosexuality? Really, now, Mendosia. I never said anything about it specifically. Yes, I stated our position on marriage. No, I did not mention homosexuality and/or go into a large winded argument about why it's wrong, immoral, etc.


The "same-sex thing" is in the text of the proposal you came here to discuss.


And I don't have a "contempt" for democracy. I have sympathy for individual rights, and the rights of 'minorities'. But, since you brought it up, what do you mean calling them a minority? I thought that applied to race, mostly. Maybe religion. But to a lifestyle/choice?

Did you choose your sexual orientation? Why do you suppose homosexuals did?

I don't believe I've ever met a gay man who was forced into dating and/or committing to other men...

I don't believe I've ever met a gay man who was forced into dating and/or committing to other men...

Would you say you became a heterosexual after dating/committing a member of the opposite sex? Before that you were.. let's say.. carefully considering all your options?

You don't choose which gender you feel attracted to, you only choose what to do with who you are. What this resolution purports to achieve is to guarantee that everyone has the same available choices regardless of sexual orientation.

The Commonwealth of Mendosia decided to re-submit the proposal 'Freedom of Marriage Act' once again with small changes to make it more simple. We urge you to support us once again in our last attemp to pass this proposal.

Thank you.

--

The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,

DETERMINED to further the rights of persons that have been oppressed and discriminated against for ages,

RESOLVED to provide a legal framework that enhances the social recognition of these minorities,

RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,

ADOPT the following resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

(b) The protection referred to in the previous section does not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.

(c) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence.

Article 3 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.

Just off the top of my head, it seems weird that we've seen so many proposals over the years about the nature of marriage, but nearly all that I can recall take for granted the definition of marriage as a two-person affair. This isn't necessarily a problem, but has anyone considered preserving the right to be polygamous? I mean, I'm basically talking off the top of my head here, so there's a fair chance I'm saying something stupid that I'll regret later, but it seems worth bringing up. Polygamy creates a larger family structure less susceptible to adverse circumstances that affect any one of its members. Polyandry can also, in some cases, be an effective form of population control. At the very least, I'd find it refreshing to see a resolution that recognized polygamy of immigrants, even if it didn't require members to allow such unions within their own borders. On the other hand, if a resolution about gay marriage is so hard to pass, I can't imagine one having any success involving polygamy as well.

In any case, like the Hack, the Xanthalian government doesn't sponsor unions between individuals, and though some states in the Xanthalian Union do, others do not, so I appreciate also the fact that this resolution doesn't technically require special recognition of marriage by the state. I'm not going to approve the resolution, because I think it could be touched up a bit. I won't get into details, I see others have already pointed out my own concerns.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

This isn't necessarily a problem, but has anyone considered preserving the right to be polygamous?

This proposal does not address that issue. It is left up to each individual nation to regulate that matter. I have my opinion about polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry) but I don't think it is appropriate to discuss it here, it would just be off-topic.


In any case, like the Hack, the Xanthalian government doesn't sponsor unions between individuals, and though some states in the Xanthalian Union do, others do not, so I appreciate also the fact that this resolution doesn't technically require special recognition of marriage by the state. I'm not going to approve the resolution, because I think it could be touched up a bit. I won't get into details, I see others have already pointed out my own concerns.

This resolution does not necessarily require a State to recognize a union between individuals. The provisions of the resolution only require that two individuals may celebrate a contract that protects their estate and their inheritance rights. This could be achieved either by a state-sponsored contract usually called marriage or by the possibility that these two individuals celebrate a private contract between themselves with no state intervention. The only requirement is that some sort of celebration of their union is available.

In addition, the resolution requires that any of the possible solutions be equally available to same- and different-sex couples.

Just off the top of my head, it seems weird that we've seen so many proposals over the years about the nature of marriage, but nearly all that I can recall take for granted the definition of marriage as a two-person affair. This isn't necessarily a problem, but has anyone considered preserving the right to be polygamous?

This is all a part of a slippery slope. I mean if any number of people can marry what’s to stop all those religious nuns who metaphorically say they are “Married to Christ” from actually, you know being married to him? (With all the legal rights that such a status would give.) The results could be … well suitably humorous enough for the World Assembly.

The "same-sex thing" is in the text of the proposal you came here to discuss.
And your point is?
I still didn't mention it specifically, as is being implied in the whole "why do you hate you hater" type messages.
And the defense rests on this issue.


Did you choose your sexual orientation? Why do you suppose homosexuals did?
I'm saying it is a choice, just like someone might choose to be a kind, benevolent dictator, concerned about the needs of his people while also enforcing what he believes only government should have a hand in, or a corrupt mass-murderer, intent on torturing all the poor bunny rabbits by tearing their heads off.
Or if you happen to like Oreos with milk.
If I'm making no sense to you, well, guess that's fine.
It's not like I'm going to get a positive response for this anyway. Though I did try.
And the defense rests on this case as well.

This is all a part of a slippery slope. I mean if any number of people can marry what’s to stop all those religious nuns who metaphorically say they are “Married to Christ” from actually, you know being married to him? (With all the legal rights that such a status would give.) The results could be … well suitably humorous enough for the World Assembly.

Hooray for making fun of other people's religious rights... :rolleyes::(

You don't choose which gender you feel attracted to, you only choose what to do with who you are.I think that was my point. I have no objections* to protecting gay marriage -- especially since it's already protected in my nation -- but I do think we're overemotionalizing the issue here. Black people can't help being black, women can't help being women, but gay people sure as hell can help whom they marry. This is not a law to recognize people for who they are, but to recognize them for whom they choose to be, and while I personally have no problems with their lifestyle choice, devoting your own personal feelings to a resolution isn't necessarily going to make it better. Let us not forget the "Repeal Gay Rights"...

Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

*Read: no objections to it, though I'd prefer we didn't. Marriage is a national issue after all.

This proposal does not address that issue. It is left up to each individual nation to regulate that matter. I have my opinion about polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry) but I don't think it is appropriate to discuss it here, it would just be off-topic.

I agree. That at least should be on a state-level.
(by state I of course specify it with the definition for "nation")


This resolution does not necessarily require a State to recognize a union between individuals. The provisions of the resolution only require that two individuals may celebrate a contract that protects their estate and their inheritance rights.
Well ok then.
This could be achieved either by a state-sponsored contract usually called marriage or by the possibility that these two individuals celebrate a private contract between themselves with no state intervention. The only requirement is that some sort of celebration of their union is available.

Seems reasonable enough... I suppose. But I still think the current resolution could use some fine-tuning at least.

In addition, the resolution requires that any of the possible solutions be equally available to same- and different-sex couples.
Meh. I'm not going to say anything to that since I'm not sure what to think.
*shrugs, smiles*

I think that was my point. I have no objections* to protecting gay marriage -- especially since it's already protected in my nation -- but I do think we're overemotionalizing the issue here. Black people can't help being black, women can't help being women, but gay people sure as hell can help whom they marry. This is not a law to recognize people for who they are, but to recognize them for whom they choose to be, and while I personally have no problems with their lifestyle choice, devoting your own personal feelings to a resolution isn't necessarily going to make it better. Let us not forget the "Repeal Gay Rights"...

Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

*Read: no objections to it, though I'd prefer we didn't. Marriage is a national issue after all.


Hey! I actually understood that argument.
I agree. They sure can help it. Last I heard, lifestyle was a choice/mental attitude (for lack of a better word) towards life, and isn't in your "DNA" in the sense of a specific gene, or something.

Black people can't help being black, women can't help being women, but gay people sure as hell can help whom they marry.

So repealing laws forbidding interracial marriage was a bad move because members of a racial minority can choose who they marry to. In your line of thought prohibiting interracial marriage is not a racist piece of legislation is just protection of marriage I suppose, just as not allowing same-sex marriage is not a homophobic standpoint.

In essence, you are saying that one is free to marry to whoever one wants, provided that they marry to a someone of an acceptable category.

Hey! I actually understood that argument.
I agree. They sure can help it. Last I heard, lifestyle was a choice/mental attitude (for lack of a better word) towards life, and isn't in your "DNA" in the sense of a specific gene, or something.

You can repeat it as many times as you want and it will still not be true. Being a homosexual is NOT a choice of lifestyle, it is part of who you are sexually and emotionally. You may choose to live your homosexuality in ways that would constitute an "alternative" lifestyle and an individual would have every right to do so, just as heterosexuals may choose to live different lifestyles. But above all, every individual should aspire to have the same rights as any of his/her fellow citizens, including the right to marry to whomever he/she loves.

There is a wealth of medical/biological evidence that is accumulating and expanding our understanding of sexual behavior in humans and it is becoming pretty clear that sexual orientation is determined very early in a person's life and most probably before birth. You CHOOSE to ignore this evidence and move on to equate homosexuals to some sort of club of people with weird preferences. Well, blacks can't help being blacks and gays can't help being gays: the difference is that the latter can hide it or lie about it even to themselves.

So repealing laws forbidding interracial marriage was a bad move because members of a racial minority can choose who they marry to. In your line of thought prohibiting interracial marriage is not a racist piece of legislation is just protection of marriage I suppose, just as not allowing same-sex marriage is not a homophobic standpoint.

In essence, you are saying that one is free to marry to whoever one wants, provided that they marry to a someone of an acceptable category.Uhh, no, I'm not arguing that we should repeal interracial marriage protection, that blacks shouldn't marry whom they want, that gays shouldn't marry whom they want, or even that this resolution is a bad idea. I'm telling you that your (clearly) personal feelings on the subject are not going to help you in drafting. Leave the emotionalism aside and concentrate on improving the law.

Black people can't help being black, women can't help being women, but gay people sure as hell can help whom they marry.

True. What they can't help is who they're attracted to; under those circumstances, lack of protection of marriage amounts to the government choosing their lifestyle (i.e. being single) for them. Ho hum.

On a much more important side-track, I've got a question for the nations whose governments don't do state-recognised marriage: how do you deal with next-of-kinship? I'm thinking from the point of view of intestate inheritance, who has power of decision-making when someone is incapable ("Do we switch the ventilator off, sir?"), that sort of thing.

I'm telling you that your (clearly) personal feelings on the subject are not going to help you in drafting. Leave the emotionalism aside and concentrate on improving the law.

I am sorry but now you are being intellectually dishonest and that is why I am being emotional. I was not emotional while drafting the proposal which I believe is very balanced. You, on the other hand, have failed to make any proposition besides suggesting this cannot be an international issue and making a few additional sarcastic remarks that amounted to nothing but rhetoric.

Improving the law is exactly what we trying to do here and I would appreciate it if you would add any constructive contribution or commentary to this discussion.

Neo Mithral Hall is once again showing support for this bill. We that anyone should be able to marry whom ever they want. If a gay couple wants to marry, then they should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us in our relationships. I only joke on the miserable part as my wife just smacked me on the head. Please keep Neo Mithral Hall updated on this proposal as it goes through the WA.

NMH Offices of WA Delegate

I will not be supporting this proposal.

Article 1 is too close to the religious line and attempts to force the church to change its ways. The control of inheritance mechanisms shouldn't even be mentioned as it it should be concidered seperate to the union.

Article 3 is discriminating in its attempt to be an open and free choice. My state does not wish to be forced into having article 3 but would rather choose itself.

CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,
May i ask what convinced you? I don't see where the problem is.

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

Doesn't this statement, in and of itself, force the State to take an active role in intersocial contracts? Sure, it doesn't make the State the officiant of the relationship, but the State is forced into protecting such contracts. What if a government wants absolutely nothing to do with such matters? John and Pat can decide to get married, but the WA should not force the State to protect this social contract.

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

[...]

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

(b) The protection referred to in the previous section does not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.

The rhetoric present in these two articles is, as previously raised, biased towards monogamous relationships. That, when combined with the vague definition of "conditions to protect the union of two persons" can be interpreted as a banishment of polygamous relationships. Would one such condition to protect the union be the notion of exclusivity? Consideration of the rights of the polygamous and further definition of what is involved in the "conditions to protect the union" is required.

Article 3 (Non-discrimination)

The place of the State is to protect the rights and values of its people. How such rights and values are protected is up to the discretion of the State. By stating the acceptance of the idea that marital or other social contracts can be considered as being outside of the sphere of the State, you are placing these contracts in the sphere of culture and (among other) religiosity.

The WA's mandate allows it only to dictate on certain matters of the States within it. Due to the belief of many such member-states in the separation of Shrine and State, however, the WA has no say on the choices and decisions made in the Shrine. Should, among others, one of these decisions of the Shrine be the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, the WA has no say as to whether or not such a contract is humane and in accordance to human rights.

Unless the WA's position is that marriage is a truly legal (as well as, perhaps, religious) affair, the WA has no right to impose its beliefs upon its member-states.

The People of Sasquatchewain, though in moral agreement with this proposal, will not be supporting this proposal due to their belief in the sovereignty of the WA's member-states to make their own choice on the matter.

Article 1 is too close to the religious line and attempts to force the church to change its ways. The control of inheritance mechanisms shouldn't even be mentioned as it it should be concidered seperate to the union.

How can an article clearly stating that the resolution has no bearing on religious rites be forcing any church to change its ways?


Article 3 is discriminating in its attempt to be an open and free choice. My state does not wish to be forced into having article 3 but would rather choose itself.

How can something that abolishes discrimination be discriminating?

Doesn't this statement, in and of itself, force the State to take an active role in intersocial contracts? Sure, it doesn't make the State the officiant of the relationship, but the State is forced into protecting such contracts. What if a government wants absolutely nothing to do with such matters? John and Pat can decide to get married, but the WA should not force the State to protect this social contract.

The preamble is not legally binding, it only clarifies the mens legis. Protecting a union between two persons is here equated to not prohibiting it. In my interpretation of the resolution it suffices, for instance, that the State let any two individuals freely celebrate a contract where they can lay down aspects of the administration of their common estate or their inheritance rights not to violate article 2.


The rhetoric present in these two articles is, as previously raised, biased towards monogamous relationships. That, when combined with the vague definition of "conditions to protect the union of two persons" can be interpreted as a banishment of polygamous relationships. Would one such condition to protect the union be the notion of exclusivity? Consideration of the rights of the polygamous and further definition of what is involved in the "conditions to protect the union" is required.

I don't think you can construe the provisions of this resolution as saying anything about exclusivity or about the banishment of polygamous relationships. That is entirely left to the States.


The place of the State is to protect the rights and values of its people. How such rights and values are protected is up to the discretion of the State. By stating the acceptance of the idea that marital or other social contracts can be considered as being outside of the sphere of the State, you are placing these contracts in the sphere of culture and (among other) religiosity.

Human rights ARE part of our collective culture, and culture bores law. Human rights are such an important part of our culture that we feel we cannot leave to the States to freely decide how to protect them because we believe these human rights are not given by State but yet existed before the State and definitely before religion.

Hooray for making fun of other people's religious rights... :rolleyes::(

We're Tzorsland ... We try harder.

No wait, is this IC or OOC, because if it is the later the irony meter kicks in. Honestly, I only make fun of my own religious rights.

(Roman Catholic, Secular Franciscan, Knight of Columbus by the way)

Being a homosexual is NOT a choice of lifestyle, it is part of who you are sexually and emotionally.

I generally object to this notion. Who you are is a choice; what your tendencies are may not be. There is a significant difference between the two. While this may be an interesting topic in and of itself, it is to some extent a red herring because in a fundamental sense marriage isn't about sex.

No really, the traditional view of marriage was never about "sex." It was about procreation; a notion that traditionally required sex. This is definitely true at the Old Testament laws on marriage. One can see this in the requirement that if a male died without a heir, his brother would ensure that there was one. (In fact avoiding this requirement through primitive birth control methods was the "sin" of Onan.) Marriage was in the Christian era was the means for determing letigimate heritage rights from fathers to sons.

If marriage isn't about "procreation" then it isn't about "sex" either. Yes it might be possible that the 80 year old couple might be sneaking in the vigra on their honeymoon but it might just be possible that they are just enjoying the hot tub toghether. (A few decades ago a famous "honeymoon" resort turned into a senior citizen's getaway. They still had the heart shaped hot tubs in every room but there was less activity on the beds.)

The fact is that you don't need a license to have sex. Once you remove procreation from the equation there is no requirement that sex should even be considered ("don't ask and don't tell" generally applies to most civil unions; no one ever checks to see if the marriage is "consumated" or not). If you then remove the veneer of mixed gender to this procreation through sex then it doesn't matter if two homosexual people of the same gender, or two hetrosexual people of the same gender marry, or whether they do have sex or not.

So if you do take the procreation/sex out of marriage, what do you have left? Commitment. In the end it is still a commitment between two people.

Which leaves us to the question of polygamy; if A can make such a commitment to B and another such a commitment to C what, if any, is the relationship between B & C? Can they in turn make a commitment to each other?

You can actually go down this path and find a very interesting place on the other side. Benefit providers who have traditionally allowed "spouses" and "children" to ride on the benefits granted to the worker would probably be all dead of massive stroke and heart attacks long before we get there, however. (Especially when all the brothers of a monestary decide to "marry" each other just so that the one brother who works outside the monestary can cover the entire monestary's health insurance benefits.)

Human rights ARE part of our collective culture, and culture bores law. Human rights are such an important part of our culture that we feel we cannot leave to the States to freely decide how to protect them because we believe these human rights are not given by State but yet existed before the State and definitely before religion.

Well, in purely sociological terms, no. Human rights as we Westerners know them did not truly exist previous to the Modern Age. And, on a tangent, religion most probably arose before true States. Small socio-political hierarchies within the tribe might have existed prior to true religion, but religion itself is thought to precede complex societies.

Prior to New Zealand's 1893 decision to allow women to vote, they couldn't. In fact, in the vast majority of cultures (with the exception, among others, of the Jewish people), women have historically been seen as second-rate citizens.

I shouldn't need to mention slavery. Not meaning only Euro-African slavery, but the millennial tradition of slavery, existent between warring countries/ethnicities/races/sects across the globe, including between African tribes.

Homosexuality, while common and accepted in Ancient Greece, East Asia, pre-colonial Africa, and [just stumbled onto this one on the Wiki] even celebrated in the South Pacific, was rejected in Ancient Rome, which could be seen as Greece's direct descendant, and the Middle East.

Despite what the American Constitution might say about human rights, they are in no way "self-evident." If they had been, one would expect them to be clearly visible in human history, which they are not.

It can therefore be argued that "human rights" is indeed merely a segment of a country's culture. Mendosia believes "human rights" are self-evident. Sasquatchewain, while believing in the same rights, believes them to purely be the nation's beliefs of such rights. Tzorsland believes that homosexuality is a choice, Mendosia believes it is an ingrained part of an individual and that, therefore, a homosexual should not be "punished" for who (s)he is.

It is not the place of the WA to impose it's opinions on the matter and, in that form, overrule the culture of its member-states.

It should be noted at this point that the proposal currently displayed at the beginning of this thread does not match the proposal that has now reached quorum.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

It can therefore be argued that "human rights" is indeed merely a segment of a country's culture. Mendosia believes "human rights" are self-evident. Sasquatchewain, while believing in the same rights, believes them to purely be the nation's beliefs of such rights. Tzorsland believes that homosexuality is a choice, Mendosia believes it is an ingrained part of an individual and that, therefore, a homosexual should not be "punished" for who (s)he is.

It is not the place of the WA to impose it's opinions on the matter and, in that form, overrule the culture of its member-states.

We believe it is WA's place to do so because we are a global community and despite our cultural differences we should agree on a common platform for human rights and we should reject moral relativism. Human rights are a moderately recent civilizational conquest but it's roots can be found in ancient culture. Too often, throughout history, our perception of human rights has been clouded by the economic interests of few, by the obscurantism views of fundamentalists or by the thick cloak of ignorance.

It should be noted at this point that the proposal currently displayed at the beginning of this thread does not match the proposal that has now reached quorum.


The proposal is not exactly the same as it has been simplified according to the suggestions made on this forum. And when the proposal was re-submitted with the new wording I informed this forum and I actually posted the text of the current proposal which you can find somewhere above.

OOC: I know, but it could be confusing for people just coming in to the thread. Not everyone reads every post.

The proposal is not exactly the same as it has been simplified according to the suggestions made on this forum. And when the proposal was re-submitted with the new wording I informed this forum and I actually posted the text of the current proposal which you can find somewhere above.

Then I highly recommend you edit the first post to show the current version, otherwise people will comment of that version not knowing that it's not the version being voted on.

While the proposal is good, it saddens me to see that it has reached quorum. This is something that should be decided at a national level. Not an international level. It is not something that the WA should decide and enforce. While the nation of Rutianas agrees with the material in the proposal, there are nations around us that just have a different viewpoint.

This proposal infringes on other human rights, such as the right to practice and maintain religious beliefs at a national level (i.e. A Theocracy). Yes, even if those beliefs are not shared by others, or viewed as 'backwards' or as 'immoral' behavior by others.

I ask that you keep this in mind when voting begins on this proposal. If we pass this into law, then we are ignoring one basic human right and creating a precedent that this assembly should not allow.

- Rutianas, Delegate from the Korel Region

Then I highly recommend you edit the first post to show the current version, otherwise people will comment of that version not knowing that it's not the version being voted on.

The content is essentially the same only the wording changes slightly. And unfortunately I cannot change other people's posts.

This proposal infringes on other human rights, such as the right to practice and maintain religious beliefs at a national level (i.e. A Theocracy).


Mendosia does not recognize the power to impose your religious views onto others as being a basic right of either individuals or nations. All individuals whose religion forbids same-sex marriage can always observe their religion by simply not marrying someone of the same sex.

If we were to accept this argument that religious views somehow sanction any form of moral relativism then, a fortiori, there could be no such thing as human rights or rights of the individual because you could always fathom a religion that would view those rights as blasphemous or sacrilegious.

We the nation of Hvara strongly oppose homophobia, and would welcome it on a national level, however, it seems that it is not the place of the WA to pass resolutions on this topic. Therefore, we are obligated to vote no.

Mendosia does not recognize the power to impose your religious views onto others as being a basic right of either individuals or nations. All individuals whose religion forbids same-sex marriage can always observe their religion by simply not marrying someone of the same sex.

But you are still suggesting that this law potentially be imposed on a Theocratic government that does not share yours and others views.

This particular proposal will, in fact, nullify a nations right to choose their own government if a government chooses to become a Theocracy where same-sex marriage is considered a sin. Such a nation would never be able to exercise their right to pass a law that declares such a union to be a sin and punishable by law.

For the record, this is not the view of my government. We welcome these relationships and even encourage such couples to adopt children. However, we also recognize that there are theocratic governments that have just as much right to declare such things taboo. We accept immigrants from those countries in our region regularly.

It is still setting a dangerous precedent to determine what laws any government may enact and that their religious rights are secondary to WA laws.

It would be the same as passing a law on the international level that marriage is one man and one woman only. And again, for the record, I would not support such a proposal.

The sanctity of marriage is not something that should ever be decided on by the WA unless it is such that allows the nation to individually decide what marriage is.

- Rutianas, Delegate to the Korel Region

This particular proposal will, in fact, nullify a nations right to choose their own government if a government chooses to become a Theocracy where same-sex marriage is considered a sin. Such a nation would never be able to exercise their right to pass a law that declares such a union to be a sin and punishable by law.

Theocratic governments might even decide that slavery is not only normal but a divine obligation. Or that women should be circumcised before adulthood to obliterate any chance of having pleasure on a sexual relationship.

But the business of the Human Rights Council of this World Assembly is to protect the rights of the individuals not the rights of States wanting to uphold whichever inhumane legislation they want. This is justified by the fact that we are all human, regardless of our nationality or culture, and as humans we share some rights and aspirations that can and should be protected by international organizations.

You posit the possibility that a Theocratic government elected by like-minded people may view same-sex marriage as a sin. Well, but if every citizen shares this view with his/her government this resolution will not pose a problem since no one will ever want to enjoy the rights it concedes. But if some individuals, who might have been unfortunate enough to be born on that nation, fall in love with someone of the same sex then they should be able to enjoy their lives together in the same way other couples do. Let them be sinners and let them be happy. This is the whole point of protecting minorities.. they often have to be protected against their own governments. And that is our job. Even in democratic systems one has to understand the difference between true democracy and the dictatorship of the majority. The majority has the right to decide, but individual rights have to be preserved and have to prevail always.

It must also be said that this resolution only binds nations which pertain to the World Assembly, whose membership is voluntary. Here we are committed to setting high standards of human rights and to enhance the opportunities of happiness for our citizens. It is a work we undertake trusting that we are a global community of individuals sharing the same humanitarian values.

Should a Nation be so contumacious as to force some moral or religious viewpoint to all its citizens regardless of their individual creeds and rights, should a Nation be so backwards as to deny the very notion of human rights to its citizens then I say that Nation has no place on this World Assembly.

We the nation of Hvara strongly oppose homophobia, and would welcome it on a national level, however, it seems that it is not the place of the WA to pass resolutions on this topic. Therefore, we are obligated to vote no.

So again, you too feel that Human Rights are not universal but something to be decided at your local village depending on the tastes and fads of whoever is in power.

Theocratic governments might even decide that slavery is not only normal but a divine obligation. Or that women should be circumcised before adulthood to obliterate any chance of having pleasure on a sexual relationship.

But the business of the Human Rights Council of this World Assembly is to protect the rights of the individuals not the rights of States wanting to uphold whichever inhumane legislation they want.

Should a Nation be so contumacious as to force some moral or religious viewpoint to all its citizens regardless of their individual creeds and rights, should a Nation be so backwards as to deny the very notion of human rights to its citizens then I say that Nation has no place on this World Assembly.


Human rights according to what belief system? Yours? Mine?

Some nations have holy scriptures that condone exactly what you are condemning. That is their own human rights belief system and it works for them. The people in their nations that disagree with it can emigrate to another nation that welcomes them. Or they can orchestrate a coup. Whatever, I don't care how minorities in such a nation deal with it. However, in your viewpoint, that theocratic nation, where the majority agree with their government, should have a different belief thrust upon them by just belonging to this Assembly. Or they can, according to you, leave the assembly as they have no place here by your human rights standards.

If this Assembly is to succeed, we must accept that we cannot be made into clones of each other based on a group of people who hold the same belief system close. Otherwise this World Assembly will become apathetic and pass only resolutions, with little to no opposition, that will eventually lead to anarchy.

If we alienate nations who's beliefs are different from our own, what does that make us? Are we any better than the tyrants and dictators that we claim to be protecting others from by passing this proposal?

Passing such a proposal into law would make us the tyrants and dictators, forcing our own beliefs upon others who may or may not want them. Yes, they could leave the Assembly and take with them something unique. Something that makes the Assembly the proud institution that it is now.

- Rutianas, Delegate to the Korel Region

Human rights according to what belief system? Yours? Mine?

The alternative to a dogmatic belief system is not complete moral relativism as you suggest. This proposal does not impose anything onto any person. It gives certain rights to certain people and it takes the rights of no one.


Some nations have holy scriptures that condone exactly what you are condemning.

I am sure they do and I am really sorry they do.


That is their own human rights belief system and it works for them.

Sure, just ask the minorities they decide to bully, the people they enslave and the women they subject to those terrifying procedures.


The people in their nations that disagree with it can emigrate to another nation that welcomes them.

They can only if they let them, which is not very common on the sort of nation you are describing. If they would let everyone leave they would be out of citizens in no time.


Or they can orchestrate a coup.

Is this the sort of international peace and stability you suggest? Is this the sort of international responsability you want to give this World Assembly -- none whatsoever?

Whatever, I don't care how minorities in such a nation deal with it.

That, I'm afraid, is crystal clear.


However, in your viewpoint, that theocratic nation, where the majority agree with their government, should have a different belief thrust upon them by just belonging to this Assembly.

No, what this proposal is doing is stopping those governments from thrusting their state-sponsored morals onto EVERY citizen. As I said before, this proposal institutes a right to be made available to all citizens. People are not forced to use it or even to like it, but they should be free to enjoy it.


If this Assembly is to succeed, we must accept that we cannot be made into clones of each other based on a group of people who hold the same belief system close.

Yes, but that is still different from adopting the 'anything goes' policy you are suggesting. THAT would indeed render the World Assembly useless. This organization is not just a forum where we assess our differences, it is a forum where we are brought together.


If we alienate nations who's beliefs are different from our own, what does that make us? Are we any better than the tyrants and dictators that we claim to be protecting others from by passing this proposal?

The policy you are suggesting is about putting an end to the whole idea of international community, of international standards and human rights. The moral relativism you are defending will do nothing but deteriorate the lives of millions at the hand of zealots and madmen. You seem to suggest this Assembly can't ever interfere in case of genocide, crimes against humanity, violation of human rights because the people committing these offenses simply hold 'different beliefs'. This line of thought could even be propagated to domestic law. Imagine a multi-ethnic multi-cultural country. Some believe murder is ok, some don't. Should we let those who believe murder is ok get away with it in the name of their belief system?

I trust that you would feel at least compassion for your fellow human beings that would be systematically murdered by a bloody government and might even feel that the international community should interfere in those cases.

The policy you are suggesting is about putting an end to the whole idea of international community, of international standards and human rights. The moral relativism you are defending will do nothing but deteriorate the lives of millions at the hand of zealots and madmen. You seem to suggest this Assembly can't ever interfere in case in genocide, crimes against humanity, violation of human rights because the people committing these offenses simply hold 'different beliefs'. This line of thought could even be propagated to domestic law. Imagine a multi-ethnic multi-cultural country. Some believe murder is ok, some don't. Should we let those who believe murder is ok get away with it in the name of their belief system?

I trust that you would feel at least compassion for your fellow human beings that would be systematically murdered by a bloody government and might even feel that the international community should interfere in those cases.

Quite the opposite, actually. That is not my standpoint. It's what I'm standing against by speaking for those nations that may be drawn to the WA in the future, but turned away by the fact that the WA polices areas, such as marriage, that should not be decided on an international level.

As for governments who systematically murder people for no reason? Yes, we disagree with that. But interfering in a nations right to govern itself? No. I disagree with interfering. Intervening in a situation that is deadly to it's citizens, yes. Interfering, no.

That aside, I fail to see what this has to do with the proposal. If a government is systematically bullying and/or murdering it's citizens because of sexual orientation, then perhaps a proposal should be made to protect them from that, instead of dictating to a nation who is allowed to marry whom. However, if such a nation is not a part of the assembly, then no law we make can ever reach them. What would you have this assembly do in such cases?

If a government is systematically bullying and/or murdering it's citizens because of sexual orientation, then perhaps a proposal should be made to protect them from that, instead of dictating to a nation who is allowed to marry whom.

So now it is clear what your point of contention is. Semantics apart what you are saying is that it is ok for the WA to pass laws protecting the lives of homosexuals, even if this violates the sacrosanct rights of theocracies which consider homosexuality a sin (maybe such a serious sin that it deserves immediate execution) but you draw the line on any additional civil liberties.

It is Mendosia's position that homosexuals are not second-class citizens and that changing that is important enough to justify this resolution by the World Assembly. You haven't been arguing for the rights of governments you have been arguing against additional civil liberties for homosexuals. Because, you see, Mendosia considers that a government that denies homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is, in fact, systematically bullying its citizens because of their sexual orientation. And that, as you suggested, needs the attention of this World Assembly.

It is Mendosia's position that homosexuals are not second-class citizens and that changing that is important enough to justify this resolution by the World Assembly. You haven't been arguing for the rights of governments you have been arguing against additional civil liberties for homosexuals. Because, you see, Mendosia considers that a government that denies homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is, in fact, systematically bullying its citizens because of their sexual orientation. And that, as you suggested, needs the attention of this World Assembly.

It's clear you feel passionately about this, however, I cannot vote for this proposal because of the precedent it will set. If we pass legislation about marriage, we might as well go for other things as well that should remain at a national level. Abortion, euthanasia, recreational drugs, to name a few. If we meddle in marriage, then we have no business saying we shouldn't be voting on other things that infringe on a nations right to govern themselves.

You've said that theocracies shouldn't be allowed to make their own laws based on their own viewpoint because they bully homosexual and other minorities. Well, in that light, democracies and other governments shouldn't be able to either because they bully the politicial minorities in other ways by not letting them make laws that they feel are good to have.

Your argument can be used in so many situations. As can mine. As I stated, it's clear you're passionate about this and I do respect that passion. That said, I'd like to make the request that you don't assume that you know what another government's standpoint is in the future. Just because someone disagrees with your proposal doesn't mean that nation disagrees with your views as you seem to have concluded.

Thank you.

Why should an international organization such as the World Assembly get involved in what it essentially an intranational matter?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This is exactly how Luxorose. While many of the things in this resolution are admirable, forcing them upon other nations that have yet to make up their mind, thus not understanding the REASON for the resolution, would be as cruel as the things this seeks to prevent.

Skullcrusher's vote is against.

I apologize for the following use of reducio ad absurdum, but it is one of my favorite logical arguments and the thought came to mind while reading this thread this morning.

Should this proposal pass to law, I see no reason why the following proposal should not be reconsidered (after being corrected and un-branded):

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: The Wholly Unholies

Description: We, the free peoples of the World Assembly, demand the right to enter into state sanctioned matrimony with a pelican of our own choosing, should we choose to wed with a pelican.

This right has been demanded and denied to our citizens for many years here in Taijitu.

Even though it many not be biologically feasible or even socially acceptable in most other countries, we at least demand the right to do so, should we choose to.

Mind the beak, and pass the bucket of fish.

What makes homosexual marriage a civil right, while the marriage to pelicans is thought of as ridiculous?

While I do have a pet female cat and love her and believe she loves me, I believe such a marriage would be ridiculous. However, it is not my place to judge one culture's beliefs and communal desires. It's a fun fact that the proposal above was declared illegal and removed not under the Statute of That's Just Plain Stupid, but due to it's branding.

Call it moral relativism or moral nihilism if you wish, but it is a fact that the rules of Human Rights are not written in stone. You think homosexual marriage is a human right. I believe it is. The difference in word-choice is not accidental. You go under the presumption that such a statement is binary: yes or no. True or False. I simply believe it is, just as I believe vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate.

The WA should be a forum of mediation and discussion of international rules. Not the imposing of one culture's beliefs upon another.

The great nation of ColdHeartedBastards believes that governments have absolutely no role to play in religious ceremonies, such as marriage. Our inheritance rights and the right to make medical decisions for others are protected by contract law and power of attorney. We believe that decisions about with whom you can live and have sex are purely personal, so long as all parties are consenting adults, and therefore have no place in local, national, or international law. We therefore strongly oppose this resolution, well-intentioned as it may be, and deny the right of the World Assembly to pass any resolution regarding marriage whatsoever.

You've said that theocracies shouldn't be allowed to make their own laws based on their own viewpoint because they bully homosexual and other minorities. Well, in that light, democracies and other governments shouldn't be able to either because they bully the politicial minorities in other ways by not letting them make laws that they feel are good to have.

But here lies an important asymmetry. I agree with you that each community should be able to make the laws that are important to them and that have the most impact on their lives, and that is the core of a nation's sovereignty. But that is different from giving a nation the right to infringe on individual's rights.

The right to marry is not a zero-sum game, in order to give that right to a sexual minority you are not taking anything away from others. However, most questions of policy are zero-sum games that involve compromises that only each nation and each community can decide upon. Therefore I don't believe we are setting a dangerous precedent.

The only thing that remains to be discussed is whether the right to equality in marriage is worthy of the status of human right.

What makes homosexual marriage a civil right, while the marriage to pelicans is thought of as ridiculous?


Because you are yet to find a non-fictional human community where people who wish to marry their pets are not dwelling on a mental institutions. You seem assume that the cultural characteristics of human communities are infinitely malleable whereas in Mendosia, relying on the best anthropological accounts, we believe there are human universals.


Call it moral relativism or moral nihilism if you wish, but it is a fact that the rules of Human Rights are not written in stone. You think homosexual marriage is a human right. I believe it is. The difference in word-choice is not accidental. You go under the presumption that such a statement is binary: yes or no. True or False. I simply believe it is, just as I believe vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate.


As I said before, the question at hand is precisely that: is same-sex marriage a human right or not. If it is not then this proposal should not be discussed in the World Assembly. If it is then it is here the best place to discuss it.

You compare your political positions with your gastronomical preferences, but there is an important difference. Policies do affect the lives of millions and this proposal was not made light-heartedly. Your gastronomical preferences, however, are of no consequence.

Again, this proposal is not about suppressing opinions or forcing one culture upon another. Homosexuality is not a cultural issue for there are homosexuals in every human culture ever studied.

It would be an infringement on someone else's culture if the proposal laid out exactly what we mean by marriage and spelled out the conditions and effects of its celebration. Mind that the proposal even avoids the term marriage in the wording of each provision. The proposal only requires that a civil contract exist where two people, regardless of their sexual orientation, may make decisions about the administration of their common goods and their inheritance, when applicable of course.

The great nation of ColdHeartedBastards believes that governments have absolutely no role to play in religious ceremonies, such as marriage.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony. Matrimony, however, is regarded by some religions, in relatively recent times, as a sacrament. This resolution specifically states on its first article that is has no bearing on religious rites.

We have also said before that instead of a state-sponsored contract like marriage this resolution also allows for the celebration of private contracts between any two persons, provided that this possibility exists in equal terms for same-sex and different-sex couples.

OOC: Mendosia, can I suggest you ask the mods to:
- sticky this thread and put 'AT VOTE' in the title;
- edit your at vote version into Jammy's post, as the two are slightly different.

Sildavialand has voted for this resolution, although we believe it is a big mistake to try to enforce it on the entire WA community.

Our laws allow marriage between two persons who have legal capacity to act, because marriage is just a civil contract in Sildavialand. The religious or rituals ceremonies that may be held afterwards are considered private affairs and have absolutely no legal effects whatsoever. Our system, by the way, is a copy of the RL Belgian Civil Law.

But NS is based on each Nation's liberty to decide which kind of society they want to establish. Like in RL, civil laws are the most inscribed in local conditions, and you find countries with 'one Nation' chaacter, but very different civil laws according to each State, region, comunidad autonoma, etc... This happens in USA, but also in Spain and many other States. In RL European Union, each member-State maintains its own civil code, so that marriage, filiation, inheritances and so on are ruled LOCALLY.

I am afraid that WA is full of Nation-managers with plenty of good-will, but also with plenty of 'the world must look like I think it's fair' philosophy... No tragedy if this resolution doesn't pass. I even doubt if it is actually legal within the NS basic rules.

In RL European Union, each member-State maintains its own civil code, so that marriage, filiation, inheritances and so on are ruled LOCALLY.

This proposal allows for all kinds of legislative differences between states where marriage can be defined in many different ways. The only thing the proposal demands is that same-sex couples have the same rights of access to the unions the States establishes.

Because you are yet to find a non-fictional human community where people who wish to marry their pets are not dwelling on a mental institutions. You seem assume that the cultural characteristics of human communities are infinitely malleable whereas in Mendosia, relying on the best anthropological accounts, we believe there are human universals.



As I said before, the question at hand is precisely that: is same-sex marriage a human right or not. If it is not then this proposal should not be discussed in the World Assembly. If it is then it is here the best place to discuss it.

You compare your political positions with your gastronomical preferences, but there is an important difference. Policies do affect the lives of millions and this proposal was not made light-heartedly. Your gastronomical preferences, however, are of no consequence.

Again, this proposal is not about suppressing opinions or forcing one culture upon another. Homosexuality is not a cultural issue for there are homosexuals in every human culture ever studied.

It would be an infringement on someone else's culture if the proposal laid out exactly what we mean by marriage and spelled out the conditions and effects of its celebration. Mind that the proposal even avoids the term marriage in the wording of each provision. The proposal only requires that a civil contract exist where two people, regardless of their sexual orientation, may make decisions about the administration of their common goods and their inheritance, when applicable of course.


Our government has voted for this resolution, it is not all it could be but it is a good resolution non the less. We congratulate it's authors on writting it and bringing it to vote. Protection of same sex unions is a vital and urgent issue in human rights which this organisation absolutely must address.

However further to the quote above we feel we should warn the honoured ambassador for Mendosia against using lessons from the mythical " Real World" in formulating positions on issues arrising in this world. The "Human constants" of the fabled "real world" may not, and in many cases definitely do not apply here.
Our nation , the Empire of Urgench, for example is one in which humans live extremely long lives, not in this case but in others this would have a potent interaction with a w.a. statute.
It is worth remebering that there are nations peopled by all manner of creatures sometimes in promiscuous admixture with each other and in infinite variety of social mode, applying the observable rules of the seemingly strictly homogamous society of the humans of the " Real World " would doubtless create extremely pernicious laws for this world.

Yours sincerely,

OOC: Mendosia, can I suggest you ask the mods to:
- sticky this thread and put 'AT VOTE' in the title;
- edit your at vote version into Jammy's post, as the two are slightly different.

I would ask the moderators if I knew who they are. I'm afraid I am too inexperienced at this to know what to do.

I would ask the moderators if I knew who they are. I'm afraid I am too inexperienced at this to know what to do.

O.O.C. place a request in the moderation forum, that's always worked for me anyway.

What makes homosexual marriage a civil right, while the marriage to pelicans is thought of as ridiculous?


Let me give you another argument to underline the asymmetry between these two situations.

Marriage, as understood by the mens legis of the resolution at vote, is considered the result of the expressed will of two sentient individuals. Find me a pet who wishes to marry its owner and I will give you a resolution stating its right to do so freely.

I have already stated my skepticism about the possibility of generalizing the philosophy contained in the resolution to a majority of WA members. I repeat, I have already voted for it, and in our Nation there is no other form of 'marriage' as a civil contract between two parts, who must have the legal capacity to decide. Exactly like in any other form of contract (by, sell, hire, lease, etc...).

But this is the trouble that separates mostly anglosaxons and continentals. When you speak of 'marriage', an American will immediately think in a ceremony more or less religious, with some kind of pastor, or priest, or preacher, performing it in any strange place... In Europe, at the contrary, and since the French Revolution, marriage is PRIMARILY a civil contract, a pact within two parts who must have legal capacity to engage into civil contracts. It rules the economic regime between the spouses, the inheritances, the responsabilities and duties between them -but 'love' is not one of them. Because love can't be legally enforced. And in addition to it, during a lot of centuries, most Europeans would have say: "what the hell has love to do with marriage? Love comes or comes not out from the mutual life. Marriage is a pact between families, patrimonies, heritages, clans, an economic-oriented arrangement to raise up the common riches and, if they come, the descendants..."

Therefore, it is for Europeans absolutely 'exotic' to see in American movies that couple may marry in their houses' lawns, or near a lakem or whoever they want... Because in Europe you need to marry in the State office in charge of taking act of such a civil contract. In Spain it is the Registro Civil, which is in charge of the respective municpality's major; the same applies to Belgium or France. The major may, and usually does, delegate it to a deputy major in charge of the local State registry.

Then, AFTER arranging the State papers of the contract and signing them, most newly-wed couples have their religious ceremony, in churches, mosquees, synagogues, or whatever place they decide according to their preference. But this is, legally, UNEFFECTUAL. This is a 'private ritual', no matter how many thousands attend, because for the civil law, it has absolutely no result or effect.

When the Belgian Crown Prince married a few years ago, for example, he did it FIRSTLY in Brussels City Hall, before European Royalty and other foreign State guests. THIS WAS THE ROYAL MARRIAGE. It was engaged before Brussels' major. Then, afterwards, the Prince and the lady who ALREADY WAS HIS WIFE AND THEREFORE ROYAL PRINCESS CONSORT, went to Brussels cathedral and were married by Brussels archbishop accordign to the Rom an Catholic ritual. Guests and royals were there. But for the State (Belgium) that one day will be his Realm, of which he will be the Head, he ONLY married at the City Hall.

Excuse me such a long explanation, but I always found that all these details may help many Americans to have a clearer idea why marriage or civil unions for people able to make a contract -independently from their gender- exist in Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Scandinavian countries, England, and so on. It is not 'holy marriage', because its holyness or commoness is not to the State to pronounce, but for the spouses. It is just a contract of convivence, with economic and legal results, duties and rights.

I support and endorse all cultures and ethnicities. However, I cannot support or tolerate same-sex unions within my national borders, and therefore must resign from the WA for the present time. I bid you all a good day.

The Empire of Monte Belle wholeheartedly agrees and supports this resolution. In this time and age, we cannot suppress or discriminate against a person's guaranteed right to his/her pursuit of happiness.

Our country protects the rights of its homosexual citizens and hopes that this resolution will bring more civil protection for homosexual populations world-wide. Just as many of the WA's member nations separate church and state. We must separate the government from its citizens' private choices.

~Royal Ambassador to the World Assembly
~Duke Richard D. Ansley

My most serious issue with this proposal is the simple implied moral absolutism: the belief in one set of moral beliefs that are objectively true, as opposed to being subjective creations of the mind. That is the dangerous precedent. Sure, heterosexuals don't really lose anything if this law is passed, but a precedent is put down:

"From now on, it is fair game to pass resolutions imposing one country's moral beliefs upon another."

"From now on, it is fair game to pass resolutions imposing one country's moral beliefs upon another."

No, the precedent that is being set is that it is ok for the international community at large, following a democratic process, to protect the rights of minorities against a majority in some countries that would impose onto them their moral beliefs.

Countries don't hold moral beliefs, individuals do. And this resolution does not hinder the moral beliefs of anyone. No one is being asked or compelled to marry someone of the same sex, we are not even forcing people to like the idea. But what we shall not have is someone imposing their views to limit the liberty of others.

I will follow with interest your position on the upcoming proposals on the abolition of slavery.

Is the respected ambassador for Mendosia carrying a purely personal debate with the respected ambassador for Sasquatchewain or are they going to respond to the rest of the membership which does them the politeness of offering their opinion on their resolution?

It seems the respected ambassador has not taken the advice given to them about posting in the moderation forum to have this thread made official. We urge them to follow proper practice and do so.

yours e.t.c. ,

Is the respected ambassador for Mendosia carrying a purely personal debate with the respected ambassador for Sasquatchewain or are they going to respond to the rest of the membership which does them the politeness of offering their opinion on their resolution?

The Ambassador of Mendosia has been answering, at length, all the posts that have been submitted to this Forum and is not conducting a personal debate with no one. Our Nation has had the opportunity to thank all the Ambassadors that have and continue to support our initiative, but we are now focusing on dispelling, whenever possible, the objections that some representatives have presented against our proposal.

If we have failed to address any questions raised in this Forum please be so kind as to show us where we have erred and we shall promptly make amends.



It seems the respected ambassador has not taken the advice given to them about posting in the moderation forum to have this thread made official. We urge them to follow proper practice and do so.

Your most honorable Ambassador shall find that a request has been made to the moderators following your wise suggestion which we have decided to accept and adopt.

The respected ambassador of Mandosia is simply one of the very few in this debate who is defending the proposal. Others are announcing their agreement with it, but precious few are discussing their views and responding in kind to the ones in disagreement, with the ambassador for Mandosia being the most prolific of them.

As well, socio-philosophical discussions are fun!

As well, socio-philosophical discussions are fun!

And I would now like to use this opportunity to thank the Ambassador of Sasquatchewain for contributing to a most interesting and lively debate. It is through these debates that we shape our future and our own ideas for the World. And even if I and the most respectable Ambassador may disagree on this issue it has been, as his Excellency has said, mightily fun.

The respected ambassador of Mandosia is simply one of the very few in this debate who is defending the proposal. Others are announcing their agreement with it, but precious few are discussing their views and responding in kind to the ones in disagreement, with the ambassador for Mandosia being the most prolific of them.

As well, socio-philosophical discussions are fun!


Socio-philosophical discussions have a place all of their own in which to be conducted. This is an organisation dedicated to the formulation and promulgation of international laws. The difference betweens these is profound.

We commend the respected ambassador for Mendosia for availing of the proper proceedures. We also commend them for seemingly debating single handedly with the likes of the respected ambassador for Sasquatchewain.

We're there any debatable points being made by those who oppose this resolution we are sure we and others would be doing so.

yours e.t.c. ,

My most serious issue with this proposal is the simple implied moral absolutism: the belief in one set of moral beliefs that are objectively true, as opposed to being subjective creations of the mind. That is the dangerous precedent. Sure, heterosexuals don't really lose anything if this law is passed, but a precedent is put down:

"From now on, it is fair game to pass resolutions imposing one country's moral beliefs upon another."

Well, actually, dear colleague, the moral absolutism is the actual situation, in which ONLY heterosexuals may marry... Because allowing same-gender couples to marry is not FORCING people to do it, if they don't want it, but allowing those who WANT it to do it.

There is the possibility of same-sex marriage. You think it is sinful, or negative? Don't do it. Nobody is imposing any moral code on you. At the contrary, if your moral code means that only heterosexuals may marry, you are FORCING your moral code on people who don't share it, but can't marry because your moral code has been transformed into a Civil Law, which means 'the law of the City', of the 'Polis' por entire Political Body.

Who is imposing what on whom...? Those who limit rights to others, not those who gives rights to those who want exercize them.

These is also why American system of allowing referenda to make constitutionally impossible the same-gender marriage is also strange for European political culture. Because in European constitutional history, a Constitution is given to recognize rights, never to 'DENY' them. The only case of such a phenomenon in Europe has been given recently by one of the Baltic States, Lithuania. The reason: in several Easdtern European countries, and specially in the Baltic ones, the political 'class' is formed by Americans of local ancestry, but whose grandparents emigrated to the USA. They are now back in their countries of origin, but their political culture is shocking with the traditional Western European historical evolution. By the way, the same applies to Georgia... but this is another story, as Kipling said...

Well, actually, dear colleague, the moral absolutism is the actual situation, in which ONLY heterosexuals may marry... Because allowing same-gender couples to marry is not FORCING people to do it, if they don't want it, but allowing those who WANT it to do it.

There is the possibility of same-sex marriage. You think it is sinful, or negative? Don't do it. Nobody is imposing any moral code on you. At the contrary, if your moral code means that only heterosexuals may marry, you are FORCING your moral code on people who don't share it, but can't marry because your moral code has been transformed into a Civil Law, which means 'the law of the City', of the 'Polis' por entire Political Body.

Who is imposing what on whom...? Those who limit rights to others, not those who gives rights to those who want exercize them.

These is also why American system of allowing referenda to make constitutionally impossible the same-gender marriage is also strange for European political culture. Because in European constitutional history, a Constitution is given to recognize rights, never to 'DENY' them. The only case of such a phenomenon in Europe has been given recently by one of the Baltic States, Lithuania. The reason: in several Easdtern European countries, and specially in the Baltic ones, the political 'class' is formed by Americans of local ancestry, but whose grandparents emigrated to the USA. They are now back in their countries of origin, but their political culture is shocking with the traditional Western European historical evolution. By the way, the same applies to Georgia... but this is another story, as Kipling said...


O.O.C. Sildavialand it's good manners to specify that you are making real world references and try to limit them. In any case Ireland is a European country who's constitution regularly requires them to hold referenda on social and cultural issues other european nations do so also. Why even generalise about europe v. america in this forum in any case?

The closer I look at this resolution in its current form, the more it appears to me that the only real effect it has is to legalize unions regardless of the sex(es) of the individuals involved. While this is all well and good, it could be made a great deal simpler and achieve the same thing. Despite not being totally satisfied with the resolution, in the interest of promoting social and legal equity in the fight against invidious discrimination I have decided to vote in favor of the Freedom of Marriage Act.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

O.O.C. Saldavia it's good manners to specify that you are making real world references and try to limit them. In any case Ireland is a European country who's constitution regularly requires them to hold referenda on social and cultural issues other european nations do so also. Why even generalise about europe v. america in this forum in any case?

1) Just read the messages. They are a pretty mixture of RL and IC arguments going on. Are you giving the same morale to everybody...?

2) I didn't speak of referenda in general. I spoke about referenda 'to forbid rights in the constitution'. Of course there are referenda in most European countries. But they don't refer to cutting individual rights. They refer to accept or not treaties, or to change the territorial organization or the institutional frame.
3) The reason to generalize between American and European conceptions is because they are precisely BEHIND the arguments. It's good to see things from a different perspective. Now very OOC: I am European, married to an American and I have American own blood-relatives. I work with people from both sides. I know very well both worlds. They really are different worlds, you know. I offer my experience of border-crossing, like Cunningham did some years ago with his book -written primarily for Americans- "Understanding Europeans". I recommend it to you, because it is also very enlightening for people from both sides of the ocean.
You may not like what I say. But then I don't ask to like or dislike what I have to offer. I just do what others do: expose them into the discussion.

IC and OOC: have a nice day.

1) Just read the messages. They are a pretty mixture of RL and IC arguments going on. Are you giving the same morale to everybody...?

2) I didn't speak of referenda in general. I spoke about referenda 'to forbid rights in the constitution'. Of course there are referenda in most European countries. But they don't refer to cutting individual rights. They refer to accept or not treaties, or to change the territorial organization or the institutional frame.
3) The reason to generalize between American and European conceptions is because they are precisely BEHIND the arguments. It's good to see things from a different perspective. Now very OOC: I am European, married to an American and I have American own blood-relatives. I work with people from both sides. I know very well both worlds. They really are different worlds, you know. I offer my experience of border-crossing, like Cunningham did some years ago with his book -written primarily for Americans- "Understanding Europeans". I recommend it to you, because it is also very enlightening for people from both sides of the ocean.
You may not like what I say. But then I don't ask to like or dislike what I have to offer. I just do what others do: expose them into the discussion.

IC and OOC: have a nice day.


O.O.C. there's no need to be snarky. I'm a european, i have lived in Ireland a long time and have spent extended periods in america, so now we're done trading credentials i'll inform you that you are wrong again. Ireland is a european nation in which referenda are regularly called to ammend the constitution on Social and cultural issues, such as divorce and abortion e.t.c. And the U.S. and Europe are hardly as diametrically different as you claim they are after all of shared history and culture.

Again though this sort of discussion is for the General forum i believe. I noticed you bringing this kind of stuff up so i mentioned it. They're not my guidelines and rules, there's a sticky why don't you read it. Ciao.

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden is registering its vote AGAINST this resolution.

M.R.S.

This thread is far, far too long for a non-forum denizen like me to read. So I apologize if it's been discussed before, but has anyone considered that the government form "theocracy" is a very real choice in the NS universe? If a religious state/nation whose governing religion is one which forbids acknowledgment of same gender marriage they are left with no choice but to abandon the WA.

While my nation already permits union and marriage between just about anything sentient, I feel the loss of other WA nations who cannot tolerate such things will be devastating to this body.

[OOC: I realize game mechanics are such that it really doesn't happen that way. However, if we are to remain IC and semi-realistic about these effects, it can be viewed as a blatant attempt at barring theocracies from the WA.]

So should I vote for or against? My natiopn already recognizes freedom of marriage, religon, and most beleifs pertaining to such an issue. Yay or nay?

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden is registering its vote AGAINST this resolution.
M.R.S.

We note as your respectable Ambassador has eloquently made his point and we are obliged for your enriching contribution to this forum.

This thread is far, far too long for a non-forum denizen like me to read. So I apologize if it's been discussed before, but has anyone considered that the government form "theocracy" is a very real choice in the NS universe?

Dear Ambassador for Darkesia,

We have indeed extensively discussed that matter before. It must be noted, however, that a theocracy is not a form of government that would immediately be against same-sex unions. There are many religions. Your honor is focusing on a few that indeed consider same-sex unions to be a sin. We don't dispute the views of these religions but we consider that the rights of individuals should prevail.

So should I vote for or against? My natiopn already recognizes freedom of marriage, religon, and most beleifs pertaining to such an issue. Yay or nay?

The respected ambassador should vote For this resolution. It is perfectly in accordance with your own nations position and will extend rights to millions across the w.a. who are sorely in need of them.

yours e.t.c. ,

Whether or not your nation recognizes freedom of marriage is beside the point. You should be deciding whether this issue carries genuine international import, and whether the proposed law sufficiently and appropriately addresses it. We are not so certain, on either point.

Gay marriage should not be allowed it's immoral!

Naturally the noble ambassador for Omigodtheykilledkenny is correct in saying that the criteria in deciding how to vote should be based on the actuall utility of this resolution. As to that, it is well written and clear enough. It defines it's object and properly addresses it too.

The issue it addresses is by nature a trans national-one. Human rights regarding how a person actually lives their life and with whom they wish to live it and under what conditions have nothing to do with national politics, religious orthodoxy, or cultural tradition, where their choices do not materially harm others. Therefore the imposition of a statute which transcends these considerations is of very great necessity.

Any reasonable nation cannot but vote for this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

No, the precedent that is being set is that it is ok for the international community at large, following a democratic process, to protect the rights of minorities against a majority in some countries that would impose onto them their moral beliefs.

Countries don't hold moral beliefs, individuals do. And this resolution does not hinder the moral beliefs of anyone. No one is being asked or compelled to marry someone of the same sex, we are not even forcing people to like the idea. But what we shall not have is someone imposing their views to limit the liberty of others.

I will follow with interest your position on the upcoming proposals on the abolition of slavery.

Compared to the human population in Luxorose, our national animal, The Fantastipotamus, is a minority. Should the WA be able to force us to let it get married?

In all honesty, "marriage" is not one of the fundamental human rights. What you are essentially saying is that every couple, regardless of reproductive viability, should be subsidized by the government (given tax breaks, which is essentially all marriage is). Why does that make sense? The purpose of such an institution is to promote the continuance of a society. That said, I believe it is every nation's right to decide this issue on their own, without WA interference. While Luxorose will abide by the decision of this Assembly, we certainly can't promise to agree with it.

Compared to the human population in Luxorose, our national animal, The Fantastipotamus, is a minority. Should the WA be able to force us to let it get married?

In all honesty, "marriage" is not one of the fundamental human rights. What you are essentially saying is that every couple, regardless of reproductive viability, should be subsidized by the government (given tax breaks, which is essentially all marriage is). Why does that make sense? The purpose of such an institution is to promote the continuance of a society. That said, I believe it is every nation's right to decide this issue on their own, without WA interference. While Luxorose will abide by the decision of this Assembly, we certainly can't promise to agree with it.


Unless the honoured ambassador's nation's national animal is capable of choosing to be married then their worst fears will not come to pass, if they are capable of such then yes your nation should have to recognise their unions.

What are the ambassadors conception of " fundamental human rights " ? and why would having the right to have ones nation properly respect how one wishes to live ones life, and with whom not be among these rights?

Are only reproductively capable persons allowed to marry in Luxorose?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Unless the honoured ambassador's nation's national animal is capable of choosing to be married then their worst fears will not come to pass, if they are capable of such then yes your nation should have to recognise their unions.

What are the ambassadors conception of " fundamental human rights " ? and why would having the right to have their nation properly respect how they wish to live their lives, and with whom not be among these rights.

Are only reproductively capable persons allowed to marry in Luxarose?

Yours e.t.c. ,

I'm merely playing devil's advocate here. In Luxorose, homosexuals are permitted to marry. Our government came to the conclusion that, even if one cannot reproduce genetically, adoption allows one to re-integrate oneself into the "web of life", and help shape the future.

Our delegation chooses to vote against this resolution because it is hollow and imposed. We feel that unless a nation comes to certain conclusions on its own, some rules, even if they are in favor of human rights, will feel to the general populous like fascism.

The right of Homosexuals to get married is not, for example, tantamount to providing workers with living wages, or protecting children from being abducted. It's a civil liberty, and we believe civil liberties should be decided on a nation by nation basis.

Compared to the human population in Luxorose, our national animal, The Fantastipotamus, is a minority. Should the WA be able to force us to let it get married?

Dear Ambassador,

Has any Fastastipotamus ever expressed its inclination to be married to any human of your population, or any inclination to get married at all?

In all honesty, "marriage" is not one of the fundamental human rights. What you are essentially saying is that every couple, regardless of reproductive viability, should be subsidized by the government (given tax breaks, which is essentially all marriage is). Why does that make sense?

The Nation your respectable Ambassador represents only gives tax breaks to married couples if it wishes to do so, not by any provision of the resolution a quo. And with all due respect, we do regard marriage as a fundamental right in so far as it represents the possibility of sharing a life with another sentient being.

If your government wishes to subsidize reproduction then it should offer benefits to couples with children (married or not married) -- it would be much more to the point.

The purpose of such an institution is to promote the continuance of a society.

Your Excellency shall excuse me for pointing out that in many a Nation marriage is currently allowed to anyone and there is no pre-requisite in terms of reproductive success. In fact, you are generally allowed to get married even if you are well beyond the reproductive age, or even in articulo mortis. Therefore I don't see any connection between marriage and the "continuance of society".

The right of Homosexuals to get married is not, for example, tantamount to providing workers with living wages, or protecting children from being abducted. It's a civil liberty, and we believe civil liberties should be decided on a nation by nation basis.

Your Excellency is saying that this Assembly is entitled to 'impose' social rights like worker's rights which is laudable but has costs and trade-offs, but should restrain from expanding to right to marry to homosexuals, which has no costs whatsoever and demands no trade-offs. You would more readily strip a nation of its power to administer its allocation of resources and its labor laws, than you would accept giving out more freedom and more opportunities of happiness to millions of citizens that daily endure the horrors of discrimination?

May I ask your Excellency, what would your position be if we were discussing a resolution establishing the freedom of interracial marriage?

Again, while I believe interracial marriage is acceptable, to force another nation to allow it borders on fascism. I'm not sure how I would vote on such a resolution.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate here. In Luxorose, homosexuals are permitted to marry. Our government came to the conclusion that, even if one cannot reproduce genetically, adoption allows one to re-integrate oneself into the "web of life", and help shape the future.

Our delegation chooses to vote against this resolution because it is hollow and imposed. We feel that unless a nation comes to certain conclusions on its own, some rules, even if they are in favor of human rights, will feel to the general populous like fascism.

The right of Homosexuals to get married is not, for example, tantamount to providing workers with living wages, or protecting children from being abducted. It's a civil liberty, and we believe civil liberties should be decided on a nation by nation basis.

Playing devils advocate is entirely unecessary, there are plenty of nations who will take a position of conviction on this issue.

Your last point is entirely one of perspective. The human rights you outline could very easily be classed as civil rights in nations with different national biases to your own. Nations dominated by the will of business will undoubtedly see the right to a living wage, to use one of your examples, as utterly extraneous and liable to the whim of government.

Perspective is everything. Why should one group within society recieve unfair preferential treatment at the expense of others? Currently governments are able to force homosexuals to subsidise an institution which they are barred from availing of, on the flimsiest of excuses and frailest of logics. The implied slight on their own manner of life is extreme and constitutes defining homosexuals as second class citizens, or untermensch. This kind of discrimination should not be allowed to continue within the W.A.

yours e.t.c. ,

Again, while I believe interracial marriage is acceptable, to force another nation to allow it borders on fascism. I'm not sure how I would vote on such a resolution.

With all due respect, Ambassador, I believe you use the word 'fascist' too liberally. The word your Excellency should be reaching for is 'humanist'. And it is the duty of every free Nation to protect human beings or even sentient beings in every country against all forms of discrimination. This is the vision held by the Government of Mendosia, and it is the vision we will always uphold on this most noble Assembly.

Again, while I believe interracial marriage is acceptable, to force another nation to allow it borders on fascism. I'm not sure how I would vote on such a resolution.

Where would your scruples lead to? Would you allow a W.A. nation to exterminate their minorities simply because you are afraid of imposing reasonable requirements to protect their citizens rights upon them?

yours e.t.c. ,

I support this 100%

This is the vision held by the Government of Mendosia, and it is the vision we will always uphold on this most noble Assembly.

Even if I'd been considering voting for the resolution, which I have already voted against it, I would have cast my vote against it in light of this comment. Your government's vision is one that we share, however, it is not one that should be forced upon others.

You and others have argued about how wrong and immoral it is for views to be forced upon the people of nations if those views disagree with what is in your view to be correct.

How is that any different?

Also, the question has arisen of 'Is Marriage a Human Right?' Marriage is not a human right, but a human privilege. One individual must earn that privilege through gaining the love and trust of another individual. One can lose that privilege through neglect and abuse.

If someone can please explain to me exactly how the institution of marriage is indeed a human right, then I would like to hear it without hearing about how minorities are being abused.

You and others have argued about how wrong and immoral it is for views to be forced upon the people of nations if those views disagree with what is in your view to be correct.

How is that any different?

The difference is that this resolution allows each person to hold their own views on the matter and it does not force anything onto any one individually.



Also, the question has arisen of 'Is Marriage a Human Right?' Marriage is not a human right, but a human privilege. One individual must earn that privilege through gaining the love and trust of another individual. One can lose that privilege through neglect and abuse.

If someone can please explain to me exactly how the institution of marriage is indeed a human right, then I would like to hear it without hearing about how minorities are being abused.

Your Excellency seems to be confusing the right to marry with the 'right to find one's Valentine'. The right to marry (which is not the object of the resolution under discussion, which only demands the most meager forms of protection without discrimination) is the abstract right to share a life with someone of one's own choosing together with whichever privileges one's government wishes to give such unions. It is a human right because it is a very common human aspiration and an important source of happiness for the large majority of the population. What this resolution purports to do is to extend this right to homosexuals in every nation where this has not happened already.

Your Excellency seems to be confusing the right to marry with the 'right to find one's Valentine'. The right to marry (which is not the object of the resolution under discussion, which only demands the most meager forms of protection without discrimination) is the abstract right to share a life with someone of one's own choosing together with whichever privileges one's government wishes to give such unions. It is a human right because it is a very common human aspiration and an important source of happiness for the large majority of the population. What this resolution purports to do is to extend this right to homosexuals in every nation where this has not happened already.


From the proposal: This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

The right to share your life with someone is not what's being discussed, but marriage, a civil contract. If you intended the proposal to state that two people may freely live together without fear of reprocussion from their government, then that is what should have been stated.

Marriage is a union between two people. Some nations allow three or four people to marry into one household. Marriage is the joining of people together whether religious or civil. This proposal will force a government to recognize and legalize marriages whether or not they approve of it.

Before that's thrown back at me, I'll say again, I have no issue with the proposal except that marriage should be decided at a national level. Not an international one.

In all honesty, if the word Marriage had not entered into this proposal, then I would have backed it up completely.

Oh, I would like a clarification of this portion:

RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,

What if the religious community encompasses the nation? To me, that makes the whole thing completely optional for Theocratic nations. Was that your intention?

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

Again, if religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions, then Article 3 (a) makes it clear that they cannot be free to recognize or not such a union. They are now FORCED to recognize the union.

From the proposal: This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

The right to share your life with someone is not what's being discussed, but marriage, a civil contract. If you intended the proposal to state that two people may freely live together without fear of reprocussion from their government, then that is what should have been stated.

The text of the resolution, following the best legislative practices, avoids stating the reason why any two persons might wish to celebrate such unions, focusing rather on the substantive effects that are sought.



In all honesty, if the word Marriage had not entered into this proposal, then I would have backed it up completely.


The word 'Marriage' appears on the title and on the epigraph of one article for reasons of clarity but never in the text of any of the provisions. The reason for this is that 'Marriage' is a common name for the union of two persons. According to this resolution a nation can define marriage as something completely different. What this resolution requires is that two persons (regardless of gender and sexual orientation) may celebrate a contract with each other with the minimum conditions stated in the proposal.



Oh, I would like a clarification of this portion:

RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,

What if the religious community encompasses the nation? To me, that makes the whole thing completely optional for Theocratic nations. Was that your intention?

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

Again, if religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions, then Article 3 (a) makes it clear that they cannot be free to recognize or not such a union. They are now FORCED to recognize the union.

As your Excellency surely knows, the World Assembly cannot pass Resolutions which are optional for some Nations or for some category of Nations. If a Nation happens to be a Theocracy AND if the religious principles it defends happen to be against same-sex unions then, according to this proposal, the theocratic government should create some secular legal instrument to protect the union of two persons of either same or different sex.

The trouble with a reductio ad absurdum is that you have to make sure that the end result really is absurd, not just absurd-seeming.

While I do have a pet female cat and love her and believe she loves me, I believe such a marriage would be ridiculous.
Not necessarily ridiculous, but certainly unnecessary. After all, your cat already assymetrically enjoys the protections confered by civil marriage: you own her. You have the right to make decisions on her behalf, up to and including life-affecting medical decisions that she would be unable to understand or communicate. Her not being able to understand or communicate makes the reciprocal rights a tad pointless, but absurd? Not really.

The issue it addresses is by nature a trans national-one.

Oh really? You think that marriage laws are an international issue? In that case, would you care to explain to me exactly how the marriage laws of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites affect your nation's citizens?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Oh really? You think that marriage laws are an international issue? In that case, would you care to explain to me exactly how the marriage laws of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites affect your nation's citizens?

Your Excellency has missed the point. This is a transnational issue not because it is about marriage but because it is about human rights.

However, your national laws on marriage can, indeed, have an effect on other nations and this has been discussed already. The non-homogeneous recognition of marriage contracts can lead to bigamy for instance or other complications of international public/private law.

With all due respect, Ambassador, I believe you use the word 'fascist' too liberally. The word your Excellency should be reaching for is 'humanist'. And it is the duty of every free Nation to protect human beings or even sentient beings in every country against all forms of discrimination. This is the vision held by the Government of Mendosia, and it is the vision we will always uphold on this most noble Assembly.

Imposing one's viewpoint, particularly when it has to do with an intranational definition of a type or legal contract, is still not an appropriate thing to do in a WA resolution.

I simply implore the Ambassador of Mendosia to understand that every nation is entitled to sovereignty, and that this resolution is a violation of that right.

Two people should be able to cohabit, copulate, and reproduce (or adopt) as they please. But to say that every member of the WA should have to grant them certain specific legal rights is ridiculous.

A nation could, infact, respond to this proposal by simply redefining marriage as "a license to cohabit", and then create a new type of contract, call it "supermarriage", that would go around these laws.

The delegation of Luxorose applauds the audacity and intention of Mendosia's proposal, but still feels duty-bound to vote based on whether the WA should be able to impose a rule, not on whether or not the rule is, on a nation by nation basis, a just one.

Two people should be able to cohabit, copulate, and reproduce (or adopt) as they please. But to say that every member of the WA should have to grant them certain specific legal rights is ridiculous.


The right to cohabit, copulate and reproduce are also legal rights and in some nations these rights are intimately related to marriage or other contracts establishing unions between two persons.

A nation could, infact, respond to this proposal by simply redefining marriage as "a license to cohabit", and then create a new type of contract, call it "supermarriage", that would go around these laws.

No, they couldn't:

(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.

This is a pretty well written proposal, and I commend the author for their legislative tact.

However, the content deserves much less praise. Eloquence and declarations of freedom are no excuse for poor intentions.

Why didn't you name this the The Gay Marriage Act? Seems far more appropriate. And blunt. Which is why I suspect you've fobbed it off as some sort of proposal for increasing freedom for the good of the people.

Complete 'freedom' = anarchy. And we can see (well...most of us) why this isn't a desired form of society. Rules and regulations are bound upon the people of certain nations in the genuine interest of getting as close as they can to law, order, peace, health and morality. And this proposal will ravage that.

A law preventing two religious people from ritually torturing each other (for the good of their 'faith') is there because many believe (including myself) that this lifestyle is unhealthy, immoral and unnatural. Similarly, a law preventing two liberal people from engaging in homosexual activities is in place because many believe that such a lifestyle is equally unhealthy, immoral, and unnatural.

Just as it would be unacceptable for a fanatically-minded religious person to force the legalization of self-inflicted torture upon other nations, so too is it unacceptable to force a person to accept an extremely liberal and exceptionally controversial idea upon other nations. Unless you are to claim that national sovereignty in the non-international issue of family and marriage laws are inconsequential.

This is very disappointing. I will be voting AGAINST the Freedom of Marriage Act.

_________________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Complete 'freedom' = anarchy. And we can see (well...most of us) why this isn't a desired form of society. Rules and regulations are bound upon the people of certain nations in the genuine interest of getting as close as they can to law, order, peace, health and morality. And this proposal will ravage that.

A law preventing two religious people from ritually torturing each other (for the good of their 'faith') is there because many believe (including myself) that this lifestyle is unhealthy, immoral and unnatural. Similarly, a law preventing two liberal people from engaging in homosexual activities is in place because many believe that such a lifestyle is equally unhealthy, immoral, and unnatural.

Just as it would be unacceptable for a fanatically-minded religious person to force the legalization of self-inflicted torture upon other nations, so too is it unacceptable to force a person to accept an extremely liberal and exceptionally controversial idea upon other nations. Unless you are to claim that national sovereignty in the non-international issue of family and marriage laws are inconsequential.

This is very disappointing. I will be voting AGAINST the Freedom of Marriage Act.

Agreed. Therefore I am also voting AGAINST the Act. In all honesty- the Federation believes that regulations regarding the opening of markets and environmental care are more important then a regulation that would regulate something as personal as a marriage.

Similarly, a law preventing two liberal people from engaging in homosexual activities is in place because many believe that such a lifestyle is equally unhealthy, immoral, and unnatural.


Your Excellency, I shall not comment on this blatant display of mindless homophobia. We take offense on your words and we think it is pretty clear what are your views on civil liberties.

Just as it would be unacceptable for a fanatically-minded religious person to force the legalization of self-inflicted torture upon other nations.

I don't see absolutely any reason to forbid self-inflicted torture. It is, after all, a personal choice and there are no reasonable ways to actually enforce a prohibition.

Your Excellency seems not to grasp that this Resolution is not forcing anyone onto doing anything. It is just letting some people acquire a right which was heretofore barred to them.

You insist, however, that in the name of the law, order, health, some moral code, and some idea of what is natural these people should remain without this right and, presumably, without any rights. Similar arguments have been used before to limit people's liberties in many ways. Many Nations not so long ago have prohibited interracial marriage, have held slaves, but we as a community -- the international community -- have taken steps pursuant to the elimination of these practices.

This is just another step. The future will tell who is on the right side of History.

I don't see absolutely any reason to forbid self-inflicted torture.

Really? I find your view to be rather disturbing, to be honest.

Your Excellency seems not to grasp that this Resolution is not forcing anyone onto doing anything.

You will be forcing governments across the world to legalize a particularly controversial ideal. I have a serious concern with that. Especially when it is a non-international matter. I'm not completely sure that you understand how the WA functions...

You insist, however, that in the name of the law, order, health, some moral code, and some idea of what is natural these people should remain without this right and, presumably, without any rights.

No. See above - that is what I object to.

I shall not comment on this blatant display of mindless homophobia.

Well, you just did. I had a feeling you'd bring up that term in response to my perfectly valid concerns. I'm not surprised.

______________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

You will be forcing governments across the world to legalize a particularly controversial ideal. I have a serious concern with that. Especially when it is a non-international matter. I'm not completely sure that you understand how the WA functions...

This is precisely the point I've been attempting to make. I'm very glad that I'm not the only one who has this viewpoint.

It's also been stated by the representative of Mendosia that Mendosia has no issue forcing their government's viewpoint on other governments by using the WA to do it. Blatant disregard for the WA in my opinion.

Thank you, honorable delegate of the Narnian Council. :hail:

As delegate from the great sovereign nation of New Sequoyah, let me express my deep distaste with this resolution.

No offense to the honorable author, but this bill is a serious trespass on national sovereignty and laws.

By the World Assembly enacting such extremely controversial legislation, and undermining existing laws and ordinances in many of the member nations, this august deliberative body has crossed its bounds.

Since when were the private affairs of a country subject to international law? Now marriage, perhaps next whether or not one can own cars? Will naming of children be subject to World Assembly approval?

New Sequoyah vehemently casts it's vote AGAINST the measure, and URGES all voting members to do likewise.

Lt. Gen. John Brown Gordon (Ret.)
WA Delegate from New Sequoyah
Vice Chancellor of The Council of Narnia

By any chance are you a puppet of The Narnian Council? Because if you are, I should tell you that WA multi-ing is very much frowned upon and at times is grounds for deletion.

This is a pretty well written proposal, and I commend the author for their legislative tact.

However, the content deserves much less praise. Eloquence and declarations of freedom are no excuse for poor intentions.

Why didn't you name this the The Gay Marriage Act? Seems far more appropriate. And blunt. Which is why I suspect you've fobbed it off as some sort of proposal for increasing freedom for the good of the people.

Complete 'freedom' = anarchy. And we can see (well...most of us) why this isn't a desired form of society. Rules and regulations are bound upon the people of certain nations in the genuine interest of getting as close as they can to law, order, peace, health and morality. And this proposal will ravage that.

A law preventing two religious people from ritually torturing each other (for the good of their 'faith') is there because many believe (including myself) that this lifestyle is unhealthy, immoral and unnatural. Similarly, a law preventing two liberal people from engaging in homosexual activities is in place because many believe that such a lifestyle is equally unhealthy, immoral, and unnatural.

Just as it would be unacceptable for a fanatically-minded religious person to force the legalization of self-inflicted torture upon other nations, so too is it unacceptable to force a person to accept an extremely liberal and exceptionally controversial idea upon other nations. Unless you are to claim that national sovereignty in the non-international issue of family and marriage laws are inconsequential.

This is very disappointing. I will be voting AGAINST the Freedom of Marriage Act.

_________________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


Narnians should avoid lecturing this organisation on national sovereignty or morality. Both of these things have proven entirely expendable to them in the past and it would be gross hypocrasy on their part to appear to champion them now.

The ambassador's thinly vailed homophobia is evident in their attempt to associate homosexual marriage with torture and depravity. This is pernicious and disgusting. The morals of Narnians are not thank god the morals of the generality of this body.

Indeed this resolution simply seeks to allow the citizens of w.a. nations the freedom to live in consenting harmony with each other and the respect of their governments in doing so. How would this aim contravine " order, peace, health and morality" as the ambassador puts it? Of course it could not do so!

The W.A. does not need to be schooled in freedom and morality by the delegate of an agressively imperialist and socially regressive region. Who's policy is to ruthlessly extend their own morally dubious social view on the rest of the w.a.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Whether or not their views are socially acceptable, how does simply opposing a resolution translate to, "ruthlessly extend[ing one's] own morally dubious social view on the rest of the w.a."?

WA multi-ing is very much frowned upon

OOC: No - I'm well aware of NS rules haha. This is one of our most respected elders in CoN - we live in totally separate countries. Did the similarity of style throw you? ;)

And the fact that your posts are often suspiciously, coincidentally timed with his, yeah.

Hmm. Probably has to do with the fact that I bring up WA proposal discussions in our forums - hence it sparks incentive for various members to visit here. Do all the background checks, IP confirmations etc. We're different people, Kenny.

We could assume that Senator Sulla, Snefaldia, Dourian, Iron Felic etc are all your puppets too......but.....that would be absurd! Or is it...;)

Whether or not their views are socially acceptable, how does simply opposing a resolution translate to, "ruthlessly extend[ing one's] own morally dubious social view on the rest of the w.a."?

The means by which the Narnians go about their task are numerous. Their contribution to this debate is a small part of a grander scheme. They are not the freedom loving, animal nuts they would have the w.a. think they are.

yours e.t.c. ,

Hmm. Probably has to do with the fact that I bring up WA proposal discussions in our forums - hence it sparks incentive for various members to visit here. Do all the background checks, IP confirmations etc. We're different people, Kenny.

We could assume that Senator Sulla, Snefaldia, Dourian, Iron Felic etc are all your puppets too......but.....that would be absurd! Or is it...;)


Indeed this would be entirely absurd unless the Narnian delegate is implying that a single entity is behind half the most active members of a very active region. Would this entity spend it's time dissagreeing and chating with itself in regional forums or in this one for that matter?

New Sequoyah on the other hand could be you or it could be anyone but the suggestion is possible.

yours e.t.c. ,

This seems like a discussion that belongs in the moderation forum. It's rather beside the point when it comes to the merits of this resolution.

We could assume that Senator Sulla, Snefaldia, Dourian, Iron Felic etc are all your puppets too......but.....that would be absurd! Or is it...;)You got me. I'm a strictly devout, militantly machistic, defenestrating, bribe-soliciting Orthodox communist zombie hippy folk singer who speaks Burghese. Damn this infernal multiple-identity disorder! :tongue:

I knew it!! :eek: I can see the headlines now: "Kennyites admit fraud...the entire 'one-man-hoax' Antarctic Oasis summarily deleted!"

But echoing Xanthal's wise words...

_____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

You will be forcing governments across the world to legalize a particularly controversial ideal. I have a serious concern with that. Especially when it is a non-international matter. I'm not completely sure that you understand how the WA functions...


The difference between the position of our government and yours is that your Excellency seems to hold that the rights of States are sacrosanct whereas our government feels that the rights of individuals should always prevail. In this respect, your Excellency has also not presented a single argument that would justify the legitimate interest that a State could ever have in denying any form of equal legal protection to same-sex couples.

We believe that we require no justification other than the fact that this is a Resolution to further Human Rights across the globe, expanding the rights of individuals against the despotism of governments, to present it before this body.

Moreover, our government does not accept lessons from your Excellency concerning the functioning of this Assembly. This body has a Human Rights Council that you would have disbanded if we were to trust your Excellency's arguments.

Additionally, you claim that this is a highly controversial issue. We, with all due respect, completely disagree with your Excellency on this matter. Let the vote speak for itself.

The difference between the position of our government and yours is that your Excellency seems to hold that the rights of States are sacrosanct

Wait...are you saying you don't believe that our governments should have decision-making authority?

whereas our government feels that the rights of individuals should always prevail [over the State].

And who decides the rights of the individuals? The government. If it were the individuals themselves without government, this would be anarchy. Your statement gives way to circular reasoning (unless you support anarchy). Therefore, I believe it is ridiculous, even offensive to some nations, that you would attempt to present this illogical excuse for imposing such a highly sensitive law upon them.

I'll repeat it again - as you didn't answer the objection:

Just as it would be unacceptable for a fanatically-minded religious person to force the legalization of self-inflicted torture upon other nations, so too is it unacceptable to force a person to accept an extremely liberal and exceptionally controversial idea upon other nations. Unless you are to claim that national sovereignty in the non-international issue of family and marriage laws are inconsequential.

The fanatically religious man on the one end of the scale represents an extremity. The fanatically liberal man is the other extremity. I'm not of the opinion that either should employ the WA to serve their strong ideals.

expanding the rights of individuals against the despotism of governments

So a nation prohibiting same-sex marriage is practicing despotism?

This body has a Human Rights Council

What, this unruly mob? The same mass of people that handles Human Rights also "manages" Environment concerns...Free Trade...Weapons...Political Stability...Education...Security...Industry...Law and Order......well, you get the picture.

Additionally, you claim that this is a highly controversial issue. We, with all due respect, completely disagree with your Excellency on this matter.

You deny the high sensitivity of this matter? That may explain the insensitive manner in which you handle our concerns...

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

We note as your respectable Ambassador has eloquently made his point and we are obliged for your enriching contribution to this forum.
La Rinnosso Unnona di Norden e Marchòbrutellia do della vistece matrimone as a riggie. Bence oltra iacredece con il s'coperecce via la riggie di sèdeterme, hoci riggii ibrenta iáessercecho sa o de la statte pemmisecce matrimone gioía. In soppa, tu aovitece sonal son trevere tu sece, ti il a guío, a donno, a cano, a pietro, tuttevere. Ma s'del izio cosia as a "riggie matrimonecche". Matrimone, as tu trecce, s'a contrate - son privilegi e dovi e repponzi con personu doza (o plura, as tu trascurecci) entrece friedal. As son ani contrate, la Statto ici la podere limitecche la stanci e condizi in mia personu oáentrece inte hoci contrate. La limiti, e la renzi per sua, varece che nazione te nazione, e tutte hoci resoluzione doce s'diminurece passo podere di la statte e palitece il son oltra condizi coperta justi rescal la capriccie di nazioni ontra. Hoci s'del a esale di riggii umana, hoci s'a esale di a grache di nazioni imporeco cai fatte on nazioni ontra.

Gradece tu.

PS. Ma doverecci onesta al dei la c'he-basece "riggii" personu vanzece passi dii. Qui s'nunca, la "Riggii Mangecche Chieso"?

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden does not view marriage as a right. Though some may believe that it is covered by the right to self-determination, this inherent right may be exercised whether or not the state allows gay marriage. In short, you can go live together with whomever you want, be it a man, a woman, a dog, a rock, whatever. There is no such thing as a "right to marry". Marriage, as you said, is a contract - with privileges and duties and responsibilities that two (or more, as you had neglected) individuals freely enter. As with any contract, the State has the power to restrict circumstances and conditions in which individuals can enter into this contract, hence many other nations' prohibition of children from entering these kinds of contract. The restrictions, and the rationale for them, vary from nation to nation, and what this resolution does is to diminish that power of the state and replaces it with some blanket condition just because of the whim of some nation. This is not an issue of human rights, this is an issue of a group of nations imposing their will on other nations.

Thank you.

M.R.S.

PS. I am honestly amused at all the so-called 'rights" people invent these days. What's next, the "Right to Eat Cheese"?

PS. I am honestly amused at all the so-called 'rights" people invent these days. What's next, the "Right to Eat Cheese"?

Imagine that. A few decades ago some people even suggested that some ethnic minorities had souls! What a liberally radical thought! What an infringement on State's rights to wish to protect these soulless creatures.

You deny the high sensitivity of this matter? That may explain the insensitive manner in which you handle our concerns...

Your concerns, Excellency, are that some States may lose their ability to perpetuate a discrimination that has no justification.

Imagine that. A few decades ago some people even suggested that some ethnic minorities had souls! What a liberally radical thought! What an infringement on State's rights to wish to protect these soulless creatures.
:rolleyes:
Tuttevere.

Whatever.

M.R.S.

I am another representative of Narnia. I happen to find that some of you have not allowed us to give full air to our opinions based on some reserved dislike of us, our beliefs, or our methods. Does the World Assembly discard any and all opinions that might appear marginalised? I would hope not, and I would hope that you all are able to read my argument with a calm, clear and reasoned disposition. You do not necessarily have to agree with me, as I may not with you, however I strongly urge you all to steer clear of ad hominem arguments to allow a proper debate. There is no point to discussion if all people who fail to support this are deemed to be too conservative and inhumane.

So let me begin:

The problem the people of Lotheterran have with this proposal, is that marriage is not clearly defined as a 'human right'. In our nation, marriage is simply a privilege granted by the government allowing for two people to enjoy certain other privileges associated with a union of people. This has been defined in any way so thought of as acceptable in Lotheterran.

What this proposal seeks to achieve, is to impose marriage as an institution on any and all nations regardless of their current law. What if for example (and I have heard it said), a Theocracy, that has no form of government sanctioned civil union, but rather ONLY the religious institution of marriage has this law applied to it. Is the proposal attempting to say that now the government MUST come up with a secular form of marriage? What about a society that does not have ANY marriage whatsoever? Does that nation now HAVE to legalise homosexual marriage, and thus marriage in general?

There is a general assumption here that marriage is a human right. Lotheterran however, proposes there should be no law against people LIVING together in a RELATIONSHIP, but there should not necessarily be a government-sanctioned relationship that confers privileges on one set of peoples that grants financial, succession or other legal benefits unless the state so wishes. You might consider this discrimination, but then let me ask you this; if in my nation I allow a 'baby bonus' of $5000 to be paid to each citizen that GIVES BIRTH to a child (i.e. not adopts), then you could argue that this is discriminatory to male same-sex couples (since they can't). But the aim isn't to discriminate against male homosexuals, it's to encourage reproduction, something homosexuals can't do without IVF etc. So what if the history of one nation is that marriage was created to encourage two people of different genders to get together to reproduce? It was a special bonues granted to certain couples to encourage a particular purpose. What this proposal is saying is that homosexual couples MUST be allowed to marry!

While I would agree with this proposal if it were the 'right to associate, or enter into a relationship with another person regardless of gender', it's serious imposition into the rights of the government to legislate for it's own laws is of great concern to the people of Lotheterran.

What of the varying conditions in other nations? If one nation has NO laws on marriage whatsoever, then what do you propose the rights of homosexuals in regards to marriage should be?

This proposal has severely unforeseen consequences associated with it that may have been overlooked. As the representative of Lotheterran I will be casting a vote AGAINST this proposal, NOT for any objection to homosexual relationships, but rather against the nature of marriage as a human right.

Whatever.


What your Excellency seems to ignore is that the right to marry is indeed a fundamental freedom enshrined in the most important legal documents of our World. It is not, in the slightest degree, a radical idea.

The innovation of this Resolution is that henceforth this right ought to be extended to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

What your Excellency seems to ignore is that the right to marry is indeed a fundamental freedom enshrined in the most important legal documents of our World. It is not, in the slightest degree, a radical idea.

The innovation of this Resolution is that henceforth this right ought to be extended to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

What fundamental freedom may I ask? The fundamental freedom to live together? For someone to say 'Hey guys, you're in love'? For the government to grant certain privileges to couples? The people of Lotheterran are having trouble seeing what you are attempting to achieve.

The people of Brabandia have voted FOR this act. It is indeed a fundamental right and it has already been like that in our country for a while. It's not upto the government to decide who can and who cannot marry.

What your Excellency seems to ignore is that the right to marry is indeed a fundamental freedom enshrined in the most important legal documents of our World. It is not, in the slightest degree, a radical idea.

The innovation of this Resolution is that henceforth this right ought to be extended to all, regardless of sexual orientation.
Qui documentu legala?

Unà di dei, ma s'del izie cosia as a riggie matrimonecche. So, me innece di a nazione fròltri fra matrimone s'desinna venno. Matrimone s'a contrate scaglia, nila plura, nila pugna. Il s'del a riggie.

What legal documents?

First of all, there is no such thing as a right to marry. Why, I know of a country somewhere where marriage is even unknown. Marriage is a social contract, nothing more, nothing less. It is NOT a right.

M.R.S.

Qui documentu legala?

Unà di dei, ma s'del izie cosia as a riggie matrimonecche. So, me innece di a nazione fròltri fra matrimone s'desinna venno. Matrimone s'a contrate scaglia, nila plura, nila pugna. Il s'del a riggie.

What legal documents?

First of all, there is no such thing as a right to marry. Why, I know of a country somewhere where marriage is even unknown. Marriage is a social contract, nothing more, nothing less. It is NOT a right.

M.R.S.


This is a straw man, in Urgench marriages are not recognised or singled out for special treatment by the government, marriages are purely personal contracts dealt with in our civil courts . We do not support this resolution because it secures some putative right to marriage, despite peremptory claims that it does not exist, we support it because it prevents people from being unfairly discriminated against.

Nations who do have legal forms of marriage which are only available to certain orders of persons and not to others are engaging in discrimination, where this discrimination is unfair or prejudiced this resolution will rightly and decently end that. One cannot fairly offer one mode of life social, economic or cultural benefits while another mode of life is marginalised and ignored or despised.

There is no logical or fair reason to prevent gay people, for instance, from marrying each other. The only reasons would be unfair and irrational. Such treatment of a minority is anomolous and inconsistent with the functioning of natural justice.

Human rights statutes serve to equalise the standing of all persons before the law and to secure fair treatment by national governments for all their citizens. This resolution does exactly that. It is vital that this organisation continue to strive to better the lives of it's member's citizenry in order to promote peace, prosperity and future felicity.


Yours e.t.c. ,

--snip--
Again this underscores the basic difference between our views. The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden does not view marriage as a right. I believe I had expounded on why we do not believe that marriage is not a right. You can go on treat it as a factitious right, but you cannot and should not force Brutland and Norden into adopting this view. This is another blatant example of a group of nations imposing their views on another.

Not all nations even have those legal forms of marriage. You had said it, your nation does not have legal marriage. This simply highlights the point raised by several nations that marriage is an intranational affair. In helping pass this resolution, you introduce superfluous legislation into your books, which, I believe, is not good unless you are a fan of utterly useless legislation. Additionally, the lack of legal marriage in certain countries is in itself evidence that marriage is not universal, much less a human right; and that marriage is an intranational issue, as certain nations and societies chose not to even grant this kind of contract.

M.R.S.
C.F.

Again this underscores the basic difference between our views. The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden does not view marriage as a right. I believe I had expounded on why we do not believe that marriage is not a right. You can go on treat it as a factitious right, but you cannot and should not force Brutland and Norden into adopting this view. This is another blatant example of a group of nations imposing their views on another.

Not all nations even have those legal forms of marriage. You had said it, your nation does not have legal marriage. This simply highlights the point raised by several nations that marriage is an intranational affair. In helping pass this resolution, you introduce superfluous legislation into your books, which, I believe, is not good unless you are a fan of utterly useless legislation. Additionally, the lack of legal marriage in certain countries is in itself evidence that marriage is not universal, much less a human right; and that marriage is an intranational issue, as certain nations and societies chose not to even grant this kind of contract.

M.R.S.
C.F.


If you would care to properly read what we have written you will see that we have not contended that any one has this "right to marry" you are obsessed with.

All we contend is that it is a deeply unfair and discriminatory practice to allow marriage to one section of society and not to others. That is the reason this resolution must be passed. It is the discrimination which makes this a human rights issue, not some abstract notion of a right to marry.

If you do not think some members of society have the right to marry then you should not allow any one to avail of an institution which would afford them certain rights and priviledges which others do not have . To do so implies that certain members of your society are inferior, or sub-human.

The is an issue of un-fair discrimination not one of " Right(s) to marry "


yours e.t.c. ,

It is the discrimination which makes this a human rights issue, not some abstract notion of a right to marry.
You believe that this is a human rights issue. Then what right are states with restrictions on marriage purportedly violate?

Discrimination is such a loaded term. If we'd be using the term as you do, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden discriminates against children because we do not issue them marriage contracts if they are below 12. We are discriminating against a section of society because of their age! Damn! Oh, the horror! Brutland and Norden believes children are subhuman and inferior! That must be remedied! Let's put that to a vote in the World Assembly, shall we?

The point is, each nations' restrictions are different. What are these restrictions and the rationale for them may vary between nations, and is clearly not in the realm of the WA or a group of nations who believe that their restrictions and rationale are superior.

M.R.S.
C.F.

You believe that this is a human rights issue. Then what right are states with restrictions on marriage purportedly violate?

Discrimination is such a loaded term. If we'd be using the term as you do, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden discriminates against children because we do not issue them marriage contracts if they are below 12. We are discriminating against a section of society because of their age! Damn! Oh, the horror! Brutland and Norden believes children are subhuman and inferior! That must be remedied! Let's put that to a vote in the World Assembly, shall we?

The point is, each nations' restrictions are different. What are these restrictions and the rationale for them may vary between nations, and is clearly not in the realm of the WA or a group of nations who believe that their restrictions and rationale are superior.

M.R.S.
C.F.


The point is that individuals have a human right to not be unfairly discriminated against by their governments and to equal treatment under the law.

It is fair to suggest that those who cannot be expected to consent or dessent to marriage may not marry. It is not fair, and more importantly it is a violation of their human rights to prevent persons capable of consenting to marriage from actually getting married.

Flippant and inaccurate comparison cannot disguise the fact that preventing gay people, or persons of a specific race or religious creed from getting married simply because a government feels like doing so is reprehensible and incompatible with basic human rights.

yours e.t.c. ,

The point is that individuals have a human right to not be unfairly discriminated against by their governments and to equal treatment under the law.
Who determines what is fair discrimination and what is unfair discrimination, hmmmmm? You? Me? The sapient broccoli? :p

M.R.S.

Who determines what is fair discrimination and what is unfair discrimination, hmmmmm? You? Me? The sapient broccoli? :p

M.R.S.


If one puts aside the concept of natural justice, then right here and now the arbiters of fairness are the wise and honoured members of this organisation.

We hope that on a case by case basis they would apply the principles of common decency to all issues brought to vote here.


yours e.t.c. ,

I think some hard work is gonna be needed to get this past, you've got to deal with all those religious extremists who believe it's their business what other people do with their genitals. I wish you the best of luck with this resolution, I'd love to see it pass.

You believe that this is a human rights issue. Then what right are states with restrictions on marriage purportedly violate?

Discrimination is such a loaded term. If we'd be using the term as you do, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden discriminates against children because we do not issue them marriage contracts if they are below 12. We are discriminating against a section of society because of their age! Damn! Oh, the horror! Brutland and Norden believes children are subhuman and inferior! That must be remedied! Let's put that to a vote in the World Assembly, shall we?

Your Excellency, we have repeatedly said that firstly this resolution does not force ANY Nation to introduce any state-sponsored institution called marriage. The provisions of the Resolution don't even mention marriage but rather the union between two persons. Moreover, the terms used by the Resolution are broad enough to allow for the protection referred to in Article 2 to be materialized by a private contract between the two persons, therefore we are NOT forcing the institution of marriage onto anyone.

The Human Rights issue at hand is that two persons have the right to share a life together establishing between them a bond with equal legal dignity regardless of their sexual orientation. It is, therefore, a non-discrimination issue.

Now, non-discrimination or equality issues are NEVER absolutes. It is ok to discriminate if one can find a legitimate interest that can be demonstrated to be more worthy of protection. Therefore, it is not difficult to advance justifications for barring 12-year-olds from a union between two persons. However there is no legitimate interest to justify discriminating same-sex couples.

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of The United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, feels that the proposal before the World Assembly, regarding the rights of marriage is a good idea, and in fact is similar to proposals mulling about our own congress. However, the USSJ is not convinced that marriage is, in fact, a human right, but rather a civil right; therefore, we are unsure that this is the providence of the World Assembly to impose this proposal on other member nations. At this time, we abstain from voting on this issue. We may, however, vote later.

Ambassdor Sakura Yamamoto walked to the microphone to show the WA her governments views.

"The Neo Kirisuban Space Federation casts its vote FOR the proposal. We already have freedoms like this in place so know they work on our homeworlds.

While I've heard all the arguements in play today it dosen't change our viewpoint that its a reasonable safeguard for same sex couples and equality can only be a good thing."

Sakura then leaves the microphone so the next speaker can make their points.

[I]What legal documents?

First of all, there is no such thing as a right to marry. Why, I know of a country somewhere where marriage is even unknown. Marriage is a social contract, nothing more, nothing less. It is NOT a right.

Your Excellency, in my Nation historians tell me that once there was this document, to some considered mythical but yet inspirational, and was named the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On this fabulous document you could read the following:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

[...]

I, the Democratic States of Frisbee People, WA delegate of The United Captives, would like to announce my support of this resolution because all people deserve the right to marry whom they wish. and even if one doesn't agree with gay marriages, they still deserve legal rights, and its included that religious groups don't have to accept the marriages if they don't want to so we are not forcing our morality on anybody, simply preventing opponents from doing so to the LGBT community

B ) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.


Therefore making it optional for theocratic states and an illegal proposal.

Therefore making it optional for theocratic states and an illegal proposal.

This matter has been discussed already. The proposal is not optional for theocratic nations.

Another thing I don't understand is why everyone always assumes that religions are by default against same-sex marriage.

I'd like it to be discussed again.

"Does not affect...the restrictions...in religious communities"

If a state, as a whole, is a religious community, they can ignore this proposal.

As an aside, to anyone saying "it'll be hard to get this resolution to pass," this resolution will pass. Check the vote so far in the Global Assembly page. Sure, there are many thousands of Nations left to vote, but there is zero ground to believing their votes will change the ratio at which votes are being put in.

This resolution will pass with a 2:1 ratio.

I'd like it to be discussed again.

"Does not affect...the restrictions...in religious communities"

If a state, as a whole, is a religious community, they can ignore this proposal.

Your Excellency,

What the proposition says is:

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

So, religious rites will not be affected. However, the proposal also requires that some provisions to protect the unions of two persons be enacted and it further demands that no discrimination in terms of sexual orientation be practiced in the access to whichever form of legal protection the State confers.

Even Theocratic nations have some secular regulations and this proposal requires that amongst these be some form of protection of the union of two persons, if same-sex marriage happens to be contrary to their religious beliefs. They don't have to call it marriage if marriage is not a secular affair on their nation.

Therefore making it optional for theocratic states and an illegal proposal.

This clause seemingly only protects the actual marriage rites themselves, by our reading of it at least. It is hardly an opt out for theocracy from recognition of unorthodox marriages per se.

yours e.t.c. ,

As an aside, to anyone saying "it'll be hard to get this resolution to pass," this resolution will pass. Check the vote so far in the Global Assembly page. Sure, there are many thousands of Nations left to vote, but there is zero ground to believing their votes will change the ratio at which votes are being put in.

Some large regions with endorsements-rich delegates have still not voted either way so things can still change. I urge everyone who is for this Resolution to vote and to convince his allied Nations to vote too.

The representative from the Commonwealth of Oxymorontopia is strongly opposed to this proposal and is urging all nations in its region and others to oppose this as well. As mentioned previously by many wise delegates, this proposal would effectively force theocracies that oppose same sex marriages to adopt such practices--which would be in direct opposition to their historical governing practices. Also stated previously, this proposal has no business being decided in the WA, it is a national issue. Further, trying to cloak a "gay rights/marriage" proposal under the guise of protecting human rights is borderline deception and deceit. If the author and staunch supporters are so adamant about gay rights and gay marriage then choose a title that reflects that. Whether or not gay marriages are allowed in a particular country or not is the right of that country and that country alone and should not be forced upon other nations. And while we're talking about protecting minority rights, how about the rights of theocratic nations that oppose gay marriages that seem to be in the minority here? The authors seem to have no problem taking away and denying their rights in this matter.

Further, trying to cloak a "gay rights/marriage" proposal under the guise of protecting human rights is borderline deception and deceit.
This is hysterically funny. Are you saying that gay rights are somehow not human rights?

This is hysterically funny. Are you saying that gay rights are somehow not human rights?

Not at all. I was only saying that if that is the aim of this resolution then come out and say it instead of hiding behind a generic title.

Hello, My region has voted to abstain from this resolution, while all seemed to agree with the ideal to the resolution the majority disagree with the method in which to achieve it, We disagree with this being a WA Issue, however by majority vote- The region of La Mafia Abstains from voting for or against this resolution.

The representative from the Commonwealth of Oxymorontopia is strongly opposed to this proposal and is urging all nations in its region and others to oppose this as well. As mentioned previously by many wise delegates, this proposal would effectively force theocracies that oppose same sex marriages to adopt such practices--which would be in direct opposition to their historical governing practices. Also stated previously, this proposal has no business being decided in the WA, it is a national issue. Further, trying to cloak a "gay rights/marriage" proposal under the guise of protecting human rights is borderline deception and deceit. If the author and staunch supporters are so adamant about gay rights and gay marriage then choose a title that reflects that. Whether or not gay marriages are allowed in a particular country or not is the right of that country and that country alone and should not be forced upon other nations. And while we're talking about protecting minority rights, how about the rights of theocratic nations that oppose gay marriages that seem to be in the minority here? The authors seem to have no problem taking away and denying their rights in this matter.


Please forgive us for saying so honoured ambassador but your characterisation of this statute is deeply flawed.

This organisation is empowered to formulate international law in the field of Human Rights, Homosexuals and the other groups affected by this resolution are Humans therefore this organisation is perfectly within it's rights to legislate for them.

These Theocracies you mention knew very well on accession that this would be the case. Besides are you seriously asking this body to consider the prejudices of national governments before the basic rights of humans when it formulates Human Rights statutes?

Endeavouring to irradicate unfair discrimination and persecution should be the first concern of any decent nation which seeks to introduce Humans Rights law to the W.A. not the shibolleths of national governments.

The rights of persons to not be unfairly discriminated against by their governments is one of the primary and paramount of basic Human Rights, where national governments negate this right they should be stoped from doing so. After all where would the honoured ambassador's reasoning end? With the W.A. tacitly condoning anti-interacial marriage laws, or perhaps bans on the procreation of certain religious or ethnic minorities within member nations?

This resolution is earthed in true common decency and compassion, all nations animated by these should vote for this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

Not at all. I was only saying that if that is the aim of this resolution then come out and say it instead of hiding behind a generic title.
Firstly, this proposal is about marriage. It deals with same-sex marriage as one facet of it, but it covers other issues. For example, national laws that treated men and women differently (such as making it easier for a man to obtain a divorce than for a woman) would be voided. As such, it would actually be inappropriate for the title to focus exclusively on gay marriage, because that is not the only issue this proposal covers. The 'generic' title covers the full subject matter reasonably appropriately.

Secondly, that is plainly not what you initially said:
Further, trying to cloak a "gay rights/marriage" proposal under the guise of protecting human rights is borderline deception and deceit.
Do you consider gay rights to be human rights? Because if so, it's difficult how one could cloak something under the guise of itself.

Oh those theocracies, it is very difficult what is inside a religion or not. But if a religion would say it is against a fair criminal trial, because only (their) God decides what is criminal or not, and death penalty is given to anyone seen by a priest do something criminal without a trial, than the fair criminal trial would be against the NationStates rules?

Than the WA would be against the rules, not?

Not I would say. Same with dictators, or whatever democratic system wants no civil rights or wants no human rights. The WA can decide what its wants accept for denying by resolution the rights o0f any kind of governmental system. And this proposal acknowledge that rights, so no problem. You can say yes to this proposal if you want it.

And the region Intelligentsia Islands are much in favour of this proposal, so we ask others to do the same. No to discrimination!

Regards

Your Excellency has missed the point. This is a transnational issue not because it is about marriage but because it is about human rights.

However, your national laws on marriage can, indeed, have an effect on other nations and this has been discussed already. The non-homogeneous recognition of marriage contracts can lead to bigamy for instance or other complications of international public/private law.I suppose that I should point out that in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites technically nobody has the right to get married. That's because we believe that marriage is something best left for churches to handle. To that end, we don't offically recognize marriages, we don't perform them, heck we don't even have any sort of civil unions. We figue that if two people want to live together, that's fine with us, and if those people want to get a piece of paper from a church saying it's right in the eyes of God that's fine too. So I'll ask again, how does The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites' marriage laws, or I guess I should say lack thereof, affect your nation's citizens?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

You got me. I'm a strictly devout, militantly machistic, defenestrating, bribe-soliciting Orthodox communist zombie hippy folk singer who speaks Burghese. Damn this infernal multiple-identity disorder! :tongue:

OOC: Kenny, Kenny, Kenny, you know as well as I do that we're all just puppets of HotRodia.:tongue:

"Where am I?" mutters Ambassador Gardner into a sleek thing that looks sort of like a cell phone. "What am I doing here?"

"A bit ontological today, are we?" says the voice on the other end of the sleek thing. Or maybe the thing itself is talking to him.

"We? Who am I? Who are you?"

"Had a few too many in the strangers' bar, didn't you. Tsk, tsk."

"Probably."

"Now, as to where you are? You're in the debating hall of the World Assembly."

"Oh! Sweet!" Gardner dashes up to the podium and tests the microphone. "What's up to vote?"

"I think you'd better step down now," says the voice. He duly complies.

"So...what am I doing here?" he asks once the debate is going on without him. "What's the point? What's the meaning of it all?"

"There is no meaning. There is no objective truth. Everything is relative and so-called "morality" is nonexistent."

"...Dude, you're a robot. Shut up."

"Or your brain is simply a deterministic object, and we are equally-"

"Dude," Gardner interrupts. "Wait, there's no objective moral standards?"

"The correct phrasing would be "there are no"-"

"So there's no overarching mandate for what the WA should do?"

"It's supposed to begin work on a new volume of the book of international law-"

"There's no reason why it shouldn't legislate on "intranational" affairs just as much as "international" ones?"

"No."

"So...I should go ahead and vote for the proposal if I want to extent hu-sorry, civil rights and stuff?"

""Should" is a meaningless word. There is no-"

"I'm gonna vote for it anyway."

"That was predetermined, so I cast your vote in advance."

Gardner throws the sleek thing against a nearby wall, and, happier than he's felt in a while, takes off down the nearest hall.

I find the obvious loophole to be more than enough reason to shoot this resolution down. In it you make allowances for religions, and by extension, whether you mention it or not, theocracies, to ignore this resolution completely. The only resolutions that should be presented to the WA council is when it is binding and ALL member nations must obey it regardless of any government position.

Resolutions should also only be presented when they are something that must be addressed on the global stage...something such as this, should not be the concern of the world at large, most certainly should remain solely without the authority of each individual governing body of each nation. Not everyone thinks the same; if you want to grant more rights to a special interest group, that is your prerogative, but this is not basic human rights and as such, this should not be forced on anyone, either way.

I find the obvious loophole to be more than enough reason to shoot this resolution down. In it you make allowances for religions, and by extension, whether you mention it or not, theocracies, to ignore this resolution completely. The only resolutions that should be presented to the WA council is when it is binding and ALL member nations must obey it regardless of any government position.

Resolutions should also only be presented when they are something that must be addressed on the global stage...something such as this, should not be the concern of the world at large, most certainly should remain solely without the authority of each individual governing body of each nation. Not everyone thinks the same; if you want to grant more rights to a special interest group, that is your prerogative, but this is not basic human rights and as such, this should not be forced on anyone, either way.


The exemptions the respected ambassador mentions are purely for religious rites and not for legal recognition, there is no loophole here only a respectfull nod to religious sensitivities.

And really do you consider unfair discrimination of any kind to beyond the scope of a human rights statute?

Are Human Beings a "special interest group" ?

yours e.t.c. ,

No it is not a simple 'nod' to religious rites, many religious consider homosexuality blasphemous in itself; to force a theocracy to accept gay marriages would be tantamount to declaring war on their state religion and their god, who will have commanded this intolerance of homosexuality.

Also, since when were non-essential social status institutions such as marriage a basic human right? Will these homosexuals starve to death for not being granted marriage? Will they be denied medical care? Access to public utilities? What crucial need will be denied should a nation have a law on its books forbidding same sex marriage?

Gardner stumbles in, glancing down at some notes he scrawled on his hands.

"Ooh. Pick me. I got this one. I think. It's like, there isn't a right to marriage if you don't want there to be one, right? Cause it's got, how you say, connotations. But...tyeah, if you're gonna give rights to inherit people's stuff to people that, uh...other people, are, like, married to, then you should be able to give any people those rights. Right? They don't have to actually be "married", but they could get...I dunno. Visiting rights in the hospital? That's sorta like health care. Or discounts on stuff."

He takes a long swig from an unmarked bottle and woozily stumbles away.

No it is not a simple 'nod' to religious rites, many religious consider homosexuality blasphemous in itself; to force a theocracy to accept gay marriages would be tantamount to declaring war on their state religion and their god, who will have commanded this intolerance of homosexuality.

Also, since when were non-essential social status institutions such as marriage a basic human right? Will these homosexuals starve to death for not being granted marriage? Will they be denied medical care? Access to public utilities? What crucial need will be denied should a nation have a law on its books forbidding same sex marriage?


The honoured ambassador's first comments here are inconsistent with their earlier comments, either this resolution has loopholes in it which allow an opt out for Theocracies or it is "declaring war on their state" which do you contend?

Again this resolution is merely correcting unfair discrimination, not creating rights to marriage. Insisting that it does suggests the honoured ambassador has not read the resolution properly or does not care what it says and is only trying to further a biased agenda.

The ambassador's last point is patently silly, many many nations provide rights to married couples not available to single persons. " These gays" as the ambassador so picturesquely describes them cannot be unfairly denied the option to avail of these should they wish to in a fair world. And it should be the mission of this organisation to attempt to make this a fairer and more compassionate not to say more equal world.

yours e.t.c.,

Not at all. I was only saying that if that is the aim of this resolution then come out and say it instead of hiding behind a generic title.

Your Excellency, the title of this resolution was chosen following the best legislative practices. This is not a Resolution drafted to give any minority special rights, it is a Resolution whose aim it is to make sure everyone enjoys a freedom that most take for granted.

The effects and the goals of the Resolution are very clearly stated both in the preamble and in the text.

With all due respect, we believe that all the noble representatives of the Nations of the World Assembly are not deceived by the title of this Resolution which is both accurate and appropriate for its contents.

I suppose that I should point out that in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites technically nobody has the right to get married. That's because we believe that marriage is something best left for churches to handle. To that end, we don't offically recognize marriages, we don't perform them, heck we don't even have any sort of civil unions. We figue that if two people want to live together, that's fine with us, and if those people want to get a piece of paper from a church saying it's right in the eyes of God that's fine too. So I'll ask again, how does The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites' marriage laws, or I guess I should say lack thereof, affect your nation's citizens?

Your Excellency, my interpretation of the text is that since your nation has no laws regulating civil unions (the fact that churches are allowed to recognize it is of no consequence for this Resolution) then people should be free to celebrate contracts between themselves under the liberty of contractual capacity concerning their estate and inheritance rights. These contracts are most relevant should your citizens move abroad, for there is no reason why these contracts should not be recognized elsewhere and some Nations could even choose to equate them to their civil union statutes.

Admittedly this Resolution will have a somewhat lesser effect on your Nation but it will still remove any legal conflict that could arise following the attempt at recognition of one these private contracts between two people of the same sex on a country which would oppose same-sex unions and use this as an argument for not accepting the binding nature of said contract.

Well there is the real point isn't it? This world is, in fact, NOT fair. Just because 'many' nations do something, it does not mean ALL nations do the same thing. Armithan grants no such special privileges to married couples, if there are any at all. As for Theocracies, I said "declaring war on their state RELIGION" not the state itself, although I'm sure some may construe it as such. I would like to take this time to point out that state and church are two separate entities, even if in a Theocracy the church lords over the state. It is very much so a loophole for such governments as the church makes and enforces the laws. If theirs is opposed to homosexuality, as far as I know, and this is one of those things I have looked into extensively, all known religions do, they can simply shrug it off due to it being in conflict with their religion, or as the author of the proposal put it, religious rites.

Again this is a matter that should be left up to the governing body of each individual nation; Nations do not need the WA to hold, or force, their hand in lawmaking in matters of a non-critical nature. This is a matter that is internal to each society; it is for the citizens of each nation this resolution would affect to petition their government for this to happen, by their own lawmakers. Unless there is a law preventing one citizen from giving their possessions to another, this notion that they must be allowed to inherit one another's possessions on death and only this resolution can allow that is irrelevant. Even then, it is STILL a matter for each nations own internal lawmaking process.

By any chance are you a puppet of The Narnian Council? Because if you are, I should tell you that WA multi-ing is very much frowned upon and at times is grounds for deletion.

And the fact that your posts are often suspiciously, coincidentally timed with his, yeah.

Indeed this would be entirely absurd unless the Narnian delegate is implying that a single entity is behind half the most active members of a very active region. Would this entity spend it's time

dissagreeing and chating with itself in regional forums or in this one for that matter?

New Sequoyah on the other hand could be you or it could be anyone but the suggestion is possible.

yours e.t.c. ,

Is it so odd to find people in agreement? Is it so odd that persons of similar thinking might be in the same region? How dare you accuse me of being a duplicate nation, someone I am not. I have debated in these hallowed halls before; was I The Narnian Council then? I live a half a world away, have never met the owner of TNC, and only recently found out his first name. I have been a good, active member of NationStates for nearly a year, and find your accusations to be extremely insulting, to say the least.

I haven't the time to address the current legislation at this very moment, but must put to rest these rumors for once and for all. All I will say on this bill right now, is this: by passing this horrible resolution, the World Assembly is intruding on the internal affairs of sovereign nations. This is a travesty, and one that New Sequoyah will not stand for, no sir, we will not stand for this.

New Sequoyah

Your Excellency, my interpretation of the text is that since your nation has no laws regulating civil unions (the fact that churches are allowed to recognize it is of no consequence for this Resolution) then people should be free to celebrate contracts between themselves under the liberty of contractual capacity concerning their estate and inheritance rights. These contracts are most relevant should your citizens move abroad, for there is no reason why these contracts should not be recognized elsewhere and some Nations could even choose to equate them to their civil union statutes.

Admittedly this Resolution will have a somewhat lesser effect on your Nation but it will still remove any legal conflict that could arise following the attempt at recognition of one these private contracts between two people of the same sex on a country which would oppose same-sex unions and use this as an argument for not accepting the binding nature of said contract.

Mendosia, the issue here seems clearly stated, you are proposing that all nations MUST have the option for a civil contract between people. What if NOONE is allowed that contract at all? Are you proposing this:

1. All nations MUST have marriage
2. All people MUST be allowed to marry

Also, does this include polygamy?

Mendosia, the issue here seems clearly stated, you are proposing that all nations MUST have the option for a civil contract between people. What if NOONE is allowed that contract at all? Are you proposing this:

1. All nations MUST have marriage
2. All people MUST be allowed to marry

Also, does this include polygamy?

Your Excellency, we believe we have extensively discussed the ramifications of the Resolution at hand in the most common and in the most unorthodox of circumstances. We have repeatedly stated that this Resolution demands that some protection be given to the union between two persons and it further establishes that these unions should make no difference in gender or whether they refer to same-sex or different-sex couples.

It is therefore clear that if a Nation does not have any laws regulating the union of two persons, be it marriage, civil partnership, or whatever other legal instrument AND if the Nation concurrently also forbids private contracts between two persons regulating their common estate and inheritance rights THEN this Nation is infringing the terms of this Resolution and that said Nation is free to find whatever legal solution it wishes to grant the minimum protection this Resolution requires.

We also had already the opportunity to say that this Resolution has no bearing on polygamy insofar as it does not forbid it, it does not commend, it doesn't even mention it.

Is it so odd to find people in agreement? Is it so odd that persons of similar thinking might be in the same region? How dare you accuse me of being a duplicate nation, someone I am not. I have debated in these hallowed halls before; was I The Narnian Council then? I live a half a world away, have never met the owner of TNC, and only recently found out his first name. I have been a good, active member of NationStates for nearly a year, and find your accusations to be extremely insulting, to say the least.

I haven't the time to address the current legislation at this very moment, but must put to rest these rumors for once and for all. All I will say on this bill right now, is this: by passing this horrible resolution, the World Assembly is intruding on the internal affairs of sovereign nations. This is a travesty, and one that New Sequoyah will not stand for, no sir, we will not stand for this.

New Sequoyah


Before you bluster and exclaim honoured ambassador, you should read the words you have actually quoted yourself. We have never accused you of being anything other than what you say you are. We merely pointed out obvious possibilities as opposed to patent absurdities.

Your region cannot claim to love national sovereignty when it wrote and sponsored and vigorously promoted a statute which restructered how W.A. members should conduct their legal systems in minute detail , to do so is blatant hypocrasy and an insult to the collective intelligence of this organisation.


yours e.t.c ,

Your Excellency, we believe we have extensively discussed the ramifications of the Resolution at hand in the most common and in the most unorthodox of circumstances. We have repeatedly stated that this Resolution demands that some protection be given to the union between two persons and it further establishes that these unions should make no difference in gender or whether they refer to same-sex or different-sex couples.

It is therefore clear that if a Nation does not have any laws regulating the union of two persons, be it marriage, civil partnership, or whatever other legal instrument AND if the Nation concurrently also forbids private contracts between two persons regulating their common estate and inheritance rights THEN this Nation is infringing the terms of this Resolution and that said Nation is free to find whatever legal solution it wishes to grant the minimum protection this Resolution requires.

We also had already the opportunity to say that this Resolution has no bearing on polygamy insofar as it does not forbid it, it does not commend, it doesn't even mention it.

Esteemed Mendosia, thankyou for clarifying this, I have also gone back through the thread and found the discussion on polygamy, I apologise for my oversight. So now I must ask, WHY is marriage considered a basic civil right, and EXACTLY what are the minimum protections that this resolution grants?

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have some form of protection for the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

What is your MINIMUM standard for this? What if a nation were to impose a 100% death/succession tax on all property? Does this mean that married couples must gain an exemption to this?

The people of Lotheterran submit that your proposal fails to cover all the necessary details that it should, and it seems to be a clear attempt to infringe on the right of government to legislate for its people. You have failed to define the EXACT minimum standard for privileges afforded to marriages, could you please inform the WA as to EXACTLY what the privileges entail?

I ask another question of you most esteemed Mendosia, was this a bill about marriage in GENERAL or was it really about homosexual discrimination? Because if it was about homosexual disrcimination, then I think that you would have been FAR more successful with an anti-discrimination bill in my most humble opinion (even though this proposal looks as if it will pass, you could have afforded ALL rights to homosexuals through a different proposal).

*bows*

We have a real problem with Sections 3 (b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

and

(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections

In our country, a family is defined as, "any group of people, regardless of gender, religion, political or cultural belief who choose to unite their lives."

These sections would prohibit three people from marrying each other, a common occurance in our country.

In fact, parents with children from previous relationships often marry, and their children are included in the marriage ceremony as partners, even though no sexual union is anticipated between the children involved. The children do, however, have legal responsibilities and privileges protected by marriage (which vary in our legal system according to their age).

region cannot claim to love national sovereignty when it wrote and sponsored

*Sigh* Still gnawing away on that old bone, are we? You, my friend, seem to enjoy ad hominem immensely.

Before you bluster and exclaim honoured ambassador,

Really, sir! The embassy of New Sequoyah is quite right to feel violated at such suggestions – which should have more properly been kept to the telegram, as public claims such as these (however “casual”) is inappropriate for this discussion, and is detrimental to the ambassador’s respected reputation. Legally, this is defamation. Though I don’t believe Kenny intended to stray from the subject in this way – so let’s drop the matter, shall we?

Because if it was about homosexual disrcimination, then I think that you would have been FAR more successful with an anti-discrimination bill

A proposal that avoids mentioning the term ‘homosexual’ too much, especially in the title, is likely to be far more successful. Especially if it claims to expand freedom in the name of fair marriage. The fact is, the freedom for nations to disallow same-sex marriages in their nation (for a multitude of health/society/moral reasons) is being completely stripped of them – as Mendosia has unfortunately elaborated that such practice should be classed as despotism.

___________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

So now I must ask, WHY is marriage considered a basic civil right, and EXACTLY what are the minimum protections that this resolution grants?

Your Excellency, our resolution does not state that marriage is a basic civil right, the resolution states that a minimum form of protection for the union of two persons is a fundamental freedom that should be enjoyed in equality by all persons regardless of gender and of whether they are a same-sex or different-sex couple.

The Resolution does not state what the minimum protections are but it does hint that these shall include provisions concerning the common estate and inheritance rights. Each Nation has a broad margin to legislate within the framework set by this Resolution.



Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have some form of protection for the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

What is your MINIMUM standard for this? What if a nation were to impose a 100% death/succession tax on all property? Does this mean that married couples must gain an exemption to this?


In our interpretation, should a Nation impose a 100% tax on all property upon death/succession then any provision concerning inheritance rights is rendered immaterial, but we do not think this Resolution demands that an exemption be put in place. It would be against this Resolution, however, to discriminate some couples on the application of this tax.

Should a Nation outlaw private property altogether then the core of the minimum protection would be rendered immaterial. However, a substantial part of the Resolution stands, for whichever protection or recognition should the said Nation put in place it will still have to respect the article on non-discrimination.



The people of Lotheterran submit that your proposal fails to cover all the necessary details that it should, and it seems to be a clear attempt to infringe on the right of government to legislate for its people. You have failed to define the EXACT minimum standard for privileges afforded to marriages, could you please inform the WA as to EXACTLY what the privileges entail?


With all due respect, Ambassador, if this Resolution were to specify with minute detail what the requisites and effects of a union of two persons should be in all Nations as your Excellency is demanding then indeed it would be infringing on the sovereignty of Nations. Thus your Excellency seems to be asking for one thing and its contrary.



I ask another question of you most esteemed Mendosia, was this a bill about marriage in GENERAL or was it really about homosexual discrimination? Because if it was about homosexual disrcimination, then I think that you would have been FAR more successful with an anti-discrimination bill in my most humble opinion (even though this proposal looks as if it will pass, you could have afforded ALL rights to homosexuals through a different proposal).


Ambassador, I have noted some reiterated criticism about the fact that, apparently, this Resolution is deceitful to some honorable representatives insofar as it purports to be a Resolution about marriage and it turns out to be, presumably, something completely different.

Some of my distinguished colleagues have had the opportunity to answer these criticisms stating that, indeed, this is a Resolution about the union of two persons because it establishes conditions of equality in terms of gender and sexual orientation on the access to the protection granted by this institute, whichever it may be in each Nation.

Your Excellency seems to be suggesting that the members of this Assembly do not read propositions beyond their title, because if one ventures so far as to reach the preamble one can find the motivation for this Resolution stated in crystal clear terms, followed by the legal solution, as proper legislative practice suggests and recommends.

Finally, the purpose of the Resolution was not to grant all rights to homosexuals and therefore would not have been better served by another Resolution. The purpose of the Resolution was to grant equal rights to the unions of two persons regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

These sections would prohibit three people from marrying each other, a common occurance in our country.

Ambassador, we cannot see how the provisions you mention would render it impossible for three people to legally marry in your Nation. Would you care to elaborate?

Your Excellency, our resolution does not state that marriage is a basic civil right, the resolution states that a minimum form of protection for the union of two persons is a fundamental freedom that should be enjoyed in equality by all persons regardless of gender and of whether they are a same-sex or different-sex couple.

Esteemed Mendosia, so again, why is it a fundamental freedom then? Why is marriage a fundamental freedom?

With all due respect, Ambassador, if this Resolution were to specify with minute detail what the requisites and effects of a union of two persons should be in all Nations as your Excellency is demanding then indeed it would be infringing on the sovereignty of Nations. Thus your Excellency seems to be asking for one thing and its contrary.

On the contrary, the proposal specifically states WHAT basic rights must be afforded. I was simply asking what YOU think they should be.

Your Excellency seems to be suggesting that the members of this Assembly do not read propositions beyond their title, because if one ventures so far as to reach the preamble one can find the motivation for this Resolution stated in crystal clear terms, followed by the legal solution, as proper legislative practice suggests and recommends.

Finally, the purpose of the Resolution was not to grant all rights to homosexuals and therefore would not have been better served by another Resolution. The purpose of the Resolution was to grant equal rights to the unions of two persons regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

I was suggesting nothing of the sort, I had read it and was attempting to make sure my understanding of your intentions were perfectly clear.

The inherent problem within this resolution is that you are attempting to CREATE marriage with TWO key privileges attached to it, the basic necessities of which are not clearly defined. How low can those basic provisions be before the marriage laws contravene this Resolution? My issue is not with the homosexuality, I simply enquired on what your intentions were to help MY understanding.

I strongly believe that this Resolution proposes to infringe too far into matters of national interest in regards to marriage.

A proposal that avoids mentioning the term ‘homosexual’ too much, especially in the title, is likely to be far more successful. Especially if it claims to expand freedom in the name of fair marriage. The fact is, the freedom for nations to disallow same-sex marriages in their nation (for a multitude of health/society/moral reasons) is being completely stripped of them – as Mendosia has unfortunately elaborated that such practice should be classed as despotism.


Your Excellency, with all due respect, for someone who dislikes ad hominem arguments, your Excellency seems to make an excessive use of them.

The Ambassador of Urgench has stated, in terms that were not a personal attack, the inconsistencies in the political positions taken by your Region with respect to a Nation's sovereignty, which seems to switch with the convenience of argument.

Moreover, your Excellency claims there can be a multitude of health, society and moral reasons why a Nation should have a legitimate interest in prohibiting same-sex unions but you have failed to elaborate. We believe it would be most interesting to hear more about this subject.

However we can make some a priori remarks.

To forbid same-sex unions based on moral grounds is an infringement on individual rights, for it is forcing upon a person the official morals of the State in a situation where the person's conduct has no effect whatsoever on the lives of others.

To forbid same-sex unions based on health reasons, whichever these might be -- we confess that we cannot fathom what your Excellency might have had in mind with this -- cannot possibly mean legal recognition only. We suspect that with this argument your Excellency is hinting at an outright prohibition of any same-sex contact. Is your Excellency claiming the right of Nations to enact anti-sodomy laws? And for health reasons at that?

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise with a simple question to put before this assembly. It is in reference to the first article of this proposal:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

Our nation has no "civil" law. There is only the Law of the Cute One, handed down from our Prophet and interpreted by our Patriarchs and the Elders they appoint. Does this resolution affect that Law or not?

A proposal that avoids mentioning the term ‘homosexual’ too much, especially in the title, is likely to be far more successful.
I disagree. The vast majority of people aren't ignorant bigots, and wouldn't be swayed by that.
The fact is, the freedom for nations to disallow same-sex marriages in their nation (for a multitude of health/society/moral reasons) is being completely stripped of them – as Mendosia has unfortunately elaborated that such practice should be classed as despotism.
"Prevention of Torture" stripped the a nation's right to use torture for moral reasons. And what are these health reasons for banning gay marriage?

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

The inherent problem within this resolution is that you are attempting to CREATE marriage with TWO key privileges attached to it, the basic necessities of which are not clearly defined. How low can those basic provisions be before the marriage laws contravene this Resolution? My issue is not with the homosexuality, I simply enquired on what your intentions were to help MY understanding.

Your Excellency, the intention of this Resolution has been stated an exceeding amount of times and I believe we have reached the point of futility in repeating it here again.

In one word: nondiscrimination! All else is fodder.

Moreover, I cannot see how administering one's own estate and constituting inheritance rights with a loved one constitutes a privilege.

Finally, the right to enter into a union with another person is a fundamental freedom because it is an aspiration so common in humans and it shapes so many aspects of their lives that a mythical document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes it dedicating an entire article to it. Of course, in the many Nations of this World Assembly the union of two persons might be regarded as a lesser issue, but we are sure that the issue of nondiscrimination is something that animates the spirit of all the peoples here represented.

Your Excellency, the intention of this Resolution has been stated an exceeding amount of times and I believe we have reached the point of futility in repeating it here again.

In one word: nondiscrimination! All else is fodder.

Moreover, I cannot see how administering one's own estate and constituting inheritance rights with a loved one constitutes a privilege.

Finally, the right to enter into a union with another person is a fundamental freedom because it is an aspiration so common in humans and it shapes so many aspects of their lives that a mythical document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes it dedicating an entire article to it. Of course, in the many Nations of this World Assembly the union of two persons might be regarded as a lesser issue, but we are sure that the issue of nondiscrimination is something that animates the spirit of all the peoples here represented.

Most esteemed Mendosia, forgive me but I think you are missing the point. You can intend something all you want, but what the Resolution STATES is something different. In order to CREATE NON-DISCRIMINATION you are CREATING MARRIAGE in nations to be NON-DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. You have said that if there is NO marriage in a nation it WILL HAVE to be created because of this Resolution.

I believe marriage is a national issue, this has been stated.

The mythical document in question can include all it wants on the issue, but nowhere in said mythical document does it say the benefits that the State must provide...you have.

In response to the question of privilege, I would say this:

The married couple/group are afforded privileges and rights associated with each other that other people do not possess in relation to each other. The civil contract between them entitles them to exclusion of certain laws, and benefits from certain laws. Since this is NOT afforded to ALL people (i.e. those not married), it is a privilege.

The right to be free as a person, is a right, because it extends to ALL people regardless of who they are. Religion is the same, since 'belief' was the primary meaning and so any non-believers are still exercising their religious freedom. But followers of religion are not afforded any special provisions by the state, marriages are.

Hence Lotheterran submits that marriage is indeed a privilege and not a fundamental freedom.

Our nation has no "civil" law. There is only the Law of the Cute One, handed down from our Prophet and interpreted by our Patriarchs and the Elders they appoint. Does this resolution affect that Law or not?

Your most esteemed Ambassador,

First of all, I would like to take a moment to honor your Prophet, for if there is no law other than that which has been revealed then your Prophet has been most prolific, pouring out laws to cover every aspect of the Life of your Nation.

To answer your question, your Excellency, I must first say that I ignore the Law of the Cute One. If the most holy Cute One does not care particularly much about the gender composition of two-persons unions or if he does not attribute different rights to different genders then your law is completely compatible with this Resolution. If, however, your most holy Cute One takes offense on same-sex couples or if it establishes different rights to different genders then I am afraid that this Resolution will override the Law of His Cuteness, on the terms of Resolution #2.

Now, if your Nation is part of the World Assembly it is, I'm sure, by direct commandment from The Cute One and since I'm guessing he is All-knowing, I am pretty sure he saw this coming and he won't take offense if your most distinguished and eminent Patriarchs adapt their interpretation of His Law to conform to this Resolution.

You can intend something all you want, but what the Resolution STATES is something different. In order to CREATE NON-DISCRIMINATION you are CREATING MARRIAGE in nations to be NON-DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. You have said that if there is NO marriage in a nation it WILL HAVE to be created because of this Resolution


Your Excellency, I have said no such thing. In fact I have said almost the opposite. Only in the most radical of circumstances does this Resolution require that some legislative action be taken with respect to the existence of some legal instrument to protect the union of two persons.


The mythical document in question can include all it wants on the issue, but nowhere in said mythical document does it say the benefits that the State must provide...you have.


Again, administering your own estate is a privilege granted to married couples exclusively? Or inheritance rights?


The married couple/group are afforded privileges and rights associated with each other that other people do not possess in relation to each other. The civil contract between them entitles them to exclusion of certain laws, and benefits from certain laws. Since this is NOT afforded to ALL people (i.e. those not married), it is a privilege.


Your Excellency, nowhere does this Resolution speak of exemptions, privileges or benefits to couples. That is a decision entirely left to individual Nations. If the Nation your Excellency represents does not wish to grant any privileges to married couples, or couples under the protection of any other legal instrument or even a private contract then this Resolution does not force you Nation to do so, nor any other.

Your most esteemed Ambassador,

First of all, I would like to take a moment to honor your Prophet, for if there is no law other than that which has been revealed then your Prophet has been most prolific, pouring out laws to cover every aspect of the Life of your Nation.

To answer your question, your Excellency, I must first say that I ignore the Law of the Cute One. If the most holy Cute One does not care particularly much about the gender composition of two-persons unions or if he does not attribute different rights to different genders then your law is completely compatible with this Resolution. If, however, your most holy Cute One takes offense on same-sex couples or if it establishes different rights to different genders then I am afraid that this Resolution will override the Law of His Cuteness, on the terms of Resolution #2.

Now, if your Nation is part of the World Assembly it is, I'm sure, by direct commandment from The Cute One and since I'm guessing he is All-knowing, I am pretty sure he saw this coming and he won't take offense if your most distinguished and eminent Patriarchs adapt their interpretation of His Law to conform to this Resolution.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of Mendosia, I must confess confusion at his quoting of WA Resolution #2. This resolution clearly states:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

The World Assembly guarantees the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii the right to its theocratic form of government, as it does to all theocracies within the WA. It further guarantees the Church's right to exercise its Law over all Kawaiians. Our nation asserts the right to define the institution of marriage among Kawaiians according to our Law, none other.

In addition, Article 3 requires that every WA member state has the duty to refrain from intervening in the religious and social affairs of member states. Therefore, it is this proposed resolution, not the Law of the Cute One, which is in violation of WA Resolution #2.

Article 3 requires that every WA member state has the duty to refrain from intervening in the religious and social affairs of member states. Therefore, it is this proposed resolution, not the Law of the Cute One, which is in violation of WA Resolution #2.

With your excuse, your Excellency is, of course, quoting the wrong provisions. The provisions that are controlling in this case, where there is a possible conflict between the Resolution being voted and your internal law are the following:

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.


Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

With all due respect, the articles your Excellency quotes refer to bilateral relations between Nations and not to the relation of Nations with this World Assembly.

Your Excellency, I have said no such thing. In fact I have said almost the opposite. Only in the most radical of circumstances does this Resolution require that some legislative action be taken with respect to the existence of some legal instrument to protect the union of two persons.

Again, administering your own estate is a privilege granted to married couples exclusively? Or inheritance rights?

Your Excellency, nowhere does this Resolution speak of exemptions, privileges or benefits to couples. That is a decision entirely left to individual Nations. If the Nation your Excellency represents does not wish to grant any privileges to married couples, or couples under the protection of any other legal instrument or even a private contract then this Resolution does not force you Nation to do so, nor any other.

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.


Esteemed Mendosia, if I am to interpret the above...it seems that you ARE creating marriage...even if I read back through the thread I find this:


It is therefore clear that if a Nation does not have any laws regulating the union of two persons, be it marriage, civil partnership, or whatever other legal instrument AND if the Nation concurrently also forbids private contracts between two persons regulating their common estate and inheritance rights THEN this Nation is infringing the terms of this Resolution and that said Nation is free to find whatever legal solution it wishes to grant the minimum protection this Resolution requires.

It seems pretty clear to me what you were saying here, and I apologise if I misinterpreted.

Administering your estate confers a benefit if it excludes other national provisions. For example: If X contracts with Y to pass on estate when deceased, however government law dictates that family of X get preference over Y, Family gets the estate.

You seem to be saying that the marriage contract will override those clauses, for instance: If X contracts with WIFE 'Y' to pass on property when deceased, WA Resolution forbids the family from claiming the property due to inheritance rights...

If this is simply about allowing same-sex marriages, then you simply should have stated that. However, it seems that the benefits you are placing on marriage seem to veer far out of 'rights and freedoms' and more into privileges.

The esteemed representative from Mendosia states the obvious when he claims the primacy of WA resolutions. He, however, has failed to make the case that this proposal is not an unacceptable intrusion into the religious and social affairs of member states. To quote the representative's earlier comment:

To forbid same-sex unions based on moral grounds is an infringement on individual rights, for it is forcing upon a person the official morals of the State in a situation where the person's conduct has no effect whatsoever on the lives of others.

Marriage, as it is recognized by the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii, is not some private contract that "has no effect whatsoever on the lives of others", as the esteemed representative puts it. Kawaiian marriage is a contract between a man and a woman as one party, and the Church as the other. The purpose of this contract is to provide a stable family structure for the creation and development of new members of the Church. Thus, the Church has a legitimate interest in the nature and regulation of marriage among Kawaiians.

This resolution proposes a gross violation of nations' legitimate right to regulate the fundamental structures of their society. We see no compelling reason for it.

Your Excellency, with all due respect, for someone who dislikes ad hominem arguments, your Excellency seems to make an excessive use of them.

What an interesting remark…I wonder if that has any weight behind it besides a childish “no! you are!” response?

The Ambassador of Urgench has stated, in terms that were not a personal attack, the inconsistencies in the political positions taken by your Region with respect to a Nation's sovereignty, which seems to switch with the convenience of argument.

Interesting because...you seem to be employing Urgench's method, too. Unless, of course, you don't agree with the rather ridiculous "inconsistencies" mentioned.

Moreover, your Excellency claims there can be a multitude of health, society and moral reasons why a Nation should have a legitimate interest in prohibiting same-sex unions but you have failed to elaborate. We believe it would be most interesting to hear more about this subject.

Surely you're not ignorant of this concern enough to need elaboration on the issue?

It is the unfortunate fact that it is a rare situation for two homosexuals to stay together for a lifetime, having never engaged in such behavior with anyone before, or after. In this lifestyle, "partners" come and go. The result being, an exorbitant increase in the spread of the AIDS/HIV disease - which absolutely decimates many societies. For this very reason, many nations also highly discourage heterosexually promiscuous behavior.

To forbid same-sex unions based on moral grounds is an infringement on individual rights, for it is forcing upon a person the official morals of the State in a situation where the person's conduct has no effect whatsoever on the lives of others.

As such, you are forcing this viewpoint (that a great number of governments disagree with) upon those that do believe that sexual behavior should in fact be restrained by moral law. As I have before said, it is unacceptable that this proposal forces an extreme (that is, on the liberal end of the scale), upon the WA. Just as it would be wrong for a religiously extreme law to force itself upon the entire WA.

Would you howl down a law that promoted self-inflicted cruelty in the name of religion? If answered yes, you will find yourself in a rather hypocritical position (as your proposal legislates the liberal extreme). If answered no, you will find yourself at odds (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=61) with 91% of our voters.


First of all, I would like to take a moment to honor your Prophet, for if there is no law other than that which has been revealed then your Prophet has been most prolific, pouring out laws to cover every aspect of the Life of your Nation.

Are you truly mocking Kawaii’s beliefs, that differ from yours?

This resolution proposes a gross violation of nations' legitimate right to regulate the fundamental structures of their society. We see no compelling reason for it.

Summed up quite nicely.

As I have repeated over and over, the WA should be used, to the best of our abilities, to assist in increasing the quality of society – not for the advocacy of fanatically religious or outrageously liberal worldviews.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Article 3 part A "No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex."

This proposal stomps all over national sovereignty!

Surely you're not ignorant of this concern enough to need elaboration on the issue?

It is the unfortunate fact that it is a rare situation for two homosexuals to stay together for a lifetime, having never engaged in such behavior with anyone before, or after. In this lifestyle, "partners" come and go. The result being, an exorbitant increase in the spread of the AIDS/HIV disease - which absolutely decimates many societies. For this very reason, many nations also highly discourage heterosexually promiscuous behavior.
First, the pernicious urban legend that homosexual relations are less stable is largely false (and not, in this case, obviously supported by anything approaching evidence). But suppose for a moment it were true: wouldn't it then be good to legalise gay marriage, because it would induce stability in relationships? A relationship not recognised as having any worth by society is less likely to be recognised as having any worth, and thus working to persevere with, by parties to that relationship.

Second, none of the nations with highest HIV incidences have legalised gay marriage.

Third, HIV is not transmitted by marriage. It is transmitted by sexual acts (among other things). (I'd note you can, under the terms of this resolution and other WA law, legalise gay marriage while leaving homosexual acts as criminal.)

Fourth, if HIV is your concern, you'll be pleased to note we are preparing a draft on the very subject, and plan on including requirements for subsidised contraception, needle exchanges, and comprehensive sex education. So everyone wins!

The esteemed representative from Mendosia states the obvious when he claims the primacy of WA resolutions.


Ambassador, we are pleased that we may agree on that.


Marriage, as it is recognized by the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii, is not some private contract that "has no effect whatsoever on the lives of others", as the esteemed representative puts it. Kawaiian marriage is a contract between a man and a woman as one party, and the Church as the other. The purpose of this contract is to provide a stable family structure for the creation and development of new members of the Church. Thus, the Church has a legitimate interest in the nature and regulation of marriage among Kawaiians.


Your Excellency is excessively concerned with the rights of your Church while having no concern whatsoever with the rights and freedoms of your citizens. Within the grand plan that your Church lays out for society there is no place for people that beg to differ, most relevantly for this discussion, homosexuals. These people appear to have no place in your planned society and that, indeed, is a gross violation of human rights that this resolution, in part, is trying to address.

It is the unfortunate fact that it is a rare situation for two homosexuals to stay together for a lifetime, having never engaged in such behavior with anyone before, or after. In this lifestyle, "partners" come and go. The result being, an exorbitant increase in the spread of the AIDS/HIV disease - which absolutely decimates many societies. For this very reason, many nations also highly discourage heterosexually promiscuous behavior.


Your Excellency, allow me to say that together with a gross generalization, a stupendously ridiculous treatise on epidemiology you brings us the rather radical idea that establishing the equality of protection between same-sex and different-sex couples somehow actually contributes to the rise of promiscuity within the homosexual community.

Mixing civil liberties with public health policies is a risky business your Excellency, and the most common result is that you turn out to be wrong on both counts.


As such, you are forcing this viewpoint (that a great number of governments disagree with) upon those that do believe that sexual behavior should in fact be restrained by moral law. As I have before said, it is unacceptable that this proposal forces an extreme (that is, on the liberal end of the scale), upon the WA. Just as it would be wrong for a religiously extreme law to force itself upon the entire WA.


What else if not a religious extreme is controlling your current standing on same-sex marriage?


Would you howl down a law that promoted self-inflicted cruelty in the name of religion? If answered yes, you will find yourself in a rather hypocritical position (as your proposal legislates the liberal extreme). If answered no, you will find yourself at odds (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=61) with 91% of our voters.


Your Excellency, firstly I fail to see the parallel between this discussion and the resolution being voted and although I might have a personal opinion on the proper treatment that self-inflicted injuries justified by religious beliefs or otherwise should have I believe that, ultimately, these practices should only be outlawed of he/she who suffers the injuries is not able to freely decide on the matter and a case could be made for people needing protection from themselves in those cases, but it does not constitute a social urgency as it would if those injuries were being committed by other people against the victim's will.

The resolution you link saying that I would be against 91% of the voters has nothing to do with self-inflicted injuries, but rather injuries inflicted to young women against their will and generally when they are minors and unable to react to or judge what is being done to them.

I apologize for the sudden silly-sounding question, but...

What other form of civil contract does this Act work for? The ambassador for Mendosia repeatedly states that the (therefore unfortunately named) Freedom of Marriage Act isn't about equality in marriages, but equality in any form of civil contract.

However, what other civil contracts are there?

Thanks for a great idea hopefully forced marriages should be pushed into history with this. But I can't vote for since this is an issue better dealt at a national level. Okay, we believe in full freedom of marriage of any kind, but legalizing some types of marriages may offend nations who are tied to certain cultures.

wouldn't it then be good to legalise gay marriage, because it would induce stability in relationships?

By the same token, one could ask that wouldn't it be good to legalize marjiuana, so long as its use is regulated? Many nations don't think so. Controversial issues such as this are not necessarily as black-and-white as many would like to think. Such matters affecting conscience and morality cannot, I repeat cannot, be solved by legally forcing those with different opinions on the sensitive issue to accept one of the views.

Second, none of the nations with highest HIV incidences have legalised gay marriage.

OOC: This is the problem - what statistics support this claim? I cannot supply any evidence, and neither can you, because this is NationStates, not RL. One could even argue, for goodness sake, that one's citizens are somehow immune to AIDS/HIV! Its just not worth getting into.

Third, HIV is not transmitted by marriage.

No. But a government's acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle leads to a dramatic increase in the behavior itself - surely you're aware of this.

Fourth, if HIV is your concern, you'll be pleased to note we are preparing a draft on the very subject, and plan on including requirements for subsidised contraception, needle exchanges, and comprehensive sex education. So everyone wins!

Hmm..."we will force your citizens to have the right to be as promiscuous as they want - but don't worry, we'll be throwing in some tools to help them out!" Do you get a feeling of perhaps being violated there?

Mixing civil liberties with public health policies is a risky business your Excellency, and the most common result is that you turn out to be wrong on both counts.

Wrong? Might I ask who you are to question the implementation of other governments' national policies of public health and civil liberties? How can you possibly assert that they are 'wrong'...have you reviewed information regarding the AIDS statistics in their nations? Do their policies negatively affect Mendosia in any way whatsoever?

Your Excellency, firstly I fail to see the parallel between this discussion and the resolution being voted...

Well, your answer to that simple 'yes' or 'no' question consisted of 100 words packed into one sentence. And you simply answered by saying, "yes, I have no problem with self-inflicted torture, as long as the victim was willing".

So quite apparently, you'll be of the mind that the WA should indeed be used to implement the agendas of both extremities, or perhaps just your extremity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The fact of the matter is, and as Charlotte Ryberg also pointed out (how many must repeat this!) - this is not an international issue, this is a particularly strong and controversial liberal worldview, and it has no right to be forced upon those who hold to incompatible and deeply-seated beliefs (of which there are a great number). To do so would be hypocritical of your very own ideology.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent this, and for that, I have never been more gravely disappointed in the WA as I am today.

__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

By the same token, one could ask that wouldn't it be good to legalize marjiuana, so long as its use is regulated?
No: the situations aren't comparable. Marijuana use - and this coming from the representative of a nation with liberal drug laws - is something to be discouraged, even if such use is legal. Homosexual activity is not something to be discouraged.

Of course, some drug legalisation advocates do claim such measures would promote a more responsible attitude. (I personally look at such typically legal drugs as alcohol, and tend to disagree, but that's neither here nor there).
Controversial issues such as this are not necessarily as black-and-white as many would like to think.
This one is actually pretty black-and-white. What's the grey area: having gay marriages be 'a bit legal'? Either you believe in human equality, or you don't.
Such matters affecting conscience and morality cannot, I repeat cannot, be solved by legally forcing those with different opinions on the sensitive issue to accept one of the views.
I'm going to repeat what I said before, a comment that went unanswered: we legislated on torture as a matter of conscience. We are preparing a draft on slavery based on our belief such a practice is immoral. What you mean to say is 'matters affecting conscience and morality in ways you find disagreeable'. Don't try to pretend you're invoking any abstract principle.
No. But a government's acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle leads to a dramatic increase in the behavior itself - surely you're aware of this.
I dispute this. Love and sexual attraction are pretty strong forces, and very difficult to overcome. The very reason some nations find it necessary to proscribe homosexuality is that, codes of conduct notwithstanding, people keep doing it! I can't see how legalising gay marriage - I'll remind you that the WA has never legalised homosexuality itself - is likely to lead to a dramatic increase in incidence of homosexuality. If you're in love with someone, you're not going to let the police get in the way of that.
Hmm..."we will force your citizens to have the right to be as promiscuous as they want - but don't worry, we'll be throwing in some tools to help them out!" Do you get a feeling of perhaps being violated there?
No, I don't get the feeling of being violated. Were someone to pass a law prohibiting me from, you know, having sex, I would probably feel pretty violated though.

And I love the way you threw the word 'force' in there. You actually believe the next step is to force everyone to be gay, don't you?

We're coming for you, in your sleep...
it has no right to be forced upon those who hold to incompatible and deeply-seated beliefs (of which there are a great number). To do so would be hypocritical of your very own ideology.
No, it wouldn't. This doesn't force anyone to get married. This doesn't force anyone to do anything. You can still exercise full freedom of expression, conscience and assembly in opposition to gay marriage. This resolution doesn't even prevent anyone picketing a gay marriage ceremony! It doesn't force state registrars to officiate at marriages they disapprove of: you could easily pass a conscience law to allow them to opt out without reprisal. Show me a coercive clause in this, and I'll lobby my region to vote against it, but as it stands, it only lets people get married who already wanted to do so.

If everyone in your nation is monolithically opposed to gay marriage, then no one will make use of this resolution; it will simply be redundant, in which case one would wonder why you're exerting such effort in opposition to it.
OOC: This is the problem - what statistics support this claim? I cannot supply any evidence, and neither can you, because this is NationStates, not RL. One could even argue, for goodness sake, that one's citizens are somehow immune to AIDS/HIV! Its just not worth getting into.OOC: First, is there anything to suggest this would be different in NS? We don't abandon every single RL principle here: evolution still occurs in the NS universe, tectonic plates still shift, the universe slowly cools. Second, you're right, of course, that I can't cite NS stats (I tried looking through 'The World' rankings, but neither yesterday's nor today's have been very relevant to either sex or healthcare). Yet you originated the claim that homosexual relationships are less stable. How can you support that claim - which I'm sure even you would conceed would be extremely offensive if simply fabricated - without citing RL stats?

By the same token, one could ask that wouldn't it be good to legalize marjiuana, so long as its use is regulated? Many nations don't think so. Controversial issues such as this are not necessarily as black-and-white as many would like to think. Such matters affecting conscience and morality cannot, I repeat cannot, be solved by legally forcing those with different opinions on the sensitive issue to accept one of the views.



OOC: This is the problem - what statistics support this claim? I cannot supply any evidence, and neither can you, because this is NationStates, not RL. One could even argue, for goodness sake, that one's citizens are somehow immune to AIDS/HIV! Its just not worth getting into.



No. But a government's acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle leads to a dramatic increase in the behavior itself - surely you're aware of this.



Hmm..."we will force your citizens to have the right to be as promiscuous as they want - but don't worry, we'll be throwing in some tools to help them out!" Do you get a feeling of perhaps being violated there?



Wrong? Might I ask who you are to question the implementation of other governments' national policies of public health and civil liberties? How can you possibly assert that they are 'wrong'...have you reviewed information regarding the AIDS statistics in their nations? Do their policies negatively affect Mendosia in any way whatsoever?



Well, your answer to that simple 'yes' or 'no' question consisted of 100 words packed into one sentence. And you simply answered by saying, "yes, I have no problem with self-inflicted torture, as long as the victim was willing".

So quite apparently, you'll be of the mind that the WA should indeed be used to implement the agendas of both extremities, or perhaps just your extremity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The fact of the matter is, and as Charlotte Ryberg also pointed out (how many must repeat this!) - this is not an international issue, this is a particularly strong and controversial liberal worldview, and it has no right to be forced upon those who hold to incompatible and deeply-seated beliefs (of which there are a great number). To do so would be hypocritical of your very own ideology.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent this, and for that, I have never been more gravely disappointed in the WA as I am today.

__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


The above quoted comments show beyond a doubt the hypocrasy of the Narnians. Only recently they thundered that nations had already given up their national sovereignty to the w.a. on accession and that those who opposed its mission to improve the lives of its member's citizens were heartless and without compassion. And yet they exclaim and object to this resolution because this attempt to better the lives of member states citizens violates national sovereignty!

Of course they make this argument in order to palliate the grotesque level of bigotry they have displayed in their comments about Homosexuals.
These diatribes have taken the form of fictitious slurs and ugly accusations, about what they imagine is the "lifestyle" of gay people.

No reliable research exists which proves gay people are actually more promiscous than heterosexuals, indeed the current world population would mitigate against any such conclusion.

No reliable information exists to show that gay people are the plague birds the Narnian's accuse them of being, indeed the vast majority of new H.I.V. infections are of heterosexuals many of whom are married!

The Narnians have raised these issues and now disavow them because they are incapable of supplying reliable statistical evidence for them, either from this world or the mythical "Real World".

In fact the Narnians have cloaked their obvious homophobia in vicious fantasy which amounts to hate speach, specious and hypocritical defence of a national sovereignty they have previously violated themselves, and appeals to tradition and what they euphamistically call "deeply held belief" which is in fact viceral and atavistic hate.

If this resolution does anything to help the plight of those who live in Narnia under conditions of persecution and marginalisation then it will have done a momentous and noble thing. This organisation cannot let the base prejudices of governments animated by animosity towards minorities to continue.

We enjoin this body to stand up to such blantant bigotry and to end it resolution by resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

If one puts aside the concept of natural justice, then right here and now the arbiters of fairness are the wise and honoured members of this organisation.
As much as we would like to burst our colleague's bubble, we do not consider the members of these assembly to be wise and honoured. That includes us... we think. Drink-till-you-drop parties at the Stranger's Bar, passing ridiculous stuff, defenestrating delegates... though all those stuff is, admittedly, FUN. If made to choose between this Assembly and sapient broccoli, I'd choose the sapient broccoli to help us decide. Because really, we aren't arbiters of fairness, we are acting on our own - and our countries' - agendas. That includes me, you, and everyone else.

(Though I cannot guarantee that sapient broccoli doesn't have its own agendas too. :p)

Now, non-discrimination or equality issues are NEVER absolutes. It is ok to discriminate if one can find a legitimate interest that can be demonstrated to be more worthy of protection. Therefore, it is not difficult to advance justifications for barring 12-year-olds from a union between two persons. However there is no legitimate interest to justify discriminating same-sex couples.
Again, I would pose you the question as I posed to the representative of Urgench: who determines what is a legitimate interest, and what isn't? You? Me? The sapient broccoli?*

Your Excellency, in my Nation historians tell me that once there was this document, to some considered mythical but yet inspirational, and was named the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Now I am sorry but I do not think that is something that is part of the history of our world. Perhaps in that mythical RL world it was. My, I gather that document was very nice. Perhaps we should make one too, here in the World Assembly. And add more rights to it, I say, because that seemed to be the major focus of the World Assembly these days. We have some cool additional rights to add. But for now, I'd label it as a nice piece of literature worth reading... but we continue to hold our stance.

M.R.S.
C.F.

* OOC: I am starting to like the sound of this phrase already... it rhymes... rather nicely. :D You, me, the sapient broccoli/We are in the World Assembly...

The above quoted comments show beyond a doubt the hypocrasy of the Narnians. Only recently they thundered that nations had already given up their national sovereignty to the w.a. on accession and that those who opposed its mission to improve the lives of its member's citizens were heartless and without compassion. And yet they exclaim and object to this resolution because this attempt to better the lives of member states citizens violates national sovereignty!

Of course they make this argument in order to palliate the grotesque level of bigotry they have displayed in their comments about Homosexuals.
These diatribes have taken the form of fictitious slurs and ugly accusations, about what they imagine is the "lifestyle" of gay people.

No reliable research exists which proves gay people are actually more promiscous than heterosexuals, indeed the current world population would mitigate against any such conclusion.

No reliable information exists to show that gay people are the plague birds the Narnian's accuse them of being, indeed the vast majority of new H.I.V. infections are of heterosexuals many of whom are married!

The Narnians have raised these issues and now disavow them because they are incapable of supplying reliable statistical evidence for them, either from this world or the mythical "Real World".

In fact the Narnians have cloaked their obvious homophobia in vicious fantasy which amounts to hate speach, specious and hypocritical defence of a national sovereignty they have previously violated themselves, and appeals to tradition and what they euphamistically call "deeply held belief" which is in fact viceral and atavistic hate.

If this resolution does anything to help the plight of those who live in Narnia under conditions of persecution and marginalisation then it will have done a momentous and noble thing. This organisation cannot let the base prejudices of governments animated by animosity towards minorities to continue.

We enjoin this body to stand up to such blantant bigotry and to end it resolution by resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

The people of Lotheterran consider this a grave and unwarranted offence on the part of the Ambassador of Urgench! As Ambassador for Lotheterran and a representative of Narnians, I find your comments offensive, untrue and baseless.

Can you find one instance where I stated that homosexuality is a moral wrong? Can you find a hint of bigotry in my comments? No, Lotheterran has only submitted an opinion that the legality of the proposal is in error.

I will take this opportunity to distinguish Lotheterran's position on this matter between the Freedom of Marriage Act and the Fair Criminal Trial Act. The Fair Criminal Trial Act awards equal rights to ALL people in a nation, regardless of any difference between themselves. The reason this is a right, is because the state can purport to imprison, execute or other punish said accused. The ability for the state to visit negative consequences on it's citizens is a matter of international concern to avoid persecution, torture or any other form of negative punishment.

The Freedom of Marriage Act however, wishes to grant a POSITIVE consequence on any group wishing to develop a relationship to each other. It does not simply state that 'anyone may be in a relationship', it states that a group of people in a specified relationship MUST receive CERTAIN benefits protected by the state that are a construct artificial in nature.

Before we purport to argue that anti-slavery is a positive consequence and so therefore should not be an international law (and thereby invalidating my argument), the aim is to prevent NEGATIVE consequences (the lack of freedom over oneself, something naturally occuring). Marriage an artificial construct, different to the naturally occurring 'relationship', differs from this.

You might also argue that religion is an artificial construct, and so therefore it should not be protected by international law. My answer is that you should have a freedom to enjoy religious beliefs of your choosing, but you may not practice religious circumstances in conflict with a nations laws (i.e. human sacrifice etc.)

Marriage, if you so wish, can be a right for people to get into a committed relationship with each other, however in Lotheterran's most humble opinion, this does not mean that any positive privileges should be conferred on the relationship. Are governments obligated to grant benefits to religions that include exclusions in law? No, you may practice your religion freely within the confines of the law. This Resolution which confers two particular benefits: inheritance and common estate benefits, is attempting to force a government to provide a benefit for a particular set of people, which in Lotheterran's opinion is discriminatory itself towards married couples! Why do married couples gain examptions to national laws regarding inheritance and common estates?

These are questions of concern to the people of Lotheterran. I do not believe that they are offensive, bigoted or vicious in any way shape or form. I would ask you to retract your statement, Ambassador for Urgench, and to apologise to the nations of Narnia for you poor assumption and offensive attack!

People should be able to get married, regardless their sexual orientation.
Marriage has nothing to do with whom you love, it's only a matter of willing to get it all on paper imo. Your love wont increase or decrease wether you're married or not.

Maybe this is more of a intranational matter, but in my opinion, we should just all agree that minority groups are just as human as the major ones, and should therefore be able to get married.

Holm IV

The people of Lotheterran consider this a grave and unwarranted offence on the part of the Ambassador of Urgench! As Ambassador for Lotheterran and a representative of Narnians, I find your comments offensive, untrue and baseless.

Can you find one instance where I stated that homosexuality is a moral wrong? Can you find a hint of bigotry in my comments? No, Lotheterran has only submitted an opinion that the legality of the proposal is in error.

I will take this opportunity to distinguish Lotheterran's position on this matter between the Freedom of Marriage Act and the Fair Criminal Trial Act. The Fair Criminal Trial Act awards equal rights to ALL people in a nation, regardless of any difference between themselves. The reason this is a right, is because the state can purport to imprison, execute or other punish said accused. The ability for the state to visit negative consequences on it's citizens is a matter of international concern to avoid persecution, torture or any other form of negative punishment.

The Freedom of Marriage Act however, wishes to grant a POSITIVE consequence on any group wishing to develop a relationship to each other. It does not simply state that 'anyone may be in a relationship', it states that a group of people in a specified relationship MUST receive CERTAIN benefits protected by the state that are a construct artificial in nature.

Before we purport to argue that anti-slavery is a positive consequence and so therefore should not be an international law (and thereby invalidating my argument), the aim is to prevent NEGATIVE consequences (the lack of freedom over oneself, something naturally occuring). Marriage an artificial construct, different to the naturally occurring 'relationship', differs from this.

You might also argue that religion is an artificial construct, and so therefore it should not be protected by international law. My answer is that you should have a freedom to enjoy religious beliefs of your choosing, but you may not practice religious circumstances in conflict with a nations laws (i.e. human sacrifice etc.)

Marriage, if you so wish, can be a right for people to get into a committed relationship with each other, however in Lotheterran's most humble opinion, this does not mean that any positive privileges should be conferred on the relationship. Are governments obligated to grant benefits to religions that include exclusions in law? No, you may practice your religion freely within the confines of the law. This Resolution which confers two particular benefits: inheritance and common estate benefits, is attempting to force a government to provide a benefit for a particular set of people, which in Lotheterran's opinion is discriminatory itself towards married couples! Why do married couples gain examptions to national laws regarding inheritance and common estates?

These are questions of concern to the people of Lotheterran. I do not believe that they are offensive, bigoted or vicious in any way shape or form. I would ask you to retract your statement, Ambassador for Urgench, and to apologise to the nations of Narnia for you poor assumption and offensive attack!


We will happily apologise for anything we have said if the ambassador for the Council of Narnia retracts their appalling hate speach in which they damned millions of citizens of member states.

The people of Lotheterran's questions would be allayed if it's government properly understood that this resolution simply ends a particularly pernicious form of unfair discrmination. All this obfuscation about positive and negative benefits from rights is irrelavent.

The Ambassador for Lotheterran should look to obtain assurances of good conduct from members of their own region who flagrantly slur and insult millions of ordinary people, and who's national policies doubtless conform to such obvious prejudice beforethey come seeking apologies from us. Indeed if the Ambassador is an apologist for the views of their regional colleagues then we fail to see any cause for contrition on our part.

If your regional colleagues had made similar statements about, racial, ethnic or religious groups they would be rightly censured for it. We are merely affording the same decency to another persecuted minority.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I apologize for the sudden silly-sounding question, but...

What other form of civil contract does this Act work for? The ambassador for Mendosia repeatedly states that the (therefore unfortunately named) Freedom of Marriage Act isn't about equality in marriages, but equality in any form of civil contract.

However, what other civil contracts are there?If I may field the honored ambassador's question (which is not, may I disclaim, particularly silly):

The different types of civil contracts may have different names depending on nations. In those where the "marriage" of two people of the same gender is considered taboo for cultural or societal reasons, their partnership may be termed a "civil union". To some degree, it's a question of semantics. The proposal is trying to refrain from mandating a certain vocabulary to refer to civil contracts with legislative or economic benefits, if some might find that vocabulary inappropriate.

-Plutonian ambassador Raymond Gardner

Why should we care who gets married? There won't ruin others lives, maybe their own but that doesn't matter. If anything we only need to protect those of younger age, and not to allow marriage for if one person is in power.

However, what other civil contracts are there?

As many as a Nation wishes. Some are called marriage, others civil partnership unions, others de facto unions, etc. There are many possibilities and they may co-exist in the same legal system.

OOC: This is the problem - what statistics support this claim? I cannot supply any evidence, and neither can you, because this is NationStates, not RL. One could even argue, for goodness sake, that one's citizens are somehow immune to AIDS/HIV! Its just not worth getting into.


OOC, So it's ok to get a RL epidemic to justify your position but then you can't get the RL statistics on this RL disease. Very intellectually honest of you.


No. But a government's acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle leads to a dramatic increase in the behavior itself - surely you're aware of this.


Your Excellency, we beg to differ. Making it a socially or legally condemned behavior contributes immensely to the promotion of the 'unhealthy' behaviors you alluded too.



Wrong? Might I ask who you are to question the implementation of other governments' national policies of public health and civil liberties? How can you possibly assert that they are 'wrong'...have you reviewed information regarding the AIDS statistics in their nations? Do their policies negatively affect Mendosia in any way whatsoever?


Because if you devise Public Health Plans with a moral agenda as your motivation you are most likely to not even grasp the real situation, let alone have a noticeable impact.


So quite apparently, you'll be of the mind that the WA should indeed be used to implement the agendas of both extremities, or perhaps just your extremity. Correct me if I'm wrong.


We, your Excellency, see no extreme. You, however, see extremes on any position your moralistic government happens to disagree with.

We will happily apologise for anything we have said if the ambassador for the Council of Narnia retracts their appalling hate speach in which they damned millions of citizens of member states.

The people of Lotheterran's questions would be allayed if it's government properly understood that this resolution simply ends a particularly pernicious form of unfair discrmination. All this obfuscation about positive and negative benefits from rights is irrelavent.

The Ambassador for Lotheterran should look to obtain assurances of good conduct from members of their own region who flagrantly slur and insult millions of ordinary people, and who's national policies doubtless conform to such obvious prejudice beforethey come seeking apologies from us. Indeed if the Ambassador is an apologist for the views of their regional colleagues then we fail to see any cause for contrition on our part.

If your regional colleagues had made similar statements about, racial, ethnic or religious groups they would be rightly censured for it. We are merely affording the same decency to another persecuted minority.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Ambassador for Urgench, you're comments were directed at the region of the Council of Narnia, that incudes the nation of Lotheterran. As I have not in anyway been discussing morality, your blatantly harsh and uncalled for attack is again baseless and untrue, and hence you have misrepresented the WHOLE people of Narnia, and for that I ask an apology or at least a retraction of statement.

What you have obviously indicated Ambassador, is that you refuse to read the discussions presented to you with a reasoned eye. The people of Lotheterran KNOW that the Resolution is about anti-discrimination! What we are concerned about is the METHOD this is to be implemented. Hence I believe those comments WERE relevant, unlike your harsh response to The Narnian Council which was not, hypocrisy seems to be a term you use too lightly Ambassador.

In censuring other nations for their moral views by telling them to be silent and keep them to themselves you are restricting a FAR more important right-Free Speech. I would hope that the learned Ambassador for Urgench understands this. I am not an apologist for my region's views, they are an exercise of democratic belief, a tyranny by majority, and not swayed by anything that deeply underscores their own beliefs.

I feel Ambassador, that it is in fact YOU who insults millions of ordinary people who MAY take moral affront to this as a very personal matter, and I ask you to take this into consideration. As another note, gay marriage IS legal in Lotheterran, so once again your accusation of 'such obvious prejudice' is severely misplaced and plain untrue!

The question asked by Lotheterran had to do with the LEGAL ramifications of the Resolution, not its intention or moral content. Simple, legal ramifications, and I would ask that you direct your response TO that question which was perfectly reasonable, and that I feel has not been satisfactorily answered without being accused of being hypocritical and bigoted. THAT seems a little hypocritical for the representative of Lotheterran, and is disappointing to say the least.

This Resolution which confers two particular benefits: inheritance and common estate benefits, is attempting to force a government to provide a benefit for a particular set of people, which in Lotheterran's opinion is discriminatory itself towards married couples!

Ambassador, we have already disputed this. I repeat, in nations with 100% tax on inheritances or with no private property whatsoever, these provisions are rendered immaterial. In countries with inheritance rights and private property these are not privileges for they do not constitute exemptions but rather the very natural consequences of the association between two people. If any privileges or benefits are to be given to the union of two persons that would be by force of national law and not because of this resolution. I believe that your excellency is using a very flawed logic debating this issue.

Ambassador, we have already disputed this. I repeat, in nations with 100% tax on inheritances or with no private property whatsoever, these provisions are rendered immaterial. In countries with inheritance rights and private property these are not privileges for they do not constitute exemptions but rather the very natural consequences of the association between two people. If any privileges or benefits are to be given to the union of two persons that would be by force of national law and not because of this resolution. I believe that your excellency is using a very flawed logic debating this issue.

Ambassador, I understand your exasperation now, however my question is in regards to why the Resolution seems so contradictory (to me). I would hope that you would take the time to enlighten myself. Article 2(a) extends certain BASIC rights to a married couple like inheritance rights...but if all inheritance rights are taxed this is ok?

So if a nation has NO form of private property, then it does not need to create a system of private property for married couples, but if it does, then it needs to protect that right?

I would contend, that in the association of two people in a system with inheritance and property, you are affording married couples INCREASED protections as compared to other associations of people (i.e. if two friends are living with each other).

My question is DOES this Resolution set a STANDARD for marriage rights IN GENERAL (not in relation to discrimination) in regards to National Laws.

In essence:

Does this resolution-

Require marriage to be recognised by law

Give marriage certain 'rights' that could be greater than current law in nations
regarding associations of people

I might be misinterpreting you, so I guess this is the best way I can get it across Ambassador.

I feel Ambassador, that it is in fact YOU who insults millions of ordinary people who MAY take moral affront to this as a very personal matter, and I ask you to take this into consideration. As another note, gay marriage IS legal in Lotheterran, so once again your accusation of 'such obvious prejudice' is severely misplaced and plain untrue!


Your Excellency, we believe you have now pointed out one of our core disagreements. We cannot see how the freedom to marry of one couple can be a very personal matter for someone completely unrelated. We believe no one has the right to dictate the rules by which a person should go about his life regardless of whether those attitudes are seated on religious, moral or other beliefs.

Many people have pointed out that we can all hold a different set of moral beliefs. That is entirely true, and it is why we should try not to impose our views on other individuals. The only way, your Excellency, not to impose one's views is to give everyone the most freedom that is compatible with life in society. Whether a couple is married or not is something that should not concern other people regardless of their moral opinions about it.

Ambassador for Urgench, you're comments were directed at the region of the Council of Narnia, that incudes the nation of Lotheterran. As I have not in anyway been discussing morality, your blatantly harsh and uncalled for attack is again baseless and untrue, and hence you have misrepresented the WHOLE people of Narnia, and for that I ask an apology or at least a retraction of statement.

What you have obviously indicated Ambassador, is that you refuse to read the discussions presented to you with a reasoned eye. The people of Lotheterran KNOW that the Resolution is about anti-discrimination! What we are concerned about is the METHOD this is to be implemented. Hence I believe those comments WERE relevant, unlike your harsh response to The Narnian Council which was not, hypocrisy seems to be a term you use too lightly Ambassador.

In censuring other nations for their moral views by telling them to be silent and keep them to themselves you are restricting a FAR more important right-Free Speech. I would hope that the learned Ambassador for Urgench understands this. I am not an apologist for my region's views, they are an exercise of democratic belief, a tyranny by majority, and not swayed by anything that deeply underscores their own beliefs.

I feel Ambassador, that it is in fact YOU who insults millions of ordinary people who MAY take moral affront to this as a very personal matter, and I ask you to take this into consideration. As another note, gay marriage IS legal in Lotheterran, so once again your accusation of 'such obvious prejudice' is severely misplaced and plain untrue!

The question asked by Lotheterran had to do with the LEGAL ramifications of the Resolution, not its intention or moral content. Simple, legal ramifications, and I would ask that you direct your response TO that question which was perfectly reasonable, and that I feel has not been satisfactorily answered without being accused of being hypocritical and bigoted. THAT seems a little hypocritical for the representative of Lotheterran, and is disappointing to say the least.


Very well, we apologise to the people of Lotheterran if they are as concerned with equality as you suggest. However our objection to the tone and content of the comments of others from your region remain unchanged, since their comments have not been retracted and remain reprehensible.

That being the case we suggest you excercise whatever influence your government may have with the Narnian Council and other governments within your region who have expressed such dreadfull prejudices to help them see the benefits of non-discrimination and equality.

As for purely arbitrary seperation of Law from Morality well that is manifestly false. The law is the morality of Nations, and in this case the morality of the World Assembly. You have misread or misunderstood the content of this statute so many times that it is hard to imagine an intelligent government doing so for any other reason than the furtherance of a specific agenda, in this case a morally biased and reactionary agenda.

How many times is it necessary to explain to members of your region that this resolution has none of the unintended ramifications they insist it has for the purpose of scaremongering and dissuading members from to voting for this resolution?

It is morally right to vote yes to this resolution. An expression of a concern for the happiness and freedom of our fellow human beings. To vote no to it gravely imperils this organisations credentials in the field of Human Rights and sets a terrible precedent of callous disregard.

yours e.t.c.,

So if a nation has NO form of private property, then it does not need to create a system of private property for married couples, but if it does, then it needs to protect that right?


If a nation has no private property the requirement that 'marriage' contains provisions about the administration of the common estate is rendered immaterial for there is no common estate to be administered. Mutatis mutandis for the inheritance rights.


I would contend, that in the association of two people in a system with inheritance and property, you are affording married couples INCREASED protections as compared to other associations of people (i.e. if two friends are living with each other).


Your Excellency, I doubt that this could be called discrimination, except that we are indeed discriminating two very different situations. We very much doubt that two friends living together would wish to jointly administer their estate (although some nations have the so-called common economy statutes that could cover those situations) or to gain inheritance rights from each other (although they could actually make testaments constituting each other as heirs). So, the point is that the union the Resolution alludes to, does not create any rights that you could not acquire by other means, it just makes it automatic. Of course, each individual Nation can choose to give all the benefits and privileges it wishes to married couples, or to single persons. That is not the concern of this Resolution.


My question is DOES this Resolution set a STANDARD for marriage rights IN GENERAL (not in relation to discrimination) in regards to National Laws.


In our view, your Excellency, it does not. The fact that the Resolution refused to use the term 'marriage' in the legal text meant that the contract we were alluding to had to be framed. The allusion to the administration of the common estate and inheritance rights were just the most vastly common consequences of marriage or other civil unions and are directly applicable to all but the most exotic of situations.



In essence:

Does this resolution-

Require marriage to be recognised by law


No, it could be nothing but a private contract. So there would be no legal type of contract but two persons could 'get married' by celebrating a customized private contract under their freedom of contractual capacity.


Give marriage certain 'rights' that could be greater than current law in nations regarding associations of people


This Resolution does not give persons any additional rights by the fact that they are 'married'.

Very well, we apologise to the people of Lotheterran if they are as concerned with equality as you suggest. However our objection to the tone and content of the comments of others from your region remain unchanged, since these comments have not been retracted and remain reprehensible.

That being the case we suggest you excercise whatever influence your government may have with the Narnian Council and other governments within your region who have expressed such dreadfull prejudices to help them see the benefits of non-discrimination and equality.

As for purely arbitrary seperation of Law from Morality well that is manifestly false. The law is the morality of Nations, and in this case the morality of the World Assembly. You have misread or misunderstood the content of this statute so many times that it is hard to imagine an intelligent government doing so for any other reason than the furtherance of a specific agenda, in this case a morally biased and reactionary agenda.

How many times is it necessary to explain to members of your region that this resolution has none of the unintended ramifications they insist it has for the purpose of scaremongering and dissuading members from to voting for this resolution?

It is morally right to vote yes to this resolution. An expression of a concern for the happiness and freedom of our fellow human beings. To vote no to it gravely imperils this organisations credentials in the field of Human Rights and sets a terrible precedent of callous disregard.

yours e.t.c.,

The people of Lotheterran graciously accept your apology Ambassador.

I would submit Ambassador, in defence of my region, that all nations are entitled to their beliefs, and right to express it. Should I take away your right to vote in the interests of a set of beliefs considered fundamental? Should I tell you to silence yourself when you voice an objection? Note that this resolution is looking as if it will pass, and yet I am still here debating.

The resolution in my opinion is confusing, and even when I read the entire debate I still could not find all of the clarification of these issues, I'm sorry if this makes you 'question my intelligence'.

The Council of Narnia should be entitled to its opinion, however controversial and it's right to express itself, and hence I believe you should apologise to Narnians in general and take up your private disputes with various ambassadors in your own time. Lotheterran is troubled that freedom of speech is such a problem for many.

If a nation has no private property the requirement that 'marriage' contains provisions about the administration of the common estate is rendered immaterial for there is no common estate to be administered. Mutatis mutandis for the inheritance rights.



Your Excellency, I doubt that this could be called discrimination, except that we are indeed discriminating two very different situations. We very much doubt that two friends living together would wish to jointly administer their estate (although some nations have the so-called common economy statutes that could cover those situations) or to gain inheritance rights from each other (although they could actually make testaments constituting each other as heirs). So, the point is that the union the Resolution alludes to, does not create any rights that you could not acquire by other means, it just makes it automatic. Of course, each individual Nation can choose to give all the benefits and privileges it wishes to married couples, or to single persons. That is not the concern of this Resolution.



In our view, your Excellency, it does not. The fact that the Resolution refused to use the term 'marriage' in the legal text meant that the contract we were alluding to had to be framed. The allusion to the administration of the common estate and inheritance rights were just the most vastly common consequences of marriage or other civil unions and are directly applicable to all but the most exotic of situations.




No, it could be nothing but a private contract. So there would be no legal type of contract but two persons could 'get married' by celebrating a customized private contract under their freedom of contractual capacity.



This Resolution does not give persons any additional rights by the fact that they are 'married'.

One final question if I may: What if there is no ability to contract between two people? (seems absurd, but a pertinent question)

The people of Lotheterran graciously accept your apology Ambassador.

I would submit Ambassador, in defence of my region, that all nations are entitled to their beliefs, and right to express it. Should I take away your right to vote in the interests of a set of beliefs considered fundamental? Should I tell you to silence yourself when you voice an objection? Note that this resolution is looking as if it will pass, and yet I am still here debating.

The resolution in my opinion is confusing, and even when I read the entire debate I still could not find all of the clarification of these issues, I'm sorry if this makes you 'question my intelligence'.

The Council of Narnia should be entitled to its opinion, however controversial and it's right to express itself, and hence I believe you should apologise to Narnians in general and take up your private disputes with various ambassadors in your own time. Lotheterran is troubled that freedom of speech is such a problem for many.


We celebrate freedom of speech and indeed have not said that anyone should not have the right to express their opinions. You, respected Ambassador, asked us to silence ourselves.

If the Council of Narnia is entitled to spew hate in this debate then freedom of speech allows us to call them bigotted for doing so.

We respect your endeavour to understand this resolution better, but it leads us to ask how have you voted on it if you are now better informed?

yours e.t.c. ,

In the nation of Powerhungry Chipmunks there resides a strongly expressed belief in the God-given rights of all people to live, choose and pursue happiness as they see best fit--unless such pursuit infringes on the right of another to live and choose and pursue happiness. As such, the nation of Powerhungry Chipmunks permits and recognizes civil unions between same-sex couples.

Though the majority of people hold a negative view towards homosexual relationships (viewing such relationships as anything from unfulfilling to perniciously sinful), there is a great, calming realization among the same majority that it is not among the rights of the majority to strip homosexuals of their right to pursue happiness down that avenue (the avenue of homosexual civil unions) if for no other reason than to let them learn the pitfalls and problems with their thinking for themselves. The people of Powerhungry Chipmunks by and large understand that homosexuals’ decisions to be bound civilly or not is not an action which infringes on the rights of others, and thus something they have every right to decide for themselves.

In contrast, however, the government the Powerhungry Chipmunks (elected by the people to protect the right of the people to choose for themselves) finds it perverse that the international body of the World Assembly would legislate on an issue upon which the citizens of Powerhungry Chipmunks have worked through years of debate and disagreement to reach a consensus. The people have been empowered with the ability to decide this very personal and cultural issue themselves, and feel that it is in the people of Powerhungry Chipmunks that final power rests to rule and determine government.

The people of Powerhungry Chipmunks relish the restraint built into the nature of their national government, and the maximized representation of the people in such a structure. The World Assembly, on the other hand is so far removed from the people of Powerhungry Chipmunks, and so liable to be moved by the whimsies of the latest ideological wave--driven by the wind and tossed--that the people of Powerhungry Chipmunks have in a special memorandum voted AGAINST this resolution The AGAINST vote was achieved by an overwhelming 87.6% majority.

Those voting against the resolution in Powerhungry Chipmunks have repeatedly expressed outrage at this resolution as an incorrect step for the World Assembly--on the principle of federalism, on the principle that power rests with the people, and is only attained by government through direct representation of the people in said government. The World Assembly, they argue, has no method of direct representation by the people of Powerhungry Chipmunks and therefore has no legitimate claim to legislate on an issue such as this. If the WA wants to legislate on this issue, they say, it should find a method of direct representation and a check or balance with the people of PC.

Respectfully,

Daniel Palleel,
Center for Studies of International Legislature-PC




OOC: This is just me rambling on my views of how NS and the WA function, and why this sort of thing happens all the time.

I’m starting to see that the real difficulty with NS and the WA (and it will always be a difficulty, I think) is that in REAL government, in order for a government to be sustainable, “the people” need to have the power. The smallest divisible decision-making body is the individual. “Government” only occurs when groups of individuals discover a need to jointly establish a governing power that will protect them and maximize the joy of lives. They form a plan for government to provide for their joint needs and individuals from among “the people” (politicians) role-play the parts prescribed in the plan.

But since in NS, each player IS the government of his or her nation. The smallest divisible unit in NS is the national government (honestly, there will never be a rebellion and break-off province of PC unless I, the nation’s leader, will it into existence). The power being in “the people” translates, in NS, to the power being in "national governments", because those are the only real “people” involved. Any government smaller than a national government is simply an idea created by the person who plays the national government and in and of itself has no decision-making ability (the PC province of Palenth, cannot make a decision unless I, the player, want it to make that decision).

“International government” in NS, then, theoretically occurs when the players (national governments) discover a need to jointly establish an “international government” (which, again, is really a “national government” over lots of consenting individuals, which individuals masquerade as a whole nation each). Member nations then role-play the parts prescribed of the “international government”.

A significant difference to note is that in NS, the need for gathering is different. In a REAL nation, the people get together for VERY important things like, for example, protection from being killed by other groups of individuals, providing the necessities of life such as shelter or food or water, and providing for the continuation of life through a quality of life sufficiently good to raise new generations. Such is not the exigency which commands the gathering together of players to NS.

I mean, last time I checked NS was under no threat of invasion, nor was there much chance of us forming much of new generation together (not to say that I’m not open to that, ladies…). The individuals who make up the NS have assembled in order to express themselves ideologically, and to have fun doing so. The WA as a government over these players is successful when it ensures our ability to do that as individual players.

That’s the reason the WA functions the way it does, and that’s why it’s very logical for it to interfere as much as it does in national politics. It’s because there aren’t actually any national politics. Again, the smallest divisible unit of government in NS is the national government (i.e. individual players). National governments are really “the people” of NS. The WA is much more like the national government over the thousands of players who are the citizens thereof, than an international government that rules over thousands national governments. In the real world, no such interference from an international government would be tolerated, at least not for long. People would demand representation in more local levels of government, and the international government would soon be scrapped or abandoned. But since the WA isn’t really an international government, we tolerate it in large part.

I know, I know…I’ve always argued strongly against international meddling by the WA (or the UN, back in the good ol days)—heck, I’ve even argued it as the reason to be against this very resolution. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand why it always happens, and why it always will happen. I’m just having fun with a fun argument--really, in the end, so I can learn more about when it is justified for a government to step in and govern, and when the people need their space and freedoms. And, yes, I’ve learned a lot about that from this game.

[/ramble]

Lotheterran is troubled that freedom of speech is such a problem for many.

Most respectful Ambassador, we have to side with our colleague from Urgench, for we do not accept that hate speech be used in the name of the Freedom of Expression. That is, in our view, a gross misapprehension of the meaning of that freedom. Especially when coming from a representative that would deny a substantial minority the right to live their lives due to some moral objections that borderline calls for annihilation, attributing them the blame for moral corruption, pervasive promiscuity and even the propagation of disease. These statements are outrageous and deserve our condemnation.

By refusing to distance yourself from these statements and by shielding them on the broad veil of Freedom of Expression you are being an accomplice -- a behavior which is also objectionable.

One final question if I may: What if there is no ability to contract between two people? (seems absurd, but a pertinent question)

Your Excellency, I have already answered that question on two occasions, your Excellency has even quoted my answer before.

And indeed in such an absurd situation the Nation in question would have to find a legal solution to conform to this Resolution. It is the closest thing to a right to 'marry' that the Resolution at hand requires. But it is indeed absurd, or at least very hard to imagine, a Nation with private property that disallows people from freely disposing of it.

The Kawaiian representative actually makes a valid point:

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.This resolution only applies to civil contracts. Therefore, any member government seeking to circumvent this document's mandate may simply remove marriage from the auspices of civil law, and place it under the jurisdiction of the state church. A government may simply follow common Flibbleite practice and outlaw marriage altogether if they please, as marriage is not even defined in the entire resolution.

And, as the Quodite delegation points out, under this resolution, a government may not discriminate against same-sex couples applying for marriage, but may simply imprison them for violating local sodomy statutes. We realize a separate resolution may prevent such an act, but the mere fact that the option exists for member governments under this mandate seems to us just a little silly. Although we applaud the author's sense in limiting this right to "persons." You can expect some wailing from the Bears Armed delegation for your troubles.

The Federal Republic's vote against this resolution stands.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

In contrast, however, the government the Powerhungry Chipmunks (elected by the people to protect the right of the people to choose for themselves) finds it perverse that the international body of the World Assembly would legislate on an issue upon which the citizens of Powerhungry Chipmunks have worked through years of debate and disagreement to reach a consensus. The people have been empowered with the ability to decide this very personal and cultural issue themselves, and feel that it is in the people of Powerhungry Chipmunks that final power rests to rule and determine government.

Congratulations to your citizens on working this issue through. I have one teeny-tiny question, though; how exactly does the WA requiring non-discrimination in marriage differ from the WA requiring non-discrimination in public facilities for those of different races, for example? When it gets round to it, that is. I'm sure the nations howling against such a proposal would cheerfully justify themselves with their culture of ancient (or modern) apartness as well as the mass lack of reading comprehension skills that has dominated this particular "debate".

The Kawaiian representative actually makes a valid point:

This resolution only applies to civil contracts. Therefore, any member government seeking to circumvent this document's mandate may simply remove marriage from the auspices of civil law, and place it under the jurisdiction of the state church. A government may simply follow common Flibbleite practice and outlaw marriage altogether if they please, as marriage is not even defined in the entire resolution.

And, as the Quodite delegation points out, under this resolution, a government may not discriminate against same-sex couples applying for marriage, but may simply imprison them for violating local sodomy statutes. We realize a separate resolution may prevent such an act, but the mere fact that the option exists for member governments under this mandate seems to us just a little silly. Although we applaud the author's sense in limiting this right to "persons." You can expect some wailing from the Bears Armed delegation for your troubles.

The Federal Republic's vote against this resolution stands.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

As it happens we agree with the ambassador for Omigodtheykilledkenny when they point out that in nations where homosexuality is illegal this statute's provisions will be at best moot.

And yes some might say this resolution puts the cart before the horse but that does not mean it should not be assented to. Full legalisation through out the w.a. of homosexuality may be introduced now on the basis that civil law in the matter has already been brought in line with such an aim.

As for hiving off legal competence for marriage to a state church that would raise the question of the legality of all marriages within any nation which did that, should this resolution pass.

yours e.t.c. ,

This resolution only applies to civil contracts. Therefore, any member government seeking to circumvent this document's mandate may simply remove marriage from the auspices of civil law, and place it under the jurisdiction of the state church.
Not quite, Jimmy.
(a) All States shall have some form of protection for the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.
You've got to allow the civil existence of something like marriage, and you've got define what happens to common property and how marriage affects inheritance laws, and those rules must discriminate on gender, but that's it. Those laws can be "you've got no more or less rights than any other common property agreement" (or even "there is no common property") and "inheritance rights aren't affected" if you want; as long as they apply to everyone evenly, it's OK.

The dodge with leaving civil unions toothless and giving religious marriages all the perks also doesn't work; if the state recognises religious marriages in a meaningful way, Article 3 comes into play and requires the civil unions to get the same (civil) benefits.

This resolution only applies to civil contracts. Therefore, any member government seeking to circumvent this document's mandate may simply remove marriage from the auspices of civil law, and place it under the jurisdiction of the state church. A government may simply follow common Flibbleite practice and outlaw marriage altogether if they please, as marriage is not even defined in the entire resolution.


Ambassador, indeed marriage is not defined in the resolution. It is not even mentioned in the text. The Resolution, however, delimits what the minimum protection of the civil union of two persons must be. So civil law must, in fact, offer some kind of protection on the terms of this Resolution. If marriage is removed from the civil statutes that is of no consequence for the fundamental aim of the Resolution is preserved -- that of no discrimination.



And, as the Quodite delegation points out, under this resolution, a government may not discriminate against same-sex couples applying for marriage, but may simply imprison them for violating local sodomy statutes. We realize a separate resolution may prevent such an act, but the mere fact that the option exists for member governments under this mandate seems to us just a little silly. Although we applaud the author's sense in limiting this right to "persons." You can expect some wailing from the Bears Armed delegation for your troubles.


Although this Resolution does not literally ban sodomy laws it falls perfectly within the mens legis of this Resolution to do so. In fact, when the Resolution forbids the establishment of 'different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex' it is perfectly arguable that if a necessary or rather highly likely result from a same-sex union is incarceration for the crime of sodomy then we are indeed in the presence of a discriminatory effect, as it were.

It is clear that the intent of banning sodomy laws would be better served by a Resolution that instituted an abstract right of privacy delimiting the private sphere and the public sphere and forever preventing the government from interfering in the former. I invite any of my learned colleagues to present such a proposal.

Your Excellency, my interpretation of the text is that since your nation has no laws regulating civil unions (the fact that churches are allowed to recognize it is of no consequence for this Resolution) then people should be free to celebrate contracts between themselves under the liberty of contractual capacity concerning their estate and inheritance rights. These contracts are most relevant should your citizens move abroad, for there is no reason why these contracts should not be recognized elsewhere and some Nations could even choose to equate them to their civil union statutes.

Admittedly this Resolution will have a somewhat lesser effect on your Nation but it will still remove any legal conflict that could arise following the attempt at recognition of one these private contracts between two people of the same sex on a country which would oppose same-sex unions and use this as an argument for not accepting the binding nature of said contract.

And once again, my question is ignored. I want to know how a nation's marriage laws affect other nation's citizens. In other words, how is this an inter-fucking-national issue?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative