PASSED: Freedom of Marriage Act [Official Topic] [Archive] - Page 2

Omigodtheykilledkenny

01-09-2008, 19:02

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 passage quoted requires all nations to protect unions, but it does not stipulate that all unions must be forged under civil contracts. Nations can simply declare marriage a religious rite, not under the aegis of the law, and simply extend no guaranteed rights to anybody.

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.Really? Does the resolution state that any state recognition of unions automatically deems them civil? I don't think it does.

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.Unless we recognize no civil unions, what then?

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.Uhh, no, Ambassador, the law does not become elastic simply because you didn't put enough thought into drafting it. There are to be no special conditions for attaining status as a civil union; but we highly doubt that extends to indemnity for violating the law. Sodomy is not illegal in our home state, and we do not intend on illegalizing it just to get around this statute, but that's no guarantee that other copycat Creative Solutions Agencies won't be so merciful.

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.Yes, that it is our opinion, too.

Urgench

01-09-2008, 19:09

Mendosia

01-09-2008, 19:14

Really? Does the resolution state that any state recognition of unions automatically deems them civil? I don't think it does.

Ambassador, unions recognized by the State are, by definition, civil unions.
Even Theocracies have the exercise of temporal powers which fall under the label of civil law.

Mendosia

01-09-2008, 19:19

A privacy law servering national interest from private activity? Goodness what a byzantine way of introducing the legalisation of homosexuality. Why not include such a privacy clause in a Human Rights statute instead?

That, my dear colleague, would also be a possibility. But with so many representatives objecting to the very notion of human rights it is best to advance in small steps.

We believe that a Defense of Privacy Act embodies a general principle that protects people from the excesses of Government intervention with the decriminalization of sodomy as only one of many corollaries.

Khalifistan

01-09-2008, 19:38

Urgench

01-09-2008, 19:41

Ambassador, unions recognized by the State are, by definition, civil unions.
Even Theocracies have the exercise of temporal powers which fall under the label of civil law.

Indeed in a theocracy even canon or holy law which does not address criminal activity and which affects the citizenry at large is merely another form of civil law.

yours e.t.c. ,

Urgench

01-09-2008, 19:48

many people say its a religious issue or something individual nations should get to decide, but i think that marrying who you want is a basic human right, not something each country should have different laws on

If only all nations felt as yours does. May the horde of Khalifistan ride swift across the plain.

yours e.t.c. ,

axmanland

01-09-2008, 22:28

we of Axmanland are happy to once again be in that rare position of finding a WA proposal we can wholeheartedly support and agree with.

Axmanlanders have long enjoyed the freedom to engage in sex and marriage with whoever ( and indeed whatever ) they damn well please.

In short we applaud this fine effort and call for all nations to support this fine bill.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

01-09-2008, 22:58

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?
I think you're question is better phrased, "Discrimination is ugly regardless of what the discriminating factor is (race, gender, sexual preference, etc), isn't it?"

And I dunno the answer to that.

Really though, I'm not seeing the correlation between my post and this question. According to the majority opinion in PC, it would be equally inappropriate for the WA, an international government, to pass either non-discrimination legislation. Both would be seen as the international government (the WA) becoming involved in matters it simply shouldn't.

The WA should not become involved because there is no means of check or balance or representation by the Joe Schmoe of PC over the international government (the WA). That is a form of tyranny. Power comes from the people: no government can exist without a people to be governed, but people can exist without a government to govern them. Any government that does not provide mechanisms for the power-wielding people to be represented in that government and to reform, change, and completely change the nature of said government is either a current tyranny or a future tyranny waiting to sprout and spread injustice.

It’s just improper for an international body to legislate affecting cultural, moral, religious, or personal issues of individuals when that international body is connected to the individuals it legislates upon only marginally. What representation does an individual PC citizen have in the WA? He only has the representation of his national government, elected every few years and that national government, in turn chooses to send a delegation to the WA to represent PC. This is by no means direct representation for the true power behind the WA: individual people. It’s a very indirect representation for them. As such, PC is against this as unfit for legislation from an international body, because that international body is not directly represented among the people upon whom it attempts to directly legislate.

But as per the OOC ramble, PC perfectly understands that the WA does not really behave like an "international" body. PC understands the reason this type of legislation is presented and will always be presented (and as is reflected by the fact that PC's people's have adopted laws previous to this debate which have exactly the same effect as this resolution: PC is not ideologically opposed to the ideas behind this proposal). If we accept that the WA acts as a national government rather than an international one, PC is favorable to the issue. PC has done exaclty what an "WA as national government" is doing with this proposal...on its own…previous to this proposal ever being proposed. If we view the behavior of the WA as a national government over many individual players (posing as a nation each), then we see that there is adequate representation of the people (the players), who directly vote on each piece of legislation.
But, again, If there is a roleplay of the WA as an "international" government, though, Pc's citizens feel this is not an issue that should be decided by an international government and so PC is against.

Urgench

01-09-2008, 23:29

I think you're question is better phrased, "Discrimination is ugly regardless of what the discriminating factor is (race, gender, sexual preference, etc), isn't it?"

And I dunno the answer to that.

Really though, I'm not seeing the correlation between my post and this question. According to the majority opinion in PC, it would be equally inappropriate for the WA, an international government, to pass either non-discrimination legislation. Both would be seen as the international government (the WA) becoming involved in matters it simply shouldn't.

The WA should not become involved because there is no means of check or balance or representation by the Joe Schmoe of PC over the international government (the WA). That is a form of tyranny. Power comes from the people: no government can exist without a people to be governed, but people can exist without a government to govern them. Any government that does not provide mechanisms for the power-wielding people to be represented in that government and to reform, change, and completely change the nature of said government is either a current tyranny or a future tyranny waiting to sprout and spread injustice.

It’s just improper for an international body to legislate affecting cultural, moral, religious, or personal issues of individuals when that international body is connected to the individuals it legislates upon only marginally. What representation does an individual PC citizen have in the WA? He only has the representation of his national government, elected every few years and that national government, in turn chooses to send a delegation to the WA to represent PC. This is by no means direct representation for the true power behind the WA: individual people. It’s a very indirect representation for them. As such, PC is against this as unfit for legislation from an international body, because that international body is not directly represented among the people upon whom it attempts to directly legislate.

But as per the OOC ramble, PC perfectly understands that the WA does not really behave like an "international" body. PC understands the reason this type of legislation is presented and will always be presented (and as is reflected by the fact that PC's people's have adopted laws previous to this debate which have exactly the same effect as this resolution: PC is not ideologically opposed to the ideas behind this proposal). If we accept that the WA acts as a national government rather than an international one, PC is favorable to the issue. PC has done exaclty what an "WA as national government" is doing with this proposal...on its own…previous to this proposal ever being proposed. If we view the behavior of the WA as a national government over many individual players (posing as a nation each), then we see that there is adequate representation of the people (the players), who directly vote on each piece of legislation.
But, again, If there is a roleplay of the WA as an "international" government, though, Pc's citizens feel this is not an issue that should be decided by an international government and so PC is against.

Honoured Ambassador you and all the other worthy Ambassadors to this organisation are the " checks and balances " which maintain member nation's control over this organisation.

In many cases, though not all of course, Ambassadors are sent here by democratically elected governments empowered by their people to do so.

There is no Executive branch of governance in the w.a., it's statutes are generated by it's members not some ruling council or cabinet, these statutes are voted on by the entire membership ( should they wish to do so ) and are sometimes repealed as well by them.

How is this a world government?

We concede that the World Assembly resembles a uni-cameral world senate but the executive would be the national governments of the membership and they may leave this organisation at any time if they find it's statutes odious or burdensome.

The w.a. cannot have an army, or police force, it has no instruments to penalise errant members who's behaviour it objects to. As yet the W.A. does not even have a court system.

How is this a world government?

If it is somehow objectionable to the citizens of your region that this organisation has a competence in the field of Human Rights, which is after all a universal and manifestly Transnational area of legislation, then, honoured Ambassador, there is a simple remedy.

Yours sincerely

New Sequoyah

02-09-2008, 00:12

Rutianas

02-09-2008, 00:23

Urgench

02-09-2008, 01:18

Ladies, Gentlemen, and other honorable delegates to the World Assembly.

Marriage is an internal affair of sovereign states, and we believe that as such, the individual nations should determine the status of marriage to their satisfaction. New Sequoyah does not believe that the World Assembly should be dictating the terms of marriage to her member nations.

We are vehemently opposed to this resolution, and will be supporting a repeal, perhaps followed by another resolution stating that marriage is the affair of the state, not the World Assembly, and as such will not be addressed by this body.

New Sequoyah's vote AGAINST this resolution still stands.

So the respected Ambassador for New Sequoyah is in favour of allowing nations to ban inter-racial marriages, and to allow them to annul the marriages of jews, muslims, Jains, or which ever other minorities they despise and to disallow their parental rights as a consequence.

It seems that New Sequoyah's ambassador is in favour of allowing apartheid or ethnic cleansing since both can be described by their apologists as " internal matters ".

The purpose of this resolution is to end a terrible form of discrimination against human beings who have done nothing to deserve such persecution and marginalisation. This is a matter of universal concern, Human beings are the victims and have been alienated from the right not to be unfairly discriminated against by their governments. This is thoroughly and completely within the competence of this oragnisation to remedy. To state otherwise is to deny fact.

To repeal this resolution on the basis that the W.A. has no right to protect it's member's citizen's Human Rights is a very, very dangerous and wicked thing to do. We will oppose such a terrible act with all our resorces.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The Eternal Kawaii

02-09-2008, 01:23

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 would appear, however, that there is no place for people "that beg to differ" from the radical sexual views of Mendosia. This proposal is little more than an attempt to use the WA like a bludgeon to impose those views on all WA nations. By what moral right does the esteemed representative make such unreasonable claims upon his fellow member states?

Urgench

02-09-2008, 01:34

It would appear, however, that there is no place for people "that beg to differ" from the radical sexual views of Mendosia. This proposal is little more than an attempt to use the WA like a bludgeon to impose those views on all WA nations. By what moral right does the esteemed representative make such unreasonable claims upon his fellow member states?

The honoured and respected Ambassador for the Eternal Kawaii is surely confused. What " radical sexual views" are we being asked or forced to endorse? We ask because we have a morbid fascination for such things and would be delighted if the esteemed Ambassador could elaborate. Our humble Ambassador is an elderly batchelor who's life has been distinctly bereft of the leaven of sexual radicalism, the sexual revolution passed him by during the years he was studying for his masters degree in international law at the University of the Empire at Khodzhent ( a very dull place indeed ) and illumination in the subject of exotic sensuality would be most welcome.

yours sincerely ,

Rutianas

02-09-2008, 01:39

So the respected Ambassador for New Sequoyah is in favour of allowing nations to ban inter-racial marriages, and to allow them to annul the marriages of jews, muslims, Jains, or which ever other minorities they despise and to disallow their parental rights as a consequence.

It seems that New Sequoyah's ambassador is in favour of allowing apartheid or ethnic cleansing since both can be described by their apologists as " internal matters ".

Honorable Ambassador,

I do not quite recall where New Sequoyah's Ambassador stated that he was in favor of allowing nations to ban inter-racial marriages, etc. Can you please elaborate on the relevant statements?

If being against this resolution means that a nation is full of discriminatory citizens, then I suppose Rutianas is as well, when we fully support the ideals behind the resolution, but oppose that marriage, civil unions, whatever you want to call it, is the primary focus.

Rutianas's citizens have resigned themselves to the fact that this resolution will likely pass. Even though it will not affect us directly, due to the fact that all citizens are equal through recent legislation in our own Parliament, our own citizens feel that this should not be thrust upon other nations who are not yet ready to take this crucial step.

We believe in equal human rights. I have never stated otherwise. It is other countries that have issues with this. Yes, we would like for equality to come to them, but we believe it must be done gradually. Not all at once, like this resolution will do.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

Urgench

02-09-2008, 01:52

Honorable Ambassador,

I do not quite recall where New Sequoyah's Ambassador stated that he was in favor of allowing nations to ban inter-racial marriages, etc. Can you please elaborate on the relevant statements?

If being against this resolution means that a nation is full of discriminatory citizens, then I suppose Rutianas is as well, when we fully support the ideals behind the resolution, but oppose that marriage, civil unions, whatever you want to call it, is the primary focus.

Rutianas's citizens have resigned themselves to the fact that this resolution will likely pass. Even though it will not affect us directly, due to the fact that all citizens are equal through recent legislation in our own Parliament, our own citizens feel that this should not be thrust upon other nations who are not yet ready to take this crucial step.

We believe in equal human rights. I have never stated otherwise. It is other countries that have issues with this. Yes, we would like for equality to come to them, but we believe it must be done gradually. Not all at once, like this resolution will do.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

Respected Ambassador the Ambassador for New Sequoyah has said they believe that this resolution should fail because it mitigates against the rights of member nations to structure marriage as they see fit.

This means that they have no problem with member nations banning inter-racial marriage and the like since this matter, as the ambassador for New Sequoyah sees it, is a matter exclusively within the competence of member governments and not the w.a.

Be under no illusion, the Ambassador for New Sequoyah does not care about the sovereignty of member nations in any case. They are morally oposed to gay marriage and have cloaked this prejudice in false arguments in order not to appear reactionary and extremist.

This kind of objection would if given free reign have defeated a statute which not only deals with discrimination against gay people but against all minorities, the result of this would be to contnue to allow member nations to commit untold acts of crime against humanity.

This resolution could not be more focused on one small area of human rights if it tried, how small does the respected Ambasador for Rutianas expect the steps in equalising society to be?

yours e.t.c. ,

Rutianas

02-09-2008, 02:11

This resolution could not be more focused on one small area of human rights if it tried, how small does the respected Ambasador for Rutianas expect the steps in equalising society to be?

I would have preferred something which at first removes laws which criminalize any behaviors that these 'minorities' engage in. This is the path that Rutianas took.

Only 10 years ago, Rutianas was a nation which engaged in the ugly behaviors that this resolution wishes to bring a halt to. Our Parliament began to slowly introduce such legislation that made it more and more clear that we were progressing to a more socially acceptable way of life, with the same basic rights for everyone, regardless of who a person is. We now have the kind of legislation in place that this would place in other nations and we realize that we are better off with it, than being thrown back 10 years into the past.

It worked for us and we were as discriminating as you claim other nations to be. Whether those claims are true or false, I don't know and I will, in the future, refrain from making comments as I did before having the facts.

My nation believes that it would work for others just as well. We fear what it would do to the international community to have this kind of legislation thrust upon them before they are socially ready to accept it.

Thank you, honorable Ambassador.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

Urgench

02-09-2008, 02:17

I would have preferred something which at first removes laws which criminalize any behaviors that these 'minorities' engage in. This is the path that Rutianas took.

Only 10 years ago, Rutianas was a nation which engaged in the ugly behaviors that this resolution wishes to bring a halt to. Our Parliament began to slowly introduce such legislation that made it more and more clear that we were progressing to a more socially acceptable way of life, with the same basic rights for everyone, regardless of who a person is. We now have the kind of legislation in place that this would place in other nations and we realize that we are better off with it, than being thrown back 10 years into the past.

It worked for us and we were as discriminating as you claim other nations to be. Whether those claims are true or false, I don't know and I will, in the future, refrain from making comments as I did before having the facts.

My nation believes that it would work for others just as well. We fear what it would do to the international community to have this kind of legislation thrust upon them before they are socially ready to accept it.

Thank you, honorable Ambassador.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

It is we who must thank you honoured delegate for allowing us to expose the wickedness of those who oppose equality. May the Horde of Rutianas ride swift across the plain.

yours e.t.c.,

Lotheterran

02-09-2008, 03:38

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.

Thankyou most esteemed Ambassador for Mendosia, this was my initial question and I was aware that you had answered it, I just wanted to make that point clear.

Ambassador for Urgench, as I have now received this response I can very confidently maintain my stance to vote AGAINST this resolution, as it enforces a set of civil contract (or solution thereof) on WA nations regarding what I believe is an internal matter.

While I sympathise with your moral crusade, the people of Lotheterran do not agree with the employed method.

New Sequoyah

02-09-2008, 03:40

Be under no illusion, the Ambassador for New Sequoyah does not care about the sovereignty of member nations in any case. They are morally oposed to gay marriage and have cloaked this prejudice in false arguments in order not to appear reactionary and extremist.

The delegate from Urgench obviously does not know the nation of New Sequoyah very well. We have argued for national sovereignty countless times in these Halls. Perhaps the delegate was not present in those debates. Perhaps the delegate was not even a delegate at that time, when New Sequoyah first began arguing in the United Nations. Perhaps the delegate's home nation had not achieved sovereignty yet. In that case, let me inform him this, and let me be very clear: New Sequoyah has stood, does stand, and will continue to stand unequivocally for national sovereignty.

Yes, we are morally opposed to homosexual marriage. But we believe in self determination. If a nation wishes to allow homosexual marriage, then so be it. But do not force others to do so against their will. Advocates for such infringements on the rights of nations say that moral people are "forcing their morals on others". Au contraire, mon ami. Look in the mirror, and tell me who is forcing their morals (or lack thereof) on the rest of the world.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 04:02

The delegate from Urgench obviously does not know the nation of New Sequoyah very well. We have argued for national sovereignty countless times in these Halls. Perhaps the delegate was not present in those debates. Perhaps the delegate was not even a delegate at that time, when New Sequoyah first began arguing in the United Nations. Perhaps the delegate's home nation had not achieved sovereignty yet. In that case, let me inform him this, and let me be very clear: New Sequoyah has stood, does stand, and will continue to stand unequivocally for national sovereignty.

Yes, we are morally opposed to homosexual marriage. But we believe in self determination. If a nation wishes to allow homosexual marriage, then so be it. But do not force others to do so against their will. Advocates for such infringements on the rights of nations say that moral people are "forcing their morals on others". Au contraire, mon ami. Look in the mirror, and tell me who is forcing their morals (or lack thereof) on the rest of the world.

The Ambassador was nowhere to be seen, let alone standing up for sovereignty, when their regional colleagues violated this oh so sacred sovereignty by destroying member nation's governments control over their judicial systems. An infinitely graver violation than this resolution could ever hope to be. Or perhaps they were conveniently absent from the debates on the so called Fair Trial bill.

In any case they have admitted that they are in favour of laws which ban inter-racial marriage and laws which deprive ethnic or religious minorities of their marital or concurrent parental rights.

Perhaps they favour allowing nations to commit pogroms and genocides too, since these could be defined as "internal matters" ?

Whether the ambassador likes it or not the people this resolution seeks to help are Human beings they have rights because they are Humans. One of these is to not be unfairly discriminated against. The laws the Ambassador is so keen to allow are deeply discriminatory and have no business being allowed in a compassionate world.

This is the quality of their morality. It should not be the quality of the morality of this organisation.

yours e.t.c. ,

Urgench

02-09-2008, 04:03

Thankyou most esteemed Ambassador for Mendosia, this was my initial question and I was aware that you had answered it, I just wanted to make that point clear.

Ambassador for Urgench, as I have now received this response I can very confidently maintain my stance to vote AGAINST this resolution, as it enforces a set of civil contract (or solution thereof) on WA nations regarding what I believe is an internal matter.

While I sympathise with your moral crusade, the people of Lotheterran do not agree with the employed method.

Then what method would the Ambassador suggest instead?

yours e.t.c. ,

New Sequoyah

02-09-2008, 04:05

This means that they have no problem with member nations banning inter-racial marriage and the like since this matter, as the ambassador for New Sequoyah sees it, is a matter exclusively within the competence of member governments and not the w.a.

It is we who must thank you honoured delegate for allowing us to expose the wickedness of those who oppose equality. May the Horde of Rutianas ride swift across the plain.

This measure allows fo only two partners in a marriage; aren't you infringing on some people's human rights? What if an adult wants to marry a baby? What if a man wishes to marry several small children, what then? Where does equality stop, in your view? To use your line of reasoning, it seems you have no problem with banning polygamy.

Again, New Sequoyah wishes to stress that national sovereignty be allowed, and let nations determine for themselves what they will and will not allow by law, or what they will not address.

Vote AGAINST the resolution.

New Sequoyah

02-09-2008, 04:10

The Ambassador was nowhere to be seen, let alone standing up for sovereignty, when their regional colleagues violated this oh so sacred sovereignty...

I believe the delegate was out of town. Let me check... yes, he was, hence the absence.

In any case they have admitted that they are in favour of laws which ban inter-racial marriage and laws which deprive ethnic or religious minorities of their marital or concurrent parental rights.

Show me. I for one do not believe that. Besides, if they say what you have put into their mouths, my nation has never said such things. We do not approve of banning inter-racial marriages. You have brought up something with absolutely no bearing on this topic. Stick with the bill; your arguments are non-germaine. Stop wasting our time with frivolous arguments.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 04:14

This measure allows fo only two partners in a marriage; aren't you infringing on some people's human rights? What if an adult wants to marry a baby? What if a man wishes to marry several small children, what then? Where does equality stop, in your view? To use your line of reasoning, it seems you have no problem with banning polygamy.

Again, New Sequoyah wishes to stress that national sovereignty be allowed, and let nations determine for themselves what they will and will not allow by law, or what they will not address.

Vote AGAINST the resolution.

We ask this organisation to witness the depths of depravity the ambassador for New Sequoyah is willing to go to.

They lie and decieve, in scaremongering about this resolution allowing adults to marry children, This resolution does no such thing and the Ambassador knows that very well.

In the same breath the Ambassadors desperate bigotry drives them to suggest that this resolution bans polygamy, How? where does it say this? Nowhere is the answer and the Ambassador knows that very well.

The Ambassador has run out of defences for their indefensable homophobia and is now stooping to catch at any filth they can throw to see if they can make it stick.

Their filth will not stick to this resolution and the Ambassador knows that very well.

yours e.t.c.,

Urgench

02-09-2008, 04:20

I believe the delegate was out of town. Let me check... yes, he was, hence the absence.

Show me. I for one do not believe that. Besides, if they say what you have put into their mouths, my nation has never said such things. We do not approve of banning inter-racial marriages. You have brought up something with absolutely no bearing on this topic. Stick with the bill; your arguments are non-germaine. Stop wasting our time with frivolous arguments.

This shows that the Ambassador is lacking in critical faculties. They have failed to notice that this resolution obviously applies to all minorities, be they religious, ethnic, racial, sexual, political e.t.c.

The Ambassador says that marriage is an issue for member nations to structure as they see fit, if so then it is axiomatic that these nations would have the right to bring in any kind of marriage laws they wished, be thay racist, or anti-minority of any kind.

Must we point out to the Ambassador their failings in perception of logic over and over again?

yours e.t.c.,

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 04:41

It would appear, however, that there is no place for people "that beg to differ" from the radical sexual views of Mendosia. This proposal is little more than an attempt to use the WA like a bludgeon to impose those views on all WA nations. By what moral right does the esteemed representative make such unreasonable claims upon his fellow member states?

Ambassador, once again you fail to see the clear asymmetry between the two situations. In your Nation, people have no choice but to conform to your State-imposed moral code while this Resolution gives your citizens and, in fact, all citizens of the world, the right to beg to differ.

In the words of a learned scholar, it is not the aim of the Human Rights Council of the World Assembly to adopt or impose a particular moral code, but rather to define the liberties and freedoms of all. And that is exactly what this Resolution does.

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 05:14

Ambassador for Urgench, as I have now received this response I can very confidently maintain my stance to vote AGAINST this resolution, as it enforces a set of civil contract (or solution thereof) on WA nations regarding what I believe is an internal matter.

Ambassador, you have not read attentively. This resolution enforces no civil contract whatsoever. If a Nation happens not to have any laws on unions of persons the only thing it needs to conform to this resolution is that people have the capacity to celebrate contracts at all.

The absolutely academic situation your excellency has used to 'expose' the alleged flaws of this resolution is nothing but that: an academic situation. In fact, an absurd situation where people would have private property but would not able to celebrate contracts amongst them.

You go to great lengths to search for exotic situations where this Resolution would have a less than perfect result. But consider the Resolutions this noble Assembly has already passed. Some of these Resolutions seem to imply that the Nations of this Assembly have to have a criminal justice system and all. Isn't it a little bit more of an imposition?

Only the most contumacious of intellectually dishonest governments would oppose this Resolution on the basis of your argumentation.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 05:25

Ambassador, you have not read attentively. This resolution enforces no civil contract whatsoever. If a Nation happens not to have any laws on unions of persons the only thing it needs to conform to this resolution is that people have to capacity to celebrate contracts at all.

The absolutely academic situation your excellency has used to 'expose' the alleged flaws of this resolution is nothing but that: an academic situation. In fact, an absurd situation where people would have private property but would not able to celebrate contracts amongst them.

You go to great lengths to search for exotic situation where this Resolution would have a less than perfect result. But consider the Resolutions this noble Assembly has already passed. Some of these Resolutions seem to imply that the Nations of this Assembly have to have a criminal justice system at all. Isn't it a little bit more of an imposition?

Only the most contumacious of intellectually dishonest governments would oppose this Resolution on the basis of your argumentation.

This last line of yours esteemed and sagacious Ambassador is worthy of the stylus of our great political philosopher Babur Shar ad'Din of Herat, who once said,
" Only the intellectually enfeebled or the empathetically deficient can stand stand foresquare in the path of the Jugernaut {by which he meant the great chariot of god not the truck } of freedom, which is its own accellerative, its own magnifier and its own justification. "

yours e.t.c.,

Corivia

02-09-2008, 11:22

Would someone like to draft an act to repeal this ludicrous act? It is up to nations not the WA when it comes to marriage.

The Narnian Council

02-09-2008, 11:41

Sasquatchewain

02-09-2008, 12:38

Bettia

02-09-2008, 12:49

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 12:53

Dear Ambassador from the Council of Narnia,

You have come before this Assembly to ask the most esteemed Ambassador from Urgench to moderate his speech for the sake of decency of argument. Your Excellency asks this, wearing an unwarranted clout of self-righteousness, after having used the most indecent of arguments and the most intolerable of languages to refer to the homosexual community.

The Ambassador from Urgench has spoken against your offensive remarks, as would be the duty of any decent representative, regardless of whether one supports or opposes the resolution at hand.

Moreover, what your excellency so eloquently labels as an argument ad hominem is nothing but a very simple exercise of exposing the hypocrisy and the swiftness with which your delegation nuances its position on the sovereignty of Nations according to whether the issue being discussed is agreeable or not. Indeed, many a Nation would have the moral authority to make that argument, but not the Nation you represent, for it has forfeited that right when it supported resolutions which interfere with national legal systems much more extensively than the resolution we are now discussing. I leave it to the Ambassadors to this Assembly to guess the reason for such a radical change of opinion.

However, we must recognize, your excellency, that your delegation did not make much of an effort disguising its blatantly homophobic stance on this issue, at least not after it was poked with the right questions.

We accept that the fact that your delegation is totally inconsistent does not dispel the arguments being made (which have been counter-argued on the course of this discussion anyway), but it does say a lot about the intellectual honesty of your delegation.

Consequently, we believe that you have no credentials and certainly no basis to come to this Assembly and demand that the Ambassador of Urgench moderate his speech.

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 13:01

What happens to Absolutely Communist nations with Eugenics programs?

Well, both those words have negative connotations, but...

A nation where all business transactions are done between the individual and the government, with no allowances for legal relations between individuals (lest such a thing create a bond stronger than the one to the government, which would "of course" be absolutely horrible). There would be no such thing as property or any form of civil contract between individuals. As well, due to the government's view of genetics and evolution, it would have a Procreation Board, that would decide amongst its people who was fit for procreation and with which other member of the Nation.

Is this the type of case where the government would be forced to change itself into a different form that does allow for civil relations?

[To take it too far...] Therefore dooming the Nation to unrest and civil war when the government's iron grip on its citizens hearts and minds is destroyed by the sudden allowance of individual social decisions?

Ambassador, you will find that we have discussed here already the applicability of this Resolution on a Nation with no private property rights, and I will not comment on the other issues arising on a nation implementing what you call absolute communism, except to say that where there is no private property there is really no actual need for contracts and we do not believe that would constitute a necessary violation of the provisions of this resolution.

Moreover, we are sure that if your excellency puts your mind to it to the fullest capacity of your imagination and creativity you will be able to find all sorts of exotic situations where NO resolution (real or imagined) escapes having unintended or altered consequences.

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 13:07

The delegate of Bettia intends to vote AGAINST this resolution as we feel it violates Section 1 Article 3 of WA Resolution #2 (Rights and Duties of WA States) (http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions), which states:
"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."

Ambassador, you will find that we have already made the case that the provision you are quoting is not controlling on this issue, for it does not concern the intervention of a State but rather the making of international law which, according to the principle of supremacy stated on the same resolution your excellency quotes, overrides national law.

Moreover, Ambassador, this is not a religious issue as your excellency suggests with your emphasis. The resolution clearly states that it has no bearing on religious rites but rather on certain aspects of civil contracts regulating the union of two persons.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 14:13

Right. This really needs to be addressed, and this needs to be addressed immediately.

Urgench, are you completely unable to communicate with those who disagree with your opinion without straying from the subject at hand? Are you totally oblivious to the meaning of ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), and are you actually aware that this is actually a very disapproved and incompetent method of debate?

I too have had personal experience with your delegacy's rather exasperating approach. For example, in almost every thread we've met over the past few months, you've harped on about the "atrocities" of Resolution #13 - how dare we support it, how dare it have prevented your favorite criminal trial proposal to pass! And somehow your delegacy believes it suitable to deafen us with incessant protest about, regardless of the discussion we're holding.

This is just some of what you have said in just the past few pages and discussions:

Why is it that the Quod delegation is capable of conducting an intelligent, clear-headed discussion with us (that we are very happy to participate in), whereas from you we receive this trumpery?

Surely you cannot be absolutely untrained in the ways of proper and decent argument? Your words are unfortunately chosen in a rather excessively extreme manner - which is likely to provoke nothing but an identical response. We'd like to respectfully suggest that alter your method of interaction towards the ambassadors that are opposed to this resolution (as you have managed to treat quite a few of them harshly) - and also specifically, the region of The Council of Narnia.

Courtesy is an attribute we of CoN, at least, hold in great regard, and we ask nothing but that you might return the same decency towards opposition. I honestly am not interested in hearing excuses or an argument from you over my reasonable request - I am sure (at least I hope) you are prudent enough to recognize the importance of what I state, and that you would return the mannerly approach in which I am responding with.

I ask that you don't prove yourself otherwise - and that I won't have to waste words and time having to address this completely needless issue again.
____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

It is charming that the Council of Narnia imagines that we should pander to their bigotry and should politely ignore their hypocracy. It is equally quaint that they should suggest persecution and bias when they are steeped in hate and prejudice.

We have responded in kind where we have had the time and inclination, to those who have been decent and rational and polite we have been the same, with those who have lied or been offensive or arrogant we been forced to be more strident.

If the Council of Narnia imagines that arrogantly insisting that they should not be reproached for saying that Homosexuals are disease ridden, disgustingly promiscuous, untermensch who do not deserve basic human
rights is not deeply offensive to anyone and everyone who is compassionate and understanding or , dare we mention it , gay, then we worry for their abilities to comprehend reality.

Had the Ambassador for the Council of Narnia made similar untrue and hatefull comments about jews or black people they would probably be receiving telegramed hate messages from across the world. It is a mark of how persecution of homosexuals is tolerated by society at large that the Council of Narnia is even allowed to spew ( yes spew ) their animus in these halls.

If the Ambassador for the Council of Narnia did not mean to cause extreme offence with their hate propaganda then either they are fatally un-selfaware or absolutely incapable of comprehending that others may have sensitivities also.

As it is, all we have done is pointed out that the Narnian Council and others from their region came to this debate with the express purpose of cloaking their viceral hatred of homosexuals in spurious arguments about national sovereignty. This was gross hypocracy at the service of rampant prejudice.

When the Ambassador for the Council of Narnia and others from their region realised that this canard had been unmasked they resorted to scurrilous smears about disease, promiscuity, and peadophilia! Did they imagine that this was polite debate? Did they imagine this was courtesy?

The agressive and self congratulatory propaganda of operation lions roar, or the Lions camp have made these nations millitant and obsessed with their own superiority. They imagine we must all bow and scrape to their reactionary and regressive attitudes and should concent to being patronised, insulted or indeed hated by them without demure. This is self dellusion of the highest order.

Finally it is worth pointing out to the Ambassador for the Council of Narnia that this is not their old university debating club where favouritism and clique prevail and where noone really cares about the issues being debated. This is the world of international politics and this is the World Assembly, here we decide on laws which affect the lives of billions of people and where the issues are of the gravest import. Their sense of their own god given superiority is not material here and if they imagine that others will acquiesce in their (im)moral dictatorship then they are in entirely the wrong place.

yours sincerely,

Tzorsland

02-09-2008, 14:39

Worthy delegates and representatives:

I was expecting (and to some extent hoping) to contribute a nice argument against the current proposal in support of the solidarity of the region of New York. However, after taking an extended vacation touring the vineyards of my nation, checking out the live music, slurping up the raw oysters, and so forth I have discovered that the nation of New York has gone through a regional coup.

3 days ago: The Principality of Palms and Coconuts replaced The Hirgizstanian Commonwealth of Victories as WA Delegate.

And as a result

Your Regional WA Delegate, Palms and Coconuts, has voted FOR this resolution.

Therefore, in order to express solidarity with the Region of New York, the Nifty Republic of Tzorsland supports this resolution. While I am personally bothered by the use of the term “sex” (I would have preferred “gender” but apparently Mr. Webster is suggesting I’m being archaic; I just generally associate the word with act and this resolution isn’t really about having sex whatsoever) and given that the resolution prohibits discrimination against two people of the same gender (or sex) then the issue of their orientation should be a moot point.

I also remain mildly concerned about “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.” I am not quite sure what “similar goals and effects” can mean. For example, would any such contracts for monastic communities which may include multiple people of the same gender (for purposes of their common estate and to allow the inheritance to return to the common community) be covered under a contract with similar goals and effects? Never the less, my mild concern is not enough to change my vote on the matter.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

02-09-2008, 15:23

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 15:36

Most esteemed Ambassador from Tzorland, we will readily answer your questions and comments.

While I am personally bothered by the use of the term “sex” (I would have preferred “gender” but apparently Mr. Webster is suggesting I’m being archaic; I just generally associate the word with act and this resolution isn’t really about having sex whatsoever) and given that the resolution prohibits discrimination against two people of the same gender (or sex) then the issue of their orientation should be a moot point.

The term 'sex' was preferred here because our scholars tell us that 'gender' is an attribute of words that, depending on the languages, can have multiple genders and most having nothing to do with sex. The confusion arises because in most, or rather, in the most popular languages of our world, word genders include and sometimes are completely restricted to 'masculine' and 'feminine' which coincide with the two sexes of the human species. We are well aware that the term 'gender' is sometimes used to include individuals who self-identify as not being neither 'male' nor 'female' but for the sake of clarity we chose the term 'sex'.

Additionally, the apparently redundant requirement of no discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation or whether the couples are of the same or different sex is not, in fact, redundant.

Banning discrimination based on sex makes sure both sexes have the same rights and equal access to a civil union.

Banning discrimination based on sexual orientation makes sure someone of a particular sexual orientation has the same rights and equal access to a civil union.

And lest someone argued that prohibiting same-sex unions did not violate the resolution because an homosexual could still celebrate a contract with someone of the opposite sex, we added a clear reference to same-sex couples.

I also remain mildly concerned about “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.” I am not quite sure what “similar goals and effects” can mean. For example, would any such contracts for monastic communities which may include multiple people of the same gender (for purposes of their common estate and to allow the inheritance to return to the common community) be covered under a contract with similar goals and effects? Never the less, my mild concern is not enough to change my vote on the matter.

Many nations have more than one category of civil contracts regulating the union of two persons with different duties and privileges and the clause you mention makes sure that the non-discrimination clause is applied to all of them.

More importantly, it prevents the creation of 'supermarriage' contracts which would avoid the non-discrimination provisions.

It is also our opinion that the clause has no effect on the situation you mention for it is outside the object laid down on article 1.

Travda

02-09-2008, 15:53

The concept of allowing discrimination in other nations simply for the fact that it is a part of their culture, or society, or religion, is inane. There comes a time when polite open-mindedness stops and people recognize when a society is morally wrong. In this case, outlawing same-sex marriage is a moral wrong. The WA is an instrument through which to rectify those wrongs. In the not-so-eloquent words of our prime minister, "your culture sucks, so we're changin' it."

We see the homophobes, the closet-homophobes, and the sovereignists. The first and second aren't worth the privilege of being recognized as human beings, much less worth conversing with, and the idea of sovereignty in the WA has been shown (relentlessly) to be a pipe-dream. And so we have yet to hear one valid argument against the resolution. In light of which, we happily approve.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

Quintessence of Dust

02-09-2008, 16:13

Why is it that the Quod delegation is capable of conducting an intelligent, clear-headed discussion with us (that we are very happy to participate in), whereas from you we receive this trumpery?
Ok, so please respond to my points.

And for the record, I'm as convinced as the representative of Urgench that you are a) a hypocrite for being so concerned with national sovereignty now when that concern was totally absent during promotion of your own resolution and b) a homophobe.

I also think it's pretty rich for someone who has, in the course of this discussion, accused homosexuals of spreading disease (the largest demographic group carrying HIV, by the way, is married women!), being incapable of sustaining long-term relationships, being sexually profligate, and being morally comparable with drug abusers, to now raise the spectre of ad hominem arguments being somehow bad debating. Jesus, we take that away and you won't have any arguments left!

You are, I'll admit though, superior to your regionmate, who is now equating homosexuality with paedophilia:
This measure allows fo only two partners in a marriage; aren't you infringing on some people's human rights? What if an adult wants to marry a baby? What if a man wishes to marry several small children, what then? Where does equality stop, in your view?

Omigodtheykilledkenny

02-09-2008, 16:39

We see the homophobes, the closet-homophobes, and the sovereignists. The first and second aren't worth the privilege of being recognized as human beings, much less worth conversing with,...Aww, come on ... you can't even "hate the sin, love the sinner"? :tongue:

...and the idea of sovereignty in the WA has been shown (relentlessly) to be a pipe-dream.Oh, really (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4)?

And so we have yet to hear one valid argument against the resolution.Not even the fact that this resolution legalizes marriage, but still allows governments to lock gay couples up for having sex?

The Palentine

02-09-2008, 16:42

Urgench

02-09-2008, 16:52

The Palentine has voted against on general principles(we really hate human rights proposals), and the fact that this is an issue best legislated on the individual nation level.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Thessadorian Appriciation Day... because, by golly, such a thing of beauty ought to be appriciated.;)

Goodness honoured and respected Senator Sulla, we thought their might have been an auction of your vote, or something of the kind, first. :p

yours sincerely,

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 16:55

ANot even the fact that this resolution legalizes marriage, but still allows governments to lock gay couples up for having sex?

Ambassador, with all due respect, that is not an argument against this resolution, but rather an argument in favor of introducing another resolution, presumably with a wider scope, as we have argued for previously.

As we contended before, we believe that not allowing governments to incarcerate homosexuals for homosexual acts falls within a general principle of privacy or even on a more general human rights charter.

We also contended that there is a line of argumentation supporting an admittedly feeble but yet viable thesis stating that banning sodomy laws is one of the consequences of this resolution. Your excellency has rejected such an interpretation but we maintain it as a possibility, for it was undoubtedly a prerequisite envisioned by the legislator -- let us say that the legislator was ahead of his time. Since the World Assembly lacks a Court of Law we are not entirely sure how this issue could be resolved.

The Palentine

02-09-2008, 17:02

Goodness honoured and respected Senator Sulla, we thought their might have been an auction of your vote, or something of the kind, first. :p

yours sincerely,

Sometimes, neighbor, there are things worth more than money. My Empress would have one of her damned JagerMonsters use an Anatolian Testicle Dislocator(TM) on me, if I voted for this resolution(ouch).
Excesior,
Senator Sulla

Thessadorian Appriciation Day... because, by golly, such a thing of beauty ought to be appriciated

Quintessence of Dust

02-09-2008, 17:05

We see the homophobes, the closet-homophobes, and the sovereignists. The first and second aren't worth the privilege of being recognized as human beings, much less worth conversing with,
Is such rhetoric really very helpful?
Ambassador, with all due respect, that is not an argument against this resolution, but rather an argument in favor of introducing another resolution, presumably with a wider scope, as we have argued for previously.
But until such a broader resolution is passed, the efficacy of this proposal is at least questionable. It probably would have been more appropriate to pass a sexual privacy resolution first.

Iron Jack Boots

02-09-2008, 17:05

Most Esteemed Ambassadors,
Iron Jack Boots will be voting against this motion. We believe it is indefensible to have the World Assembly
impose this upon this . Further to specify the reasons:

1) It is an unnecessary and unwelcome imposition on our national sovereignty;

2) Seeks to impose a questionable moral viewpoint Viz. the relative importance of the state, society and the individual.

3) We regard the concept of ‘rights’, which this Act seeks to impose as an improper application of state power.

4) It seeks to impose a social construct through legal means.

Sir,

Bob Smith, Representative of the Dictatorship of Iron Jack Boots

Omigodtheykilledkenny

02-09-2008, 17:08

But until such a broader resolution is passed, the efficacy of this proposal is at least questionable. It probably would have been more appropriate to pass a sexual privacy resolution first.Agreed.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 17:21

Why is this an argument against voting for this resolution?

yours e.t.c. ,

The Altan Steppes

02-09-2008, 17:24

TFAS Ambassador Jaris Krytellin stands up to speak.

The Trilateral Federation is in favor of this resolution, and is waiting for our regional vote to see if we can vote for it. We strongly hope that we are able to.

I wish to convey a brief message from our President, Alana Kasimira.

Krytellin calmly unfolds a piece of paper and begins to read from it.

"As a transgendered female, I have seen firsthand what discrimination means - not from my own people, thankfully, but from others. While the Federation and its peoples respect the beliefs, values and cultures of others, we also recognize that there are some fundamental truths which transcend such things. The right of all peoples to be protected and to have their rights as committed partners guaranteed under law - regardless of their gender or sexual orientation - is one that resides at the very core of what makes us living beings. When a state seeks to diminish the rights and protections of some of its citizens based on their gender or their sexual orientation, and not diminish the rights of other citizens, it is inherently unjust - and unjustifiable. We feel that this is an issue that transcends concerns of culture, religion or even of national boundaries, as some have suggested here. The idea that someone such as myself could find themselves treated unfairly - or worse - simply because of who they are is simply unacceptable in this day and age. If the WA decides to stand for something, ever, this is a worthy thing to stand for. On behalf of my government, and my nation, I urge the esteemed representatives of the WA to approve this resolution."

Krytellin folds up the paper and puts it in his pocket.

I do believe that sums up my government's stance on this resolution quite well, but I'm sure I'll have to defend it at some point.

Krytellin sits back down.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

02-09-2008, 17:45

Honoured Ambassador you and all the other worthy Ambassadors to this organisation are the " checks and balances " which maintain member nation's control over this organisation.No, checks and balances are the devices utilized in a separation of powers in order to keep each branch form overstepping it’s bounds. At best my nation is a member of one branch of the WA government (we could argue that the Executive Branch were the Compliance Ministry and the Judicial Branch the Moderators). I have no ability to check or balance the Compliance Ministry--though there is a moderately transparent system to challenge rulings by moderators in the Moderation forum, through Getting Help page, etc.

Really, I was mistaken to bring up checks and balances, because it's a different issue. I mentioned it only because it's a somewhat related (if we're talking about how the WA operates as a government), but the real concern that impedes Powerhungry Chipkmunks is the legislation on domestic matters without representation of those that bear domestic rights of power, PC citizens, not PC’s (or any nation’s) ability to keep the Compliance Ministry or the Mods in balance.
In many cases, though not all of course, Ambassadors are sent here by democratically elected governments empowered by their people to do so.Yes, but does the election of a national government by a people give that government carte blanche to do whatever it wants (which is exactly what is done in the WA: whatever the various delegates agree to do)? My citizens elected the government of PC who in turn appointed a delegation with no understanding that they would sell away the freedom of PC's people to decide domestic matters such as marriage rights. It was not an explicit part of the contract.

That's the thing. In government by the people, the powers the people have is infinite and undefined. Powers of government are few, finite and agreed upon. Any power not expressly ceded by the people's consent to a governing power is a power maintained by the people. My people never voted the national government the power to give PC's domestic decision-making away to an international body. Realistically, it's doubtful any people would consent to that. It's hard enough to trust known entities to govern you, how would you entrust government over yourself and your people to complete strangers on the international stage? Even to those who've never even heard the name of your nation, much less taken into consideration the peoples inhabiting your nation?

The WA can’t get around the fact that an average citizen from PC has no realistic opportunity to voice his concerns over WA legislation. He might voice it among his neighbors, his local government--but there is such a distant, flimsy chance that he is practically represented in the WA. He would have to be of such stature to get close to the national government and PC's WA delegation, and then would have to have enough international clout to convince many other delegations…etc. Representation in the WA is greatly seperated away from the average citizen and is available only to the elite. This makes the WA, in practicality, greatly distanced from the right to legislate on the domestic matters of the average citizen.

If it is somehow objectionable to the citizens of your region that this organisation has a competence in the field of Human Rights, which is after all a universal and manifestly Transnational area of legislation, then, honoured Ambassador, there is a simple remedy.
My citizens have no problem with the WA's position on human rights in this case. they have a problem with an international body nosing around in domestic concerns that my citizens have right to determine for themselves or which right they can give away to their governors to decide for them--again, by their consent, under full representation. The WA claims no such representation among them.

The concept of allowing discrimination in other nations simply for the fact that it is a part of their culture, or society, or religion, is inane. There comes a time when polite open-mindedness stops and people recognize when a society is morally wrong. In this case, outlawing same-sex marriage is a moral wrong. The WA is an instrument through which to rectify those wrongs. In the not-so-eloquent words of our prime minister, "your culture sucks, so we're changin' it."
So it's an intellectual tyranny? The WA is an instrument for one group to stop the practices of another simply because the first believes the second to be wrong? Is that not discrimination, too?

If the WA government can say "you're culture sucks, so we're changin' it", why is it so morally unacceptable to you that PC government would theoretically say "you're sexual preference sucks, so we're changin' it"? You really can't have it both ways. If the WA is going to make decisions for national governments on independent domestic matters on the justification that "the WA knows best", then you are giving implicit approval to national governments to do the same on a smaller scale. Why is "WA knows best" acceptable and "PC knows best" bigoted? Perhaps it's because no one likes dictatorship unless it's a dictatorship in his favor.

The argument boils down to the WA supporters of this legislation saying in effect "I'm smarter (more cultured/more tolerant/etc.) than you, because I learned in university the importance of granting marriage privileges to everyone. I'm going to impose my viewpoint upon you, because you, as one less intelligent than myself, have given up the right not to be governed by me by being of a differing opinion."

This argument is kind of bad. I mean, it strongly supports world policing. It would support PC if we underwent an aggressive military campaign to replace the neighboring nations' governments because their "less effective than PC's government" And it'd be wrong to support such an action. In reality, it's fine that other governments are less-effective. It's not PC's inherent calling to enforce a superior system upon its neighbors who consent to inferior systems of government. We can communicate correct principles we've learned, but it's others' right to determine whether or not to practice them.

PC is fine with the right that's protected with this legislation (the right to marry whom you want), and feels that it is a right needing to be guaranteed for the people. But the WA is not the correct vehicle for guaranteeing this right. If the WA determines this, which is a legitimate universal human right, without the representation of the average citizens of PC, what's to stop the WA from determining other things that aren't legitimate universal human rights for the same under-represented PC citizens? PC's citizens objects to the precedent that this proposal presents.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

02-09-2008, 18:01

OOC: I find it hilarious that the ads shown when I post here are 100% "meet gay singles in your area"...

:eek: OMG, the computer knows what we're talking about!

HAL Open the doors, please! Just open the doors, HAL! Ahh!

*shoots computer and undergoes strange montage sequence including pictures of a fetus and a gang of primates throwing a bone in the air...

Urgench

02-09-2008, 18:04

New Sequoyah

02-09-2008, 18:36

In the same breath the Ambassadors desperate bigotry drives them to suggest that this resolution bans polygamy, How? where does it say this? Nowhere is the answer and the Ambassador knows that very well.

The Ambassador has run out of defences for their indefensable homophobia and is now stooping to catch at any filth they can throw to see if they can make it stick.

The delegate from New Sequoyah rises once again to answer the same tired rhetoric from the delegate of Urgench.

Did I say this resolution banned polygamy? Search the records; I said no such thing. Another shameful instance of the honorable delegate from Urgench placing words in the mouths of those he disagrees with.

Homophobia? Break down that word by the Greek roots, mi amigo. Phobia means fear, and Homo refers to man, thus Homo-phobia means "Fear of Man". Let me assure you, I fear no man. For that matter, I fear no woman, either.

When the honorable delegate from Urgench is in disagreement with another delegate, he stoops to calling them "bigoted" and any number of other names, rather than by civilized debate.

You are, I'll admit though, superior to your regionmate, who is now equating homosexuality with paedophilia:

*sigh*

You miss my point, although I appreciate the fact that you have not stooped to name-calling, as have some in this body have. Many of the pro-arguments have been along the lines of "we're dis-enfranchising gays", or "we're discriminating against homosexuals". I was merely pointing out that if we are to be fully "equal" and "free", then why do we not legalize any and all types of marriage?

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Bears Armed

02-09-2008, 18:36

Oh and as far as we are concerned, if the bears of your nation cannot see their way to extending rights to citizens of other nations then we will be taking it under advisement as to whether to lend our support if in future another sapient/sentient rights statute arises.

yours e.t.c ,

Do you honestly regard pushing these rights for a specific minority into the law-codes of every WA member nation, regardless of the idea’s controversial nature and the ideologies according to which some of those nations are run, as a more “fundamental” matter of rights and less of an intrusion on those nations’ sovereignty than simply requiring those nations to apply whatever laws the WA might pass without unfair discrimination on the basis of species?!?
H’rrm, just when I think that I’m starting to understand humans something like this crops up…

Anyway, having had my staff do some further research following the previous couple of days’ discussions, I now hold that this proposal should never have been allowed to reach quorum in the first place as it is actually ILLEGAL.
Requiring all member nations whose religious laws do not allow the type of marriage concerned to introduce ‘civil’ laws covering the matter would — as the Nuncio of The Eternal Kawaii has already pointed out here — obviously make it impossible for them to continue running purely on religious law, even if their religion’s doctrine itself requires them to do so, and thus would force them to choose between upholding their faith and continued membership of this organisation… which clearly falls foul of the rule against proposals introducing “ideological bans”.
If you want examples of nations other than just The Eternal Kawaii that would be affected thus, consider the fact that fundamentalist Islamic nations are supposed to be run purely according to the theocratic ‘Sharia’ law-code and, whatever you or I might happen think about Fundamentalist Islam, they have a recognisable ideology which this organisation’s rules say should NOT be made incompatible with WA membership by WA legislation.

if a member nation accepts membership of this organisation they must accept that they are no longer entirely the arbiters of their own destiny any more. Having lost this power they are empowered with a new responsibility, that of shaping a wider and more universal destiny which encompasses a multitude of other nations with enumerable different varieties of social, political, and cultural characteristics. The job of the membership of this organisation is to decide what policies, or notions are universal and should be applied to it.And, as you are still persistently failing to recognise, MANY of this organisation's members have decided that this proposal is NOT "universal" enough to be a fitting subject for WA legislation.

Equality before the law is a universal concept, one enshrined in this resolution, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable for the w.a. to apply it in this case.
If that concept were truly "universal" then all nations would practice it already, and this proposal would therefore be pointless: As some nations do not apply that principle it clearly is not truly "universal", and thus this argument of yours fails...

Borrin o Redwood
Regional Delegate to the World Assembly,
International Democratic Union
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 18:50

But until such a broader resolution is passed, the efficacy of this proposal is at least questionable. It probably would have been more appropriate to pass a sexual privacy resolution first.

Ambassador, the efficacy of the resolution is only harmed if Nations criminalize homosexual acts as way to limit the liberties and freedoms granted by our initiative.

To prevent this we are submitting a proposal for a 'Sexual Privacy Act'.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 18:58

The delegate from New Sequoyah rises once again to answer the same tired rhetoric from the delegate of Urgench.

Did I say this resolution banned polygamy? Search the records; I said no such thing. Another shameful instance of the honorable delegate from Urgench placing words in the mouths of those he disagrees with.

Homophobia? Break down that word by the Greek roots, mi amigo. Phobia means fear, and Homo refers to man, thus Homo-phobia means "Fear of Man". Let me assure you, I fear no man. For that matter, I fear no woman, either.

When the honorable delegate from Urgench is in disagreement with another delegate, he stoops to calling them "bigoted" and any number of other names, rather than by civilized debate.

*sigh*

You miss my point, although I appreciate the fact that you have not stooped to name-calling, as have some in this body have. Many of the pro-arguments have been along the lines of "we're dis-enfranchising gays", or "we're discriminating against homosexuals". I was merely pointing out that if we are to be fully "equal" and "free", then why do we not legalize any and all types of marriage?

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote AGAINST this resolution.

The dictionary definition of "Homophobia" is " a hatred or fear of Homosexuals." If the Ambassador wishes to break down words in to their component parts to suggest that we have said things we have not then this will become a very tiresome debate indeed.

To call someone bigotted or accuse them of bigotry, ambassador is not name calling. It is merely describing the nature of certain nation's positions on this matter.

If we had called anyone " lousy swine " or " imbeciles" or things of this sort perhaps we would take this accusation of name calling seriously.

If the Ambassador for NewSequoyah does not like being described as a bigot then perhaps they should divest themselves of the cruel and unfair prejudices which make them one.

Your region has supplied this debate with nations who are happy to describe vulnerable minorities as deseased, immoral, promiscuous e.t.c. if we are to decide who has behaved more offensively who would really earn the approbrium of this organisation?

Indeed the quality of the interventions made by the Ambassador, who compares homosexuals to child molesters, and his regional colleagues suggest they know nothing of "civilised debate" and are accustomed only to a vicious and polluted form of propagandising.

We need take no lessons in civility from those who persecute and despise those they do not understand.

Ambassador look to your own house, put it in order, civilise its customs and then lecture us if you must.

yours e.t.c.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

02-09-2008, 19:00

Homophobia? Break down that word by the Greek roots, mi amigo. Phobia means fear, and Homo refers to man, thus Homo-phobia means "Fear of Man". Let me assure you, I fear no man. For that matter, I fear no woman, either.
Er, if I remember correctly, "homo" means "same" or "similar".

As in homogeneous mixture ("the same kind" or "from the same origin"), which is a mixture with the same consistency or distribution throughout (like Koolaid ;)). It's opposed to a heterogeneous mixture which is not consistent (like an over easy egg--part yolk, part egg white, not mixed together).

"Homophobia" is technically "the fear of the same", meaning implicitly "fear of homosexuality" or "fear of attraction to the same sex".

Which would actually mean that you don't fear any man, but you fear attraction to the same sex. Homophobia typically comes from an oppressive sexual upbringing, in which the slightest, even most harmless tendency towards same sex attraction is repressed aggressively. Because of this overreaction, the guy (usually it's a guy that's homophobic) punishes himself psychologically for anything even remotely resembling gay attraction.

To defuse this argument before it comes up, these people are almost always not closet gays: repressing strong gay attraction. On the contrary they are usually people with normal or low levels of attraction to other men, who've never learned to react to even these completely manageable levels of gay attraction positively. They misinterpret innocent things as "too gay", so they punish themselves for things that are natural and normal. This self-hate and punishment is then transferred to gays the homophobe meets along the road. "Hey, I hate myself for these feelings, so I'm going to hate him, too, as he represents these feelings and the pain I feel from the punishment I give myself" the subconscious says. This hate exhibits itself as fear, avoidance, or even violence.

Sorry. I'm done...But, yeah, I'm pretty sure it's means "the same"...it's an innocent and easy mistake. Don't sweat it.

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 19:06

Homophobia? Break down that word by the Greek roots, mi amigo. Phobia means fear, and Homo refers to man, thus Homo-phobia means "Fear of Man"..

Learned Ambassador, with all due respect, your etymology is quite wrong actually. I refer your excellency to any good dictionary.

However, etymology is beyond the point, it is as silly to deflect an accusation of homophobia by tracing back the Greek origin of the affixes of the word as it would be to accuse someone of insincerity for being covered in wax*.

{*Relying on the popular but probably mistaken etymology of 'sincere' from sine cera}

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 19:11

ou miss my point, although I appreciate the fact that you have not stooped to name-calling, as have some in this body have. Many of the pro-arguments have been along the lines of "we're dis-enfranchising gays", or "we're discriminating against homosexuals". I was merely pointing out that if we are to be fully "equal" and "free", then why do we not legalize any and all types of marriage?

Dear Ambassador, the explanation is simple. Unlike the case with two adults, there is a legitimate interest in limiting or rather prohibiting adults from marrying babies as you suggested. We need not go beyond the observation that babies lack the ability to consent to any form of contract let alone marriage.

The situations are not comparable and if your excellency took a minute worth of your time to think about it you would have reached the same conclusion.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 19:12

Do you honestly regard pushing these rights for a specific minority into the law-codes of every WA member nation, regardless of the idea’s controversial nature and the ideologies according to which some of those nations are run, as a more “fundamental” matter of rights and less of an intrusion on those nations’ sovereignty than simply requiring those nations to apply whatever laws the WA might pass without unfair discrimination on the basis of species?!?
H’rrm, just when I think that I’m starting to understand humans something like this crops up…

Anyway, having had my staff do some further research following the previous couple of days’ discussions, I now hold that this proposal should never have been allowed to reach quorum in the first place as it is actually ILLEGAL.
Requiring all member nations whose religious laws do not allow the type of marriage concerned to introduce ‘civil’ laws covering the matter would — as the Nuncio of The Eternal Kawaii has already pointed out here — obviously make it impossible for them to continue running purely on religious law, even if their religion’s doctrine itself requires them to do so, and thus would force them to choose between upholding their faith and continued membership of this organisation… which clearly falls foul of the rule against proposals introducing “ideological bans”.
If you want examples of nations other than just The Eternal Kawaii that would be affected thus, consider the fact that fundamentalist Islamic nations are supposed to be run purely according to the theocratic ‘Sharia’ law-code and, whatever you or I might happen think about Fundamentalist Islam, they have a recognisable ideology which this organisation’s rules say should NOT be made incompatible with WA membership by WA legislation.

And, as you are still persistently failing to recognise, MANY of this organisation's members have decided that this proposal is NOT "universal" enough to be a fitting subject for WA legislation.

If that concept were truly "universal" then all nations would practice it already, and this proposal would therefore be pointless: As some nations do not apply that principle it clearly is not truly "universal", and thus this argument of yours fails...

Universality is not hostage to the whim and favour of self interest and individual disposition.

Violence has been common to humanity since its birth, indeed it is so in all nature, should we not have laws which forbid violence because it is common practice? No of course not. This is because a universal concept which defines violence as socialy undesirable has evolved inspite of peoples propensity to commit it.

Universal concepts may not always be universally applied or universally popular but this does not negate their imperative nature.

As for the plight of non-human sapients we feel that if your nation cannot see that rights should be applied by this organisation to all the citizens of it's members then why should they be applied to talking foxes or armed bears?

yours e.t.c. ,

Mendosia

02-09-2008, 19:16

If that concept were truly "universal" then all nations would practice it already, and this proposal would therefore be pointless: As some nations do not apply that principle it clearly is not truly "universal", and thus this argument of yours fails...

Is your excellency suggesting that all resolutions of this Assembly ought to be approved by unanimity?

Your excellency's logic seems to suggest that no resolution on human rights can be passed in this Assembly that would affect the legal order of any of the member states, or that resolutions should only re-state what was already on the legal books of all the nations.

I'm afraid, your excellency, that your thesis reduces this organization to a completely useless body.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 19:21

Er, if I remember correctly, "homo" is latin for "same" or "similar".

As in homogeneous mixture ("the same kind" or "from the same origin"), which is a mixture with the same consistency or distribution throughout (like Koolaid ;)). It's opposed to a heterogeneous mixture which is not consistent (like an over easy egg--part yolk, part egg white, not mixed together).

"Homophobia" is technically "the fear of the same", meaning implicitly "fear of homosexuality" or "fear of attraction to the same sex".

Which would actually mean that you don't fear any man, but you fear attraction to the same sex. Homophobia typically comes from an oppressive sexual upbringing, in which the slightest, even most harmless tendency towards same sex attraction is repressed aggressively. Because of this overreaction, the guy (usually it's a guy that's homophobic) punishes himself psychologically for anything even remotely resembling gay attraction.

To defuse this argument before it comes up, these people are almost always not closet gays: repressing strong gay attraction. On the contrary they are usually people with normal or low levels of attraction to other men, who've never learned to react to even these completely manageable levels of gay attraction positively. They misinterpret innocent things as "too gay", so they punish themselves for things that are natural and normal. This self-hate and punishment is then transferred to gays the homophobe meets along the road. "Hey, I hate myself for these feelings, so I'm going to hate him, too, as he represents these feelings and the pain I feel from the punishment I give myself" the subconscious says. This hate exhibits itself as fear, avoidance, or even violence.

Sorry. I'm done...But, yeah, I'm pretty sure it's latin...it's an innocent and easy mistake. Don't sweat it.

The respected Ambasador is correct in their translation of the prefix "Homo" but it's provenance is not latin, the word "Homophobia" is a modern compound of greek words. The latin word "homo" does indeed mean "man" and as you rightly said respected Ambassador "Homo", in greek, means "alike" or "the same". We hope this clarifies the matter.

yours e.t.c ,

Powerhungry Chipmunks

02-09-2008, 19:28

Respected Ambassador for PowerhungryChipmunks your nation's people expressly did vote to allow their national laws to be modified by another entity when they voted for a government which supported accession to and continued membership of the World Assembly. To be a member of this organisation is an a priori acceptance of derrogation of some national control over legislation.
There is no Executive branch of governance in the w.a., it's statutes are generated by it's members not some ruling council or cabinet, these statutes are voted on by the entire membership ( should they wish to do so ) and are sometimes repealed as well by them.

How is this a world government? At one moment you seem to suggest that the WA is not a “world government”, and now you are telling our nation that it has the WA has derrogated control over my nation. In other words, you suggest that it’s not a “world government”, but that it can effect authority over my nation in a way exactly as a “world government” would have the power to do…I don’t see how these two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.

PC’s citizens are not interested in having domestic politics governed by a distant body, ignorant of PC’s domestic affairs. It’s just bad government, impractical and unjust of a body like the WA (which, yes, I would describe as a “world government”).

The arguments of the respected Hotrodian delegacy aside, if a member nation accepts membership of this organisation they must accept that they are no longer entirely the arbiters of their own destiny any more.That’s one thing, to share arbitership over destiny. A "sharing" implies a partnership. A partnership such as this would need to treat issues that are pertinent to both parties, and both parties would maintain control over things not pertinent to the other. But the WA interfering in domestic matters this way is to surrender national rights to let the WA be the arbiter of a nation's domestic destiny.

It’s funny, but I think the way PC sees all this is a little different. The description of WA powers do not explicitly say “the WA will legislate on domestic matters” nor that “the WA will determine who can marry in your country”.

Rather it says something to the effect of “the WA has the right to legislate upon whatever the heck it legislates upon”. This may include domestic matters, it may not. It depends on what the WA body passes as legislation. The span of the WA power is synonymous to the span of passed legislation.

This means that until a piece of legislation becomes explicitly expressed as a proposal giving the WA power over a matter of government, it is not a power held by the WA. In this example, domestic matters such as marriage legislation was not, until this proposal, a matter the WA governed. Before now it was not within the WA's powers. But upon the proposed passage of this into resolution, it becomes a part of WA government. This proposal adds it (which is perfectly legal according to the game rules) to the WA's powers.

As PC citizens and government sees it, this is a part of power over the people that should not be added to the WA’s powers. Thus, it is not a resolution that should be passed. That’s the way PC can keep the WA from governing a domestic issue such as this. Again, if the resolution is voted down, this domestic issue is not added to the WA' powers. Hence, PC is voting AGAINST.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

02-09-2008, 19:32

The respected Ambasador is correct in their translation of the prefix "Homo" but it's provenance is not latin, the word "Homophobia" is a modern compound of greek words. The latin word "homo" does indeed mean "man" and as you rightly said respected Ambassador "Homo", in greek, means "alike" or "the same". We hope this clarifies the matter.
We were under that impression (that is was a greek prefix). But then we looked up this site (to verify that the wordage used to describe "homogeneous" and "heterogeneous" was correct) (http://www.chemicool.com/definition/homogeneous.html), which says it's latin. I believe you, that it is greek--I posted that it was latin trusting the site and thinking that I must've been wrong about it being greek my whole life...

So I guess the moral of the story is to trust your instincts.

New Sequoyah

02-09-2008, 21:14

If the Ambassador for NewSequoyah does not like being described as a bigot then perhaps they should divest themselves of the cruel and unfair prejudices which make them one.

Indeed the quality of the interventions made by the Ambassador, who compares homosexuals to child molesters, and his regional colleagues suggest they know nothing of "civilised debate" and are accustomed only to a vicious and polluted form of propagandising.

The term 'bigot' flies far too easily from your mouth, sir delegate; I would take care, if I were you, in using it. The term could be turned to you, if one were to use your logic.

As I have said several times (perhaps the delegate did not hear), I never compared homosexuals to pedophiles, yet you continue to say that I did.

I acquiesce, I got my terms mixed up. Nevertheless, I am determined: I do not fear homosexuals, nor homosexuality. I disagree with it, strongly, but I do not fear it. After all, what do I have to fear from it? I can see accusing me of arachnophobia, but "fear of homosexuals/homosexuality" is grossly mistaken.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 21:23

The term 'bigot' flies far too easily from your mouth, sir delegate; I would take care, if I were you, in using it. The term could be turned to you, if one were to use your logic.

As I have said several times (perhaps the delegate did not hear), I never compared homosexuals to pedophiles, yet you continue to say that I did.

I acquiesce, I got my terms mixed up. Nevertheless, I am determined: I do not fear homosexuals, nor homosexuality. I disagree with it, strongly, but I do not fear it. After all, what do I have to fear from it? I can see accusing me of arachnophobia, but "fear of homosexuals/homosexuality" is grossly mistaken.

It is a pity that our people cannot engage in the barbaric practice of shouting, since it is our custom to never speak above a whisper because if we could we would shout as loudly and clearly as possible that ;It is your words and the words of your regional colleagues which condemn you as bigots not our words.

Homophobia is not exclusively a "fear" of homosexuals it is more substantially a hatred of them. Your "strong disagreement" with homosexuals is merely your hatred of homosexuals. After all what is there to disagree with? It is not an ideology or a philosophy, homosexuality is a fact of life. In fact your position is that gay people should be second class citizens in their own nations. They should be ignored and marginalised, denied the public respect which is their right and despised for being who they are.
If this is not hatred then we cannot imagine how you define it and what terrifying things this word must mean to you.

yours e.t.c.

New Sequoyah

02-09-2008, 21:38

It is your words and the words of your regional colleagues which condemn you as bigots not our words.

I see you paint with a broad brush. In New Sequoyah, we judge individually, not by groups. I see you do not.

Hatred? When have I ever said I hated homosexuals? Again, never. Let me be clear; I neither fear nor hate homosexuals. As has been mentioned previously by other delegates, "love the sinner, hate the sin". And just so you know, I'm a sinner as well.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 21:48

I see you paint with a broad brush. In New Sequoyah, we judge individually, not by groups. I see you do not.

Hatred? When have I ever said I hated homosexuals? Again, never. Let me be clear; I neither fear nor hate homosexuals. As has been mentioned previously by other delegates, "love the sinner, hate the sin". And just so you know, I'm a sinner as well.

We have explained to the Ambassador for New Sequoyah how their position substantively constitutes a form of hatred, we tire of doing so again.

The dark night of the soul of the Ambassador is immaterial, the effect of their political ideas is what counts.

If they are influenced by the oxymoronic notion of "love the sinner hate the sin" then these ideas are bogus and prejudiced ( we also tire of having to use this word again but it is all that will suffice to acurately describe such notions ) and tend toward unfair discrimination which cannot be suffered to exist in a compassionate world.

yours e.t.c.,

Jaynova

02-09-2008, 22:02

After careful consideration, The United Socialist States of Jaynova must say "Nay." We agree with this law in spirit, and wish that every state would adopt these policies on the national level, but we still feel that this is a civil rights issue to be decided nationally.

We would also like to add that when the vote comes in our congress to allow gay marriage, we shall be voting "Yay." Those who feel oppressed by the policies of their own country concerning marriage will be welcome in the USSJ.

The Narnian Council

02-09-2008, 22:23

Dear sirs of the Urgench delegacy...you simply can't help yourself, can you? All packed into your last post:

It is charming that the Council of Narnia imagines that we should pander to their bigotry and should politely ignore their hypocracy.

It is equally quaint that they should suggest persecution and bias when they are steeped in hate and prejudice.

for saying that Homosexuals are disease ridden, disgustingly promiscuous, untermensch who do not deserve basic human
rights

made similar untrue and hatefull comments about jews or black people they would probably be receiving telegramed hate messages from across the world.

It is a mark of how persecution of homosexuals is tolerated by society at large that the Council of Narnia is even allowed to spew

cause extreme offence with their hate propaganda

express purpose of cloaking their viceral hatred of homosexuals

realised that this canard had been unmasked they resorted to scurrilous smears about disease, promiscuity, and peadophilia!

Is this how you speak to those who disagree with you upon a matter? I'm beginning to be of the mind that your nation feels quite a strong sense of morality on this issue...what else but that (or perhaps a lack of proper anger management) - warrants such words blown entirely out of proportion?

You have proven to the body, Urgench, that it is indeed your kind that will happily impose their liberally extreme beliefs upon every nation whatsoever (after having rather hypocritically appeared to champion NatSov when Fair Trial was in process...lets not forget that either). You seem to have absolutely no regard for those who differ in opinion to who, who you label as "bigots, militant hate propogandists, and self-deluded persecutors".

You have indeed proven to me that you are in fact entirely incapable of properly conducting a debate (I very much would have liked converse in a more reasonable manner) - and as such, your slander and mostly hateful arguments (which you seem to "despise" yourself) will be largely ignored by myself, as I have no wish to interact in such a way any longer.

In closing, this is what a delegate of another very prominent region (completely unaffiliated with CoN) TGed me about recently:

I was very pleased to see the way you responded to Urgench in the WA forums. You basically summed up the way I and probably many others feel after being bantered by the delegate for voicing a contradictory opinion. I commend you! Keep up the great work!

Quod, forgive me if I didn't refer back to your last post on the issue - I was entirely absent yesterday, and I haven't time to address most issues right now - but I will say for now...

Our delegation will remain of the opinion that the WA should not have the right to override the religious beliefs and moralities of varying WA members in any way whatsoever. It does, and should indeed, reserve the right lay down regulations for the furtherment of law and order, trade, industry, pollution etc. By the same token, I do not believe it appropriate for the WA to even consider "solving" the particularly controversial issues of our time - which includes euthanasia, abortion, and homosexuality.

This is why I will support a proposal laying down the law of justice, for example - whereas I will remain in strong opposition to this proposal, or any other like it, that may force their especially controversial ideaology (that has the high potential to conflict with religion/morality) upon WA nations. As so many here in this discussion have attempted to state, this particular issue is best left at the national level.

______________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council Narnia

Travda

02-09-2008, 22:53

Oh, really (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4)?
Well, if you want to be anal about it: you have national sovereignty in all matters that aren't already covered by the WA's resolutions. Huzzah for everything the WA hasn't gotten to. Yet. :p

Not even the fact that this resolution legalizes marriage, but still allows governments to lock gay couples up for having sex?
I see nothing preventing a "Right to Have Sex With The Same Sex" or a (hopefully) better-titled resolution with the same effect from being passed. Could this current one be shot down and a better piece written, one that combines both the right to marriage and the right to homosexual acts? Certainly, but it might be defeated. This one, at present, isn't. If this one passes, we can construct a proverbial Part Two, and if it fails, we can combine both concepts under one resolution.

Is such rhetoric really very helpful?
No, but who said I was trying to be helpful?

So it's an intellectual tyranny? The WA is an instrument for one group to stop the practices of another simply because the first believes the second to be wrong? Is that not discrimination, too?

If the WA government can say "you're culture sucks, so we're changin' it", why is it so morally unacceptable to you that PC government would theoretically say "you're sexual preference sucks, so we're changin' it"? You really can't have it both ways. If the WA is going to make decisions for national governments on independent domestic matters on the justification that "the WA knows best", then you are giving implicit approval to national governments to do the same on a smaller scale. Why is "WA knows best" acceptable and "PC knows best" bigoted? Perhaps it's because no one likes dictatorship unless it's a dictatorship in his favor.

The argument boils down to the WA supporters of this legislation saying in effect "I'm smarter (more cultured/more tolerant/etc.) than you, because I learned in university the importance of granting marriage privileges to everyone. I'm going to impose my viewpoint upon you, because you, as one less intelligent than myself, have given up the right not to be governed by me by being of a differing opinion."

This argument is kind of bad. I mean, it strongly supports world policing. It would support PC if we underwent an aggressive military campaign to replace the neighboring nations' governments because their "less effective than PC's government" And it'd be wrong to support such an action. In reality, it's fine that other governments are less-effective. It's not PC's inherent calling to enforce a superior system upon its neighbors who consent to inferior systems of government. We can communicate correct principles we've learned, but it's others' right to determine whether or not to practice them.

PC is fine with the right that's protected with this legislation (the right to marry whom you want), and feels that it is a right needing to be guaranteed for the people. But the WA is not the correct vehicle for guaranteeing this right. If the WA determines this, which is a legitimate universal human right, without the representation of the average citizens of PC, what's to stop the WA from determining other things that aren't legitimate universal human rights for the same under-represented PC citizens? PC's citizens objects to the precedent that this proposal presents.
To be blunt, yes, it is a tyranny. Though it's not very tyrannical when nations consent to join the organization, with the full knowledge that their government is fully subservient to WA legislation. That's why it's perfectly acceptable for the WA to dictate morals on its own members. As for non-members? Theoretically it is still right to impose morality on them, but one runs into the problem of consent. You have to decide for yourself, on a case by case basis, if the moral good that is being imposed is equal to the moral wrong of actually having to impose it.

On a sidenote, the issue you seem to be touching on throughout your comments is that of moral absolutes. Such things do exist, thankfully.

...without the representation of the average citizens of PC, what's to stop the WA from determining other things that aren't legitimate universal human rights for the same under-represented PC citizens
Voting. That, or repeals.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

02-09-2008, 22:55

We have explained to the Ambassador for New Sequoyah how their position substantively constitutes a form of hatred, we tire of doing so again.Ambassador, the condescending tone is winning you no allies...

I mean, we were going to send a basket full of delectable Roasted Chipmunks, as an end-of-debate diplomatic gesture.

But now I think you're delegation will have to settle for a few family size bags of Chipmunk Chips...not nearly as yummy, and a little chewy.

The Altan Steppes

02-09-2008, 23:04

Our delegation will remain of the opinion that the WA should not have the right to override the religious beliefs and moralities of varying WA members in any way whatsoever. It does, and should indeed, reserve the right lay down regulations for the furtherment of law and order, trade, industry, pollution etc. By the same token, I do not believe it appropriate for the WA to even consider "solving" the particularly controversial issues of our time - which includes euthanasia, abortion, and homosexuality.

I'm going to ask a question here, and I'm not trying to be argumentative or rude by doing so. Can you explain to me why you feel that it is somehow appropriate to confine our activities as a body to "mundane" issues like trade, pollution and the like, while ignoring issues such as this that directly affect the ability of citizens of WA member states to live their very lives without being mistreated? The Altan Steppes tries to be NatSov friendly. We really, really do. But some issues (such as this), in our estimation, practically beg for the international community to take a stand for what is right - and far more so than whether or not X country can ship Y number of widgets to country Z, for example.

We don't want the WA to micromanage its member states. We don't want the WA to be a world ubergovernment. But just once, we'd like it to take a meaningful stand on a social issue that would be worthy of respect. And frankly, we don't buy the whole "slippery slope" argument that this would open the door to the WA interfering in every social issue. The difficulty of reconciling our positions in this very debate, not to mention the relative closeness of the vote so far, makes us believe that every single attempt by the WA to legislate on a social issue would be fiercely resisted. Rather than a slippery slope, the path to a "universal" implementation of civil rights would be a rocky road, apparently.

This is why I will support a proposal laying down the law of justice, for example - whereas I will remain in strong opposition to this proposal, or any other like it, that may force their especially controversial ideaology (that has the high potential to conflict with religion/morality) upon WA nations. As so many here in this discussion have attempted to state, this particular issue is best left at the national level.

So, it's right to impose a WA-sanctioned idea of "justice" upon all WA members, even if they don't agree with that idea for religious, moral or whatever reasons. But it's wrong to impose a WA-sanctioned idea of civil rights upon that same member body? We frankly see a major contradiction there.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Urgench

02-09-2008, 23:10

Dear sirs of the Urgench delegacy...you simply can't help yourself, can you? All packed into your last post:

Is this how you speak to those who disagree with you upon a matter? I'm beginning to be of the mind that your nation feels quite a strong sense of morality on this issue...what else but that (or perhaps a lack of proper anger management) - warrants such words blown entirely out of proportion?

You have proven to the body, Urgench, that it is indeed your kind that will happily impose their liberally extreme beliefs upon every nation whatsoever (after having rather hypocritically appeared to champion NatSov when Fair Trial was in process...lets not forget that either). You seem to have absolutely no regard for those who differ in opinion to who, who you label as "bigots, militant hate propogandists, and self-deluded persecutors".

You have indeed proven to me that you are in fact entirely incapable of properly conducting a debate (I very much would have liked converse in a more reasonable manner) - and as such, your slander and mostly hateful arguments (which you seem to "despise" yourself) will be largely ignored by myself, as I have no wish to interact in such a way any longer.

In closing, this is what a delegate of another very prominent region (completely unaffiliated with CoN) TGed me about recently:

Quod, forgive me if I didn't refer back to your last post on the issue - I was entirely absent yesterday, and I haven't time to address most issues right now - but I will say for now...

Our delegation will remain of the opinion that the WA should not have the right to override the religious beliefs and moralities of varying WA members in any way whatsoever. It does, and should indeed, reserve the right lay down regulations for the furtherment of law and order, trade, industry, pollution etc. By the same token, I do not believe it appropriate for the WA to even consider "solving" the particularly controversial issues of our time - which includes euthanasia, abortion, and homosexuality.

This is why I will support a proposal laying down the law of justice, for example - whereas I will remain in strong opposition to this proposal, or any other like it, that may force their especially controversial ideaology (that has the high potential to conflict with religion/morality) upon WA nations. As so many here in this discussion have attempted to state, this particular issue is best left at the national level.

______________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council Narnia

The Ambassador means to say that persecution and prejudice should be ignored by the World Assembly and governments should be free to discriminate against their citizens in anyway they wish.

We must repeat what we have said elsewhere, it is not our words which have condemned you, it is your own.

Must we point out to you again that it was your ambassador who initiated the round of hostile debate by accusing innocent persons of every depravity they could imagine? It is your Ambassador, unworthy of the name, who cannot be civilised, who must resort to insults and lies to prove their point.

We will never take lessons in decency from a nation which is proud to flaunt is dreadfull dellusions and cruel ideology. The Council of Narnia is a state in which gay people can expect to be accused of spreading fatal deseases, of being promiscuous and depraved. They may expect to be treated as second class citizens and to be held in contempt. And they expect us to take lessons in decency from them!?

If we have been angry it is because they have outraged common decency with their propaganda. If we have disregarded their opinion it is because we will never pander to hate and discrimination.

We have no interest in imposing any kind of philosophy on any one, this resolutin simply disallows members from forcing their wicked prejudices on their citizens. The difference is profound.

Quoting our words as evidence of anything other than our genuine distress at the appalling things the Ambassador for the Council of Narnia has said here is futile. Quoting the supposed words of a delegate of another influential region as you describe them is bogus without naming them. If they dissagree with me then they should do so here, we suspect they are either conforming to their habit of deceit in doing this or are afraid to reveal this delegate in case in naming them they further damn their baseless attack on us.

The ambassador for the Council of Narnia rewrites history to distort the truth and blacken our name. We opposed their nations barbaric statute because it represented a significant decrease in standards of fairness within the w.a. and because much of it represented Narnian cultural imperialism.

The Ambassador's arrogant attitude here in this debate is further proof that they dream only of imposing their reactionary ideology on this organisation and cannot stand to be fairly contradicted when they are demonstrably in bad faith.

Why should any compassionate and freedom loving nation treat the Council of Narnia with kid gloves when they are busy persecuting innocent members of their citizenry. Would we be expected to do this if they were treating Narnia's jews or black people in this fashion? Hardly.

Your words Ambassador are what have provoked our disquiet.The thought of what these words must mean for innocent individuals within your borders are what have distressed us.

We reserve the right to contradict you in the strongest possible terms if you are busy justifying crimes against humanity.

yours e.t.c. ,

Powerhungry Chipmunks

02-09-2008, 23:26

To be blunt, yes, it is a tyranny. Though it's not very tyrannical when nations consent to join the organization, with the full knowledge that their government is fully subservient to WA legislation. That's why it's perfectly acceptable for the WA to dictate morals on its own members.It's legal for the WA to dictate morals to its own members, but it doesn't have to be acceptable. Some WA members (hint, hint...PC) want an international government to pay attention to things that are within reasonable and practical part of the agenda of an international government, not domestic issues better left to bodies of government with better direct representation.
Voting. That, or repeals.
Nations vote in the WA. Individual citizens don't. It's beyond ineffective bureaucracy to have individuals represented in as broad and distant a way as they are represented in the WA.

PC's one national vote in the WA is worth slightly fewer than 4.791 billion (due to the skewing from regional delegates' votes). That's 4,791,000,000 individuals who have a right to make up their own minds on domestic issues who are made into one vote that’s either FOR or AGAINST. There’s the matter of what happens to the dissenters among the 4.791 billion. How is it justified representation when a possible 2,395,499,999 dissenting PC citizens would be left without any voice in the WA?

This is in addition to the fact that the majority opinion of the 4.791 billion PC citizens is equal to the majority opinion of the 5 million "NewlyCreatedNation" citizens. Why is it that what a NewlyCreatedNation citizen thinks is 958.2 times more important than what a PC citizen thinks? Are PC citizens 0.001044 times the individuals worthy of self-determination on domestic issues as NewlyCreatedNation’s citizens are? Both groups are treated equally with one vote. Are the two groups equal? Are they really represented as one vote each? Are the screaming voices of 4.791 billion PC citizens really equal to 0.005 billion NewlyCreatedNation citizens? I’d like to get the two nations side by side and see whose voices are louder…

*starts praying that NewlyCreatedNation isn’t a nation made up entirely of belting Brunnhilde’s and singing Siegfried’s

PC’s opinion is simply stated that the individual (especially a PC individual) is not represented well enough in the WA to justify WA interference on domestic issues in PC.

Urgench

02-09-2008, 23:28

Ambassador, the condescending tone is winning you no allies...

I mean, we were going to send a basket full of delectable, Roasted Chipmunks, as an end-of-debate diplomatic gesture.

But now I think you're delegation will have to settle for a few family size bags of Chipmunk Chips...not nearly as yummy, and a little chewy.

Putting aside the fact that your gifts would be far better sent to the noble Delegacy of Mendosia, the authors of this resolution, We are fascinated to see that you warn us of our tone and have ignored that of those who have viciously slurred their minorities with lies.

If theirs is the sort of diplomacy the delegacy of the Powerhungry Chipmunks admires then we are content to have the gift of knowing we have opposed hatemongering and false moral relativism.

Besides we are repleat with allies we admire, and his Excellency Khan Mongkha, our ambassador here, is an elderly man who's digestive system long ago gave up hope of knowing the pleasures of fried foods ever again.

yours sincerely,

Caitlin Windsor

02-09-2008, 23:30

The Queendom of Caitlin Windsor agrees wholeheartedly with The United Socialist States of Jaynova in that, we are voting against this resolution because we feel that this is a decision that each state should make on the national level. Our congress has already voted for this act so make no mistake that we are not tolerant of this view, we are and we welcome all people.

After careful consideration, The United Socialist States of Jaynova must say "Nay." We agree with this law in spirit, and wish that every state would adopt these policies on the national level, but we still feel that this is a civil rights issue to be decided nationally.

We would also like to add that when the vote comes in our congress to allow gay marriage, we shall be voting "Yay." Those who feel oppressed by the policies of their own country concerning marriage will be welcome in the USSJ.

The Narnian Council

02-09-2008, 23:48

If they dissagree with me then they should do so here, we suspect they are either conforming to their habit of deceit in doing this or are afraid to reveal this delegate in case in naming them they further damn their baseless attack on us.

The rest of your post has been overlooked, as I’ve stated that I don’t wish to provoke your excessive cussing any further. I have chosen to keep the involved Delegate anonymous, because to state their identity without prior consultation would be downright impolite. They will post here if they feel it necessary – and you will be content with that.

Can you explain to me why you feel that it is somehow appropriate to confine our activities as a body to "mundane" issues like trade, pollution and the like, while ignoring issues such as this that directly affect the ability of citizens of WA member states to live their very lives without being mistreated?... But some issues (such as this), in our estimation, practically beg for the international community to take a stand for what is right.

That’s the sad, unfortunate problem. Matters such as stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality etc. are controversial. Which means people’s interpretation of what’s right-and-wrong on the issue vary widely. Issues of morality that require conservatives to butt heads with liberals should not be desired – only one party will win - and unless we're to implement party elections, this is not what a world government is about.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all agree? It would, but we can’t. Morality is not the WA’s field of battle. Human Rights is the WA’s field of battle. The WA may grant homosexuals the opportunity to live with adequate food, shelter and comfort, without fear, without being judged, without facing ridicule. Having said that, WA should not cross the line past human rights, into morality, and condone homosexual behavior itself, by legalizing same-sex marriages (marriage not actually being a human right), in the interest of satisfying our liberals here, at the expense of everyone else.

The WA’s worldwide legislation needs to tread the fine line that separates genuine justice and basic rights, and tyranny by majority in the areas of morality and conscience – that we believe should remain on a national level.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or rude by doing so.

Not at all! Your civility is quite refreshing!

__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Powerhungry Chipmunks

02-09-2008, 23:50

Putting aside the fact that your gifts would be far better sent to the noble Delegacy of Mendosia, the authors of this resolution, We are fascinated to see that you warn us of our tone and have ignored that of those who have viciously slurred their minorities with lies.
PC's gifts are typically sent (rather indiscriminately) to every national delegation which participated significantly in the debate.

We have not been, and didn't say that we had been, following the debate between your nation and others closely, and cannot say whether others are guilty of wielding an unbecoming tone--but the particular comment cited was noticed thus we solicited the advice we did.

The ambassador should take it as flattery. To warn a colleague of a folly is more friendly than to permit that colleague continue in folly unadvised. That is, it should be flattering PC is more interested in the political clout of the Urgench delegation than those it has been debating against.

Urgench

03-09-2008, 00:07

The rest of your post has been overlooked, as I’ve stated that I don’t wish to provoke your excessive cussing any further. I have chosen to keep the involved Delegate anonymous, because to state their identity without prior consultation is downright impolite. They will post here if they feel it necessary – and you will be content with that.

That’s the sad, unfortunate problem. Matters such as stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality etc. are controversial. Which means people’s interpretation of what’s right-and-wrong on the issue vary widely. Issues of morality that require conservatives to butt heads with liberals should not be desired – only one party will win.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all agree? It would, but we can’t. Morality is not the WA’s field of battle. Human Rights is the WA’s field of battle. The WA may grant homosexuals the opportunity to live with adequate food, shelter and comfort, without fear, without being judged, without facing ridicule. Having said that, WA should not cross the line past human rights, into morality, and condone homosexual behavior itself, by legalizing same-sex marriages (which is not a human right), in the interest of satisfying our liberals here, at the expense of everyone else.

The WA’s worldwide legislation needs to tread the fine line that separates genuine justice and basic rights, and tyranny by majority in the areas of morality and conscience – that we believe should remain on a national level.

Not at all! Your civility is quite refreshing!

__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Now the Council of Narnia is loosing it's grip on reality, where have we "cussed" ? Indeed Nowhere. They have ignored the rest of our intervention because they have no answer to it, they know their position is indefensable. If the Council of Narnia does not like thewell earned and accurate description we have made of them then perhaps they should withdraw their slurs and modify their dogma.

By not naming this mysterious delegate they quote in their defence they only prove our thesis that this quote is nothing but a charade. An attempt to associate the Council of Narnia with some shadowy and fictional consensus which the hope will ligitamise their extremism.

Now the Council of Narnia is defining for us all what rights we have, and tellling homosexuals what they may expect to be guaranteed. The rights the Ambassador discribes are sufficient for a dumb beast perhaps, but not for a thinking feeling Human Being.

Of course the Ambassador wishes to side track this debate by lecturing the W.A. on why it should not defend the rights of the persecuted by claiming that controversy trumps shared humanity. This is a specious argument which seeks to de-humanise people by marking them out as "controversial" and therefore deserving of sub-human or second class status. Ghettoisation or Apartheid use the same justifications.

This resolution neutralises unfair discrimination and restores equality to millions of people be they gay, or of despised ethnicity, religion or race e.t.c. , it is of paramount importance that this organisation make that its mission.

yours e.t.c. ,

Urgench

03-09-2008, 00:18

PC's gifts are typically sent (rather indiscriminately) to every national delegation which participated significantly in the debate.

We have not been, and didn't say that we had been, following the debate between your nation and others closely, and cannot say whether others are guilty of wielding an unbecoming tone--but the particular comment cited was noticed thus we solicited the advice we did.

The ambassador should take it as flattery. To warn a colleague of a folly is more friendly than to permit that colleague continue in folly unadvised. That is, it should be flattering PC is more interested in the political clout of the Urgench delegation than those it has been debating against.

The logic the esteemed Ambassador uses is interesting. in the same breath they suggest we should be flattered by their attentions and that their gifts are indiscriminately bestowed.

In any case our point is still valid, should we pander to those who insult and degrade innocent persons?

However we see an oportunity to thank the esteemed ambassador for their concern. But really our political clout if any such thing exists will arrise from our doing what is right according to our ethics and not indulging in pantomime with those who have no ethics.

Our thanks are sincere non the less,

yours e.t.c. ,

The Altan Steppes

03-09-2008, 00:27

That’s the sad, unfortunate problem. Matters such as stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality etc. are controversial. Which means people’s interpretation of what’s right-and-wrong on the issue vary widely. Issues of morality that require conservatives to butt heads with liberals should not be desired – only one party will win - and unless we're to implement party elections, this is not what a world government is about.

Krytellin stands up to speak again.

The problem with this argument is that the matters you cite are not the only ones that can be controversial. Far from it. Ask some of the members of this assembly what they think of free trade legislation, for example. Just because something is controversial is no reason for the WA to shy away from it. Indeed, if we are the sort of toothless assembly that runs away from any issue that might upset people, what kind of body are we exactly, and what is our purpose for even coming here?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all agree? It would, but we can’t. Morality is not the WA’s field of battle. Human Rights is the WA’s field of battle. The WA may grant homosexuals the opportunity to live with adequate food, shelter and comfort, without fear, without being judged, without facing ridicule. Having said that, WA should not cross the line past human rights, into morality, and condone homosexual behavior itself, by legalizing same-sex marriages (marriage not actually being a human right), in the interest of satisfying our liberals here, at the expense of everyone else.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue. People from the Altan Steppes have been called many things, but liberal is not a word typically used to describe us. We see this as a matter of basic civil rights, and yes, even decency, which is something that should trump NatSov concerns. Granting the right to live with food, shelter and comfort are laudable goals, but why is granting the right to enter into a "civil contract" somehow less laudable? The right to be with the person you love in a committed union that is protected from discrimination by the State is something that we feel is pretty damn important, too - because it strikes right where all of us live, every day. That transcends political labels or reasons used by groups in the majority to discriminate against those in the minority for untold generations (morality, religion, tradition, etc). And we believe that this is a value worth protecting for all of us, whatever our preferences or ideologies are. I'd also respectfully point out that this isn't about "condoning homosexual behavior":

(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.

The protections outlined in this resolution would apply to everyone, as we read it.

Also, while I'm trying to remain civil, I'd respectfully point out to my Narnian colleague that he's talking to someone who is quite happily committed to someone of the same sex, in a relationship that is (thankfully) protected by my nation's government.

The TFAS ambassador holds up a picture of a man in a military uniform.

This is my partner, and there is nothing about our relationship that we need to ask you to condone, quite frankly.

Krytellin sits back down again.

Flibbleites

03-09-2008, 02:29

I'm going to ask a question here, and I'm not trying to be argumentative or rude by doing so. Can you explain to me why you feel that it is somehow appropriate to confine our activities as a body to "mundane" issues like trade, pollution and the like, while ignoring issues such as this that directly affect the ability of citizens of WA member states to live their very lives without being mistreated? The Altan Steppes tries to be NatSov friendly. We really, really do. But some issues (such as this), in our estimation, practically beg for the international community to take a stand for what is right - and far more so than whether or not X country can ship Y number of widgets to country Z, for example.There is a key difference between marriage laws and the examples of trade and pollution you provided. Trade and pollution are international issues, while marriage laws are not. The marriage laws of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites have no impact of the citizens of The Altan Steppes, just like the marriage laws of The Altan Steppes have no impact of Flibbleite citizens.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Eternal Kawaii

03-09-2008, 02:36

Ambassador, once again you fail to see the clear asymmetry between the two situations. In your Nation, people have no choice but to conform to your State-imposed moral code while this Resolution gives your citizens and, in fact, all citizens of the world, the right to beg to differ.

With all due respect, has the esteemed representative from Mendosia ever actually talked with a Kawaiian? Had supper with one of our people? Accepted an invitation to any of our nation's many cultural institutions? Had their children share a play-date with a Kawaiian family?

If so, then surely the esteemed representative would not hold such a prejudiced, if not outright bigoted, view of Kawaiians, nor hold in such disdain our people's chosen way of life.

In the words of a learned scholar, it is not the aim of the Human Rights Council of the World Assembly to adopt or impose a particular moral code, but rather to define the liberties and freedoms of all. And that is exactly what this Resolution does.

Ah, but what is this resolution but an attempt to impose a moral code? The esteemed representative may choose to hide behind the phrase, "citizens of the world", but do not be fooled. This is Mendosian morality, not some formless "liberties and freedoms" the esteemed representative has the arrogance to claim is universal.

Mendosia

03-09-2008, 04:54

(marriage not actually being a human right)

Ambassador, we dissent on this issue, for we strongly believe that the right to constitute a couple (the nuclear family if you will) in conditions of equality is indeed a human right.

Is marriage so belittled in your nation, Ambassador, that you do not see that it constitutes one basic human aspiration? And if it is so, why is your Nation so contentious on this issue?

Alvencia

03-09-2008, 05:05

It is entirely inappropriate to try and dictate to my government and its people how to recognize and manage the affairs of marriage. The Dominion of Alvencia is a religious dominion, and we will not condone the unfettered interference of other nations on our beliefs that homosexual relations are sinful, illegal, and abominable! We will never recognize any such partnerships between such persons, and we will continue to take swift, harsh action against persons practicing such devilry. This resolution must fail, or the autonomy of all nations is in jeopardy!

Mendosia

03-09-2008, 05:22

With all due respect, has the esteemed representative from Mendosia ever actually talked with a Kawaiian? Had supper with one of our people? Accepted an invitation to any of our nation's many cultural institutions? Had their children share a play-date with a Kawaiian family?

If so, then surely the esteemed representative would not hold such a prejudiced, if not outright bigoted, view of Kawaiians, nor hold in such disdain our people's chosen way of life.

Ambassador, indeed I was never within the borders of your country, so I have to make an argument based on the description your excellency makes of your own Nation. Your excellency has not explained what place, if any, homosexuals have in a society, in your own words, dedicated to perpetuating your church, generation after generation, and where marriage itself is some sort of contract with the State to guarantee the next 'crop' for early indoctrination.

Ah, but what is this resolution but an attempt to impose a moral code? The esteemed representative may choose to hide behind the phrase, "citizens of the world", but do not be fooled. This is Mendosian morality, not some formless "liberties and freedoms" the esteemed representative has the arrogance to claim is universal.

Ambassador, with all due respect, I never claimed it was universal in the sense that it was to be accepted by everyone, everywhere. I claimed, however, that it was decent, necessary and just. And I insist that we are not advancing a particular moral agenda. We are not telling people what is right or wrong. We are telling governments that they should not discriminate people in the access to marriage due to their sexual orientation. And this is not a morality issue, but rather an issue of basic justice.

In this Assembly, Ambassador, we do not privilege any religion, any culture, or any moral code. What we stand for in these hallowed halls is the advancement of human rights and freedoms at an international level. In this Assembly we have to justify our positions using rational arguments, not with some 'position of principle' derived from revealed 'truth'. We are aware that your government, having received this 'truth' from your Prophet, has no need, no inclination and probably no opportunity to question it. But it is our shared understanding that religious dogma notwithstanding this is a just and urgent cause.

Amston

03-09-2008, 05:32

All men are created equal. That is a simple fact, we cannot discriminate against groups of people because of how they were created. Individuals who are attempting to put these individuals in a lower class of humanity by not giving them the same rights as everyone else are committing an act of bigotry. The world should not stand by why blatant human rights are violated. A person's right to marry who they are in love with is no concern of any government and should not be interfered with at all. Amston allows for such marriages to happen already. What is more, any government interfering with such things will not be tolerated by Amston and all diplomatic relations will be cut off immediately. If the government interferes with this aspect of life, then where does it stop? Should the government be in all of the decisions of their people? What their job is, instead of choosing a job. What car to drive, if they are even allowed to? What clothes to wear? What ways to think? When to pee? When to die? How far will the governments of the world oppress people and make them less than people. It is time to stand up against second class status, all citizens of the world were created equal, all governments should extend basic human rights to all.

Amston

03-09-2008, 05:34

Further, religion has no place in government, to quote religion as being the reason why this is not right does not work. I can quote religion, any religion to justify anything in the world (ie terrorism). So, bigots of the world, step away from your religion to oppress people. If you are Christian, you are not acting very Christ like, what would Jesus do? God gave us free will, he gave us rights, to love. When these bigots get to heaven and meet St. Peter at the pearly gates, I think they will have some explaining to do real quick.

Gobbannaen WA Mission

03-09-2008, 06:05

Quod, forgive me if I didn't refer back to your last post on the issue - I was entirely absent yesterday, and I haven't time to address most issues right now
And yet in that same period you found the time to construct a lengthy diatribe against the delegation of Urgench. How... convenient.

PC's one national vote in the WA is worth slightly fewer than 4.791 billion (due to the skewing from regional delegates' votes). That's 4,791,000,000 individuals who have a right to make up their own minds on domestic issues who are made into one vote that’s either FOR or AGAINST. There’s the matter of what happens to the dissenters among the 4.791 billion. How is it justified representation when a possible 2,395,499,999 dissenting PC citizens would be left without any voice in the WA?
Then again, how much affect does one PC national's vote have on PC's own national politics (OOC considerations of national indivisibility aside)? Even divided down into votes for their local representative (I'm guessing at national level that still something like one in forty million) it still amounts to not a lot, yet somehow that doesn't invalidate the concept of national government legislating on domestic issues.

But this is all just logic-chopping. Fundamentally we agree that we should all be applying the principle of subsidiarity -- decision making at the lowest capable level -- to what law-making we do everywhere. We just differ on what that lowest capable level is for different subjects. When it comes to the really basic underpinnings of behaviour -- human rights, as they translate to in law -- I take the opinion that these things should be universal, so the highest level is the right one. On the other hand, as a result of decades of watching politics and politicians, I'm equally convinced that national government is rarely the right place for any decision.

The problem with this argument is that the matters you cite are not the only ones that can be controversial. Far from it. Ask some of the members of this assembly what they think of free trade legislation, for example.

::Cerys helpfully chips in::

"Free trade: just say no!"

There is a key difference between marriage laws and the examples of trade and pollution you provided. Trade and pollution are international issues, while marriage laws are not.
Funny, I thought trade was an issue between the two entities doing the trading, and I could have sworn I heard sizeable chunk of this assembly protesting that pollution was a national issue not that many month ago.

The marriage laws of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites have no impact of the citizens of The Altan Steppes, just like the marriage laws of The Altan Steppes have no impact of Flibbleite citizens.
That's not entirely true, you know. If Ambassador Krytellin and his husband were on holiday in your nation and one of them had a serious accident, things could get a little sticky with medical decisions if your law didn't recognise their marriage. And that's one of the less worrying possibilities.

(OOC: This is very much an RL problem too. A friend of mine had to be somewhat careful planning her holiday in the US last year, because her marital status (and gender!) changed at various state boundaries. Texas was right out.)

Quintessence of Dust

03-09-2008, 10:04

Quod, forgive me if I didn't refer back to your last post on the issue - I was entirely absent yesterday, and I haven't time to address most issues right now - but I will say for now...
You have since posted two full-length posts. You clearly do have the time to address my post, but simply not the inclination.

In the meantime:
Our delegation will remain of the opinion that the WA should not have the right to override the religious beliefs and moralities of varying WA members in any way whatsoever.
Theocracies and other nations whose justice systems were based on religious ritual had their systems overturned by your resolution. People who believe torture moral had their worldview contradicted by my resolution.

Furthermore, this resolution does not override anyone's beliefs. If you believe love to be a sin for which someone should be legally punished, as you undoubtedly do, you are unlikely to partake of the opportunity this resolution offers.
It does, and should indeed, reserve the right lay down regulations for the furtherment of law and order, trade, industry, pollution etc. By the same token, I do not believe it appropriate for the WA to even consider "solving" the particularly controversial issues of our time - which includes euthanasia, abortion, and homosexuality.
Firstly, you are in a fortunately tiny minority in considering homosexuality a controversial issue.

Secondly, law and order, trade, industry and pollution are very controversial issues. Think of the massive debates over capital punishment and the rights of sex offenders. Wars have been waged over trade disputes. Competing industries engage in espionage, sabotage, and violence to advance their aims. There are huge global protests over pollution. There is, we are told, a 'climate change debate': clearly, some people refuse to believe in the existence, or the anthropogenic provenance, or its threat. Whether or not certain chemicals are dangerous, and whether or not their danger outweighs their use/import, are questions of heated controversy. The entire sphere of social policy is full of question, controversy, debate, and discussion.

The great thing about being in the WA is being able to discuss such issues with nations from around the world. The other side, of course, is being subject to the consensus (on a national legislative level, of course, not that of individual conscience).
This is why I will support a proposal laying down the law of justice, for example - whereas I will remain in strong opposition to this proposal, or any other like it, that may force their especially controversial ideaology (that has the high potential to conflict with religion/morality) upon WA nations.
There are religions, such as Christianity, that can be used to justify slavery. There are moralities that can be used to justify slavery. I want you to tell me, right now, whether you feel I should abandon my slavery proposal as a result.

Urgench

03-09-2008, 11:51

The Altan Steppes

03-09-2008, 14:57

That's not entirely true, you know. If Ambassador Krytellin and his husband were on holiday in your nation and one of them had a serious accident, things could get a little sticky with medical decisions if your law didn't recognise their marriage. And that's one of the less worrying possibilities.

Thank you, Ambassador Coch. That is the point I would have raised, if I had been quick enough with my wits to do so.

That is one of the major reasons that my government would want to see this legislation passed, as expressed in the statement by our President. The fact that citizens of the Altan Steppes (or any nation that has similar laws) face the potential for discrimination, unfair treatment, or even brutality if they should step into another nation, for whatever reason (everything from a vacation to a plane malfunctioning or otherwise having to land somewhere for an emergency), simply because of who they choose to be partnered with, is simply unacceptable.

And even if we accept the basic argument that marriage laws in one nation never, ever affect the citizens of another nation (which we don't accept, for obvious reasons), that argument still does not address the basic injustice that lies at the heart of the kind of discrimination we are trying to address here. The record of the Altan Steppes, and our predecessor Altanari delegation here, is not one of disregard for national sovereignty. However, our stance is again summed up by our President, who had this to say when I talked to her earlier: "On some issues, national sovereignty can suck it. This is one of those issues."

Not the politest way she could've put it, perhaps, but it does sum up the stance of the Altan Steppes pretty well. Our goal here as a nation, from the very beginning, is to work with the international community and shape our mutual community to make it better. Sometimes, in order to do that, you have to make a tough choice between noninterference and doing what is right for the people of the WA, not the nations or the government. This is an opportunity for us to do that as a body, and I sincerely hope we do not reject it.

(OOC: This is very much an RL problem too. A friend of mine had to be somewhat careful planning her holiday in the US last year, because her marital status (and gender!) changed at various state boundaries. Texas was right out.)

(OOC: yeah, I'm from Texas and I can vouch for the fact it's screwed up here. Thankfully, I live in the not-as-screwed-up part of it.)

Tzorsland

03-09-2008, 15:01

There is a saying I love to say because it’s unexpected. “If it looks like a duck and swims like a duck and flies like a duck, but it larger and has white feathers, then it’s probably a goose or a swan. Just because you think things are similar doesn’t mean they are.”

That’s one of the problems with this resolution; there are several cases where terms are used without the context of the common definition. The first case is the term “marriage” itself. It is used in the title and in the description of article 2 but no where else. Instead the following definition is used instead.

(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.

This leaves us the big question; how many religions in the WA have marriage rites solely for the “effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants?” How many religions have laws forbidding or restricting inheritance?

If we use article 1 as the defining element to this resolution it is institutively obvious to even a casual observer that this resolution is all about “civil contracts” with specific focus on common estate and inheritance rights. It is not about sexual intercourse and one can even argue (although I certainly would not want to) it’s not even about people living together.

If one were to really have a valid objection I believe that it would be that in spite of all the words and paragraphs this resolution creates a very narrow definition of scope (common estate and inheritance rights) and from it addresses a single case of possible discrimination (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). Anything beyond that is a knee jerk reaction that I would expect from fluffies, not from the distinguished members of this assembly who are debating today.

Mendosia

03-09-2008, 15:38

That’s one of the problems with this resolution; there are several cases where terms are used without the context of the common definition. The first case is the term “marriage” itself. It is used in the title and in the description of article 2 but no where else.

Ambassador,
Indeed that was intentional for we were trying to be the more abstract we could possibly be, and we did go to great lengths to delimit the object of the resolution in such a way as to encompass the greatest possible variety of definitions of 'marriage' or other 'civil unions' -- we did not use the term marriage in the text because we didn't want to the define it, lest we would be imposing our own concept of marriage upon all the nations or be unwarrantably imposing a name for the contract.

The result, which appears unsatisfactory to your delegation, is just a symptom of our focus on the practicalities of 'marriage', i.e., its consequences on the common estate and inheritances rights, allowing for each nation to densify this legal institute on their national laws according to their own traditions, views and policies, establishing whichever additional rights and duties they see fit.

If one were to really have a valid objection I believe that it would be that in spite of all the words and paragraphs this resolution creates a very narrow definition of scope (common estate and inheritance rights) and from it addresses a single case of possible discrimination (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).

Ambassador, by mentioning the regulation of the common estate and the establishment of inheritance rights as the minimal conditions for a contract to be under control of this resolution we are in fact casting a very wide net, not narrowing the scope of the act, for these were considered the core effects of a typical marriage contract. We refused to establish further duties and rights for we are not privy to the quirks and idiosyncrasies of all the legal systems represented in the World Assembly.

You do not err, however, in stating that we were focusing on a particular kind of discrimination - sexual discrimination - with respect to gender and sexual orientation and that was, indeed, our aim, which is not frustrated by any of the shortcomings of the solution we chose in order to identify and delimit the contracts akin to marriage for which we wanted discrimination to stop.

Cavirra

03-09-2008, 16:26

(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.If their is a CONTRACT involved between two parties then it should be clear in itself as to what the terms of union are and needs not have outsiders say what is contained in the CONTRACT if some term of that CONTRACT violates existing laws and they follow that then they become criminals.

B ) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities. This clause alone says a religious state can ban same sex MARRIAGES as if two members of the same sex can't MARRY in the state church then they can't.. Now two people of the same sex can use legal means to form a family by Contract as long as they follow the laws of the state in which they write the contract...

(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. These protections in states exist today and does not need the WA to tell them to write new laws or change old ones. Laws that deal with the union by CONTRACT or MARRIAGE must be followed or the person who don't become criminals in that state and must pay for their crimes.

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. Here we don't interfer with individuals or groups when they enter into a contractional union. However these contracts must not contain terms that do not comply with established laws in anyway.

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.Here you have just voided the prior part and given states with existing laws the right to keep those laws.. and apply them thus if two parties form a contract that breaks any laws they become criminals and those that help them also become criminals. We stop here and say that laws of other countries that conflict with out laws we honor until they enter our borders and push their illegal acts on our citizens or expect us to put up with their crimes.... So be warned 'When in Cavirra follow our laws, when home do what you do."

(d) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence. Again you have voided most of what you intended to end here. As a LAW is a CONTRACT between citizens and state to keep order between the two and protect both... Those not citizens when they enter our borders agree to any LAWS we have written and we agree by unwritten CONTRACT to welcome and treat them as any citizen so long as they follow our LAWS while they are here visiting...

(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. Any two parties can form a union here as long as both follow our laws in doing things.

b ) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex. Here one law covers one issue and it applies to all who are here. Follow it okay; break it become a criminal... simple...

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.We again make one law to cover an issue that fits all..

Now Marriage to us is the union of two parties to repoduce children to carry on into the next generation or national traditions. A male may take five wives in marriage and each take his seeds and thus have his children. We know some males and females are lacking in the ability to have children.. Thus we express that a family unity be strong and work to continue the family blood lines.... by taking in children from siblings who can have children when the natural parents become unable to raise them. Thus we avoid orphans as a family will care for it's own..

Relations between two people of the same sex are legal here and they under CONTRACT or will can set up who gets their estate once they pass or who can speak for them when they are unable to. This is not seen as a marriage union but as a family union. This union or family can and do here raise children passed on by parents of the same blood linages that could no longer care for those children... thus they remain in the same blood family until they form their own family union but still retain ties to their blood family...

Thus since many parts of this void other parts and we just don't like the idea of others telling us what to do we have voted AGINST this proposal...

ZartaWarden,
Cavirrian WA Ambassador,
Minister of Mystery

Powerhungry Chipmunks

03-09-2008, 17:22

Then again, how much affect does one PC national's vote have on PC's own national politics (OOC considerations of national indivisibility aside)? Even divided down into votes for their local representative (I'm guessing at national level that still something like one in forty million) it still amounts to not a lot, yet somehow that doesn't invalidate the concept of national government legislating on domestic issues.The point, though, isn't that the an individual is a small part of the make-up of the national vote. That's bound to happen the time any nation achieves any significant population.

The point I was going for is that in PC, within it's various provincial governments and within local government, there is a method so each individual with his background and opinions is treated equally. Joe PC's ideas are respected (as in representation in government) as equal his next door neighbor's ideas. If he has an opinion, he has a local venue in which he can express his views, and in which he can oppose or support a domestic issue such as this.

Each individual has this same right to voice opinions, to fight for his ethnic, religious identity and to influence government. Then, come election time, the vote of Joe PC is worth the same as Joanna PC from across the country. 1 vote from Joe PC is equal to 1 vote from Joanna PC elsewhere. Each human soul is given the same power, through the vote. That’s not possible in the WA. Neither the representation of an individual's opinions nor the equality of voting. That was my point.

PC views marriage as a social issue, as a domestic issue. It's a “domestic” issue because it doesn’t have to do with international trade, foreign relations, genocide, political representation or even economic freedoms-- it has nothing to do with international government. Rather it has to do with intimate relations within the most fundamental and atomic (as in "indivisible") unit of society: the family. This is as domestic as an issue gets. It’s as domestic as “what’s for dinner tonight?”

Additionally, marriage views are effects of a society’s traditions and religion. Though that lens are preconceptions about marriage constructed, not through the lens of the international community. This domestic view of marriage varies along ethnic and religious lines (which in PC means it varies greatly even within the PC’s different provinces). Some religious and ethnic groups within PC have a more progressive view of marriage. Others do not. All these differences of opinion about marriage are intranational, not international.

In PC there are mechanisms for an individual’s personal and ethnic backgrounds to be respected through representation. Even when the government searches for progress and new solutions to new situations (like the increasing number of gays in PC who demand the right to marry) the respect of the opposing peoples’ views--however backward they may be--is present. They have realistic chances to stand up in town hall meetings, sign petitions, call representatives, etc. They have an equal vote, each one of them. Without this method of representation, and the opportunity for PC’s unique domestic politics to be expressed, the government is a tyranny over the people, and not government of the people. Since the WA does not have this sort of realistic opportunity for PC citizen representation, PC describes its interference in domestic issues as tyranny.

And I fully understand that the WA is a tyranny. It’s a sort of vanguard party which decides for every nation within its membership what is the best way to think. “WA knows best. You must conform to our superior thought” is basically the tone. The WA is very, very often run by those who think themselves greater intellects, and as such feel they are authorized (By God? By Science? By the ghost of Maxtopia? I don’t really know how they think they get their authority) to run the domestic politics of other nations of the world, even when they’re entirely ignorant toward the domestic politics of those nations. PC is against this. This is the ruling of PC by foreigners who don’t know her and her people and thus can’t possibly legislate fairly for her.

On top of that, PC is repeatedly told that membership in the WA intellectual vanguard party is held at the ransom of my nation agreeing with the policies passed: the “if you don’t agree, leave” argument. Why should my nation’s disagreement with the politics of the WA disqualify it from membership? Does that not mean that to the real qualification for membership is agreement with the political cognoscenti? If that’s not a tyranny--as much as any Communist Stalin or Fascist Hitler could devise (insert applicable IC dictators, if you please)-- then I didn’t have a chipmunk tripe stew for breakfast.

And I know the answer to that.

*licks lips thinking of the next helping of chipmunk bowels…

Brutland and Norden

03-09-2008, 17:42

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/5535/unnonedw1.png

Brutland and Norden suspends marriage
September 03, 2008
by Pierro Stellanello
KINGSVILLE – the Nord-Brutlandese General Court, in one of their gruelling late-night special sessions, suspended the issuance of civil marriage licenses in Brutland and Norden. This drastic move was a response to the impending passage of the World Assembly resolution “Freedom of Marriage Act”.

Specifically, the newly passed legislation by the General Court, going by the inglorious name CGP. 29-066, “indefinitely suspends” “issuance of marriage licenses by all government authorities at all levels” “should the World Assembly resolution known as ‘Freedom of Marriage Act’ pass on September 03, 2008.” The bill does not affect marriages to be performed by recognized churches, and the functions of these religious marriages will be governed by a slew of existing acts and laws, many of which pertain to religion and churches.

CGP. 29-066 definitively suspends performance of civil marriages in the federally-controlled Union Territories, but legal analysts dispute its power over marriages performed by the provinces. However, the question became moot when the legislature of the province of Brutland passed, by a supermajority, a nearly-identical suspension of marriages yesterday afternoon. The Norden Chamber of Commons voted 278-220 and the Norden Senate voted 19-16 for a similar bill on the same day. Norden Gov. Adam Lambroglio is expected to sign the suspension today.
View full news article at: http://en.lunnone.co.nem/09032008/novo/6t778rsc0.htm (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13981059#post13981059)

Omigodtheykilledkenny

03-09-2008, 17:51

View full news article at: http://en.lunnone.co.nem/09032008/novo/6t778rsc0.htm (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13981059#post13981059)
In stark contrast to the arguments of this legislation's proponents, I might add, who between shrill and hysterical accusations of homophobia and hatred contended the language was airtight and could not be circumvented. We applaud the principled, sovereigntist stance against this bill voiced by nations such as Brutland and Norden and Powerhungry Chipmunks, but note that the Federal Republic, being already in compliance with this legislation, does not intend to avoid compliance after it is adopted. Our congratulations to the author.

Urgench

03-09-2008, 17:54

The point, though, isn't that the an individual is a small part of the make-up of the national vote. That's bound to happen the time any nation achieves any significant population.

The point I was going for is that in PC, within it's various provincial governments and within local government, there is a method so each individual with his background and opinions is treated equally. Joe PC's ideas are respected (as in representation in government) as equal his next door neighbor's ideas. If he has an opinion, he has a local venue in which he can express his views, and in which he can oppose or support a domestic issue such as this.

Each individual has this same right to voice opinions, to fight for his ethnic, religious identity and to influence government. Then, come election time, the vote of Joe PC is worth the same as Joanna PC from across the country. 1 vote from Joe PC is equal to 1 vote from Joanna PC elsewhere. Each human soul is given the same power, through the vote. That’s not possible in the WA. Neither the representation of an individual's opinions nor the equality of voting. That was my point.

PC views marriage as a social issue, as a domestic issue. It's a “domestic” issue because it doesn’t have to do with international trade, foreign relations, genocide, political representation or even economic freedoms-- it has nothing to do with international government. Rather it has to do with intimate relations within the most fundamental and atomic (as in "indivisible") unit of society: the family. This is as domestic as an issue gets. It’s as domestic as “what’s for dinner tonight?”

Additionally, marriage views are effects of a society’s traditions and religion. Though that lens are preconceptions about marriage constructed, not through the lens of the international community. This domestic view of marriage varies along ethnic and religious lines (which in PC means it varies greatly even within the PC’s different provinces). Some religious and ethnic groups within PC have a more progressive view of marriage. Others do not. All these differences of opinion about marriage are intranational, not international.

In PC there are mechanisms for an individual’s personal and ethnic backgrounds to be respected through representation. Even when the government searches for progress and new solutions to new situations (like the increasing number of gays in PC who demand the right to marry) the respect of the opposing peoples’ views--however backward they may be--is present. They have realistic chances to stand up in town hall meetings, sign petitions, call representatives, etc. They have an equal vote, each one of them. Without this method of representation, and the opportunity for PC’s unique domestic politics to be expressed, the government is a tyranny over the people, and not government of the people. Since the WA does not have this sort of realistic opportunity for PC citizen representation, PC describes its interference in domestic issues as tyranny.

And I fully understand that the WA is a tyranny. It’s a sort of vanguard party which decides for every nation within its membership what is the best way to think. “WA knows best. You must conform to our superior thought” is basically the tone. The WA is very, very often run by those who think themselves greater intellects, and as such feel they are authorized (By God? By Science? By the ghost of Maxtopia? I don’t really know how they think they get their authority) to run the domestic politics of other nations of the world, even when they’re entirely ignorant toward the domestic politics of those nations. PC is against this. This is the ruling of PC by foreigners who don’t know her and her people and thus can’t possibly legislate fairly for her.

On top of that, PC is repeatedly told that membership in the WA intellectual vanguard party is held at the ransom of my nation agreeing with the policies passed: the “if you don’t agree, leave” argument. Why should my nation’s disagreement with the politics of the WA disqualify it from membership? Does that not mean that to the real qualification for membership is agreement with the political cognoscenti? If that’s not a tyranny--as much as any Communist Stalin or Fascist Hitler could devise (insert applicable IC dictators, if you please)-- then I didn’t have a chipmunk tripe stew for breakfast.

And I know the answer to that.

*licks lips thinking of the next helping of disemboweled chipmunk…

Very soon after our nation's accession to the World Assembly a resolution was introduced which transformed the nature of how the membership organised and ran their legal systems.

For some nations this resolution undoubtedly represented a vast improvement in the quality of justice their citizens enjoyed. For Urgench however this resolution represented and substantial reduction of standards of justice and a very grave assault to our nations history and culture and and a threat to our nation's cohesion and social harmony.

Our highly democratically elected government's representative to the w.a. voiced our concerns as vociferously as possible over and over again, during drafting and during the vote, to no avail.

During the vote a large league of tribes in the north of Urgench rose up against the government they had overwhelmingly voted for in defence of their ancient institutions and laws. These tribes demanded Urgench resign from the World assembly a position which was popular even in some sectors of the government.

However the executive and the office of the Grand Chamberlain of the Empire made the decision that to give in to these demands would undermine the democratic mandate they had been elected to carry out, that this would undermine democracy in a fundamental way and that there was a moral case for remaining members of the w.a. which must be heeded.

The subsiquent bloody civil strife took many Urgenchi lives but the government was able to force a sease fire and subsiquent talks which convinced the rebels of the greater social good of remaining within the w.a. Pointing out that in doing so we might hope to influence the w.a. in ways that our people would approve of for the good not only of Urgench but of all the W.A.'s member states.

Among the dead were some of our Ambassador to the World Assembly, Khan Monkhga's family who died in the streets of the capital as the resolution was being passed.

Collectivisation of persons of any kind, be that in a City,a Nation, a Supra-national entity such as the w.a. sometimes calls for very hard choices to be made and for bitter compromises to be negotiated between contrary views on many issues.

We have spilt our own blood for the sake of this organisation. We did this because we believe and have found it to be true that the greater good must be served and that the benefits of this are infintite. Our people are comforted in their grief that our nation is working toward the betterment of all man kind and that there family members died for this most noble of all causes.

We take our work here very seriously as a result, and we see it as encumbent upon the membership to put aside petty personal, national or traditional beliefs and grasp the oportunities this organisation has to materially benefit as many of the citizens of this organisations member states as they possibly can.

yours sincerely ,

Urgench

03-09-2008, 18:01

In stark contrast to the arguments of this legislation's proponents, I might add, who between shrill and hysterical accusations of homophobia and hatred contended the language was airtight and could not be circumvented. We applaud the principled, sovereigntist stance against this bill voiced by nations such as Brutland and Norden and Powerhungry Chipmunks, but note that the Federal Republic, being already in compliance with this legislation, does not intend to avoid compliance after it is adopted. Our congratulations to the author.

You applaud a nation depriving it's citizens of their rights to prove a point? How terrifying, honoured Ambassador we thought better of you.

your sincerely,

Urgench

03-09-2008, 18:14

The government of the Emperor of Urgench and his Divine Majesty the Emperor and his August Mother the Dowager Empress Sorghakhatani wish to extend their warmest congratulations to the delegacy of Mendosia and it's noble and sagacious Ambassador.

We commend them for their diligence and decency in bringing their now ratified resolution before this body.

May the Horde of Mendosia ride swift across the plain and always to their banner for all time!

Mendosia

03-09-2008, 18:15

ZartaWarden,
Cavirrian WA Ambassador,
Minister of Mystery

Ambassador for the Cavirrian,

Your Excellency could not be bothered to read the debate that took place on this Assembly and therefore was not aware of the counter-arguments to the many questions your excellency raises, at least, those which were intelligible, since, quite frankly, I didn't understand most of the points your excellency was trying to make.

I also noticed that the respected Ambassador decided to comment on an earlier version of the Resolution which differs from the one that was recently approve.

We regret that your excellency has decided to vote against this proposal, but we are certain that now that is has passed, all the civil contracts regulating the union of two persons in your Nation are equally accessible by heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

03-09-2008, 18:18

You applaud a nation depriving it's citizens of their rights to prove a point? How terrifying, honoured Ambassador we thought better of you.You'll note they aren't discriminating, and not just denying marriage to gays. No one in B&N can marry now, which makes their nation's laws no more "oppressive" than that of Flibbleites.

And you're sort of proving my point about the shrillness and hysteria of this bill's proponents.

Mendosia

03-09-2008, 18:19

View full news article at: http://en.lunnone.co.nem/09032008/novo/6t778rsc0.htm (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13981059#post13981059)

Esteemed Ambassador,

It is with regret that we hear those most distressing news from your Nation. We certainly hope the situation can be normalized soon, otherwise we believe your Nation would be violating article 2 (a) of resolution #15.

The Altan Steppes

03-09-2008, 18:26

The Trilateral Federation also extends its congratulations to the Mendosian delegation. We are pleased that a rational and fair outcome was the result.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Urgench

03-09-2008, 18:29

Where is our shrillness exactly? we merely asked the honoured Ambassador if they thought that Brutland and Norden were behaving in a manner consistent with decency and logic in depriving most of their citizens current rights in order to prevent a minority from enjoying the same rights.

We never argued that this resolution did anything but equalise human beings treatment under the law.

If a nation had no marriage at all before this resolution then that was a demonstrably equal situation. A nation which deprives its currently married citizens of their legal status because its dislikes it minorities enjoying the same status now is behaving indecently. Not to say irrationally.

Honoured Ambassador you may not like that we have called a spade a spade in this debate and pointed out prejudice where it stalked these halls seeking to be placated, but that does not make us hysterical or shrill. It makes us decent, the difference is profound.

yours sincerely,

Neo Mithral Hall

03-09-2008, 18:32

Neo Mithral Hall would like to congratulate the delegate from Mendosia for having their resolution pass in the WA.

Lord Drizzt
King of Neo Mithral Hall, WA Delegate

Mendosia

03-09-2008, 18:33

YAnd you're sort of proving my point about the shrillness and hysteria of this bill's proponents.

Ambassador,

Are you seriously suggesting that 55.6% of the member nations of the World Assembly that voted this Resolution were manipulated by a shrill and hysteric nation? Or are they themselves shrill and hysteric?

Besides, it is pretty clear to our delegation that indefinitely suspending marriages as way to circumvent resolution #15 violates this resolution for it deprives couples from the protections they are entitled to.

Additionally, the Nation you praised errs when believing that religious rites can continue to be performed with any sort of legal effects without violating the Freedom of Marriage Act, for it protects the rites but not any temporal effects they might have.

Jaynova

03-09-2008, 18:46

Member Nations of the World Assembly:

The United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, has made its reservations concerning this bill heard. Again, though we agree that minorities should not be discriminated against, and that as homosexuality is not a chosen trait, homosexuals are, indeed a minority. However, we do not feel that the case of marriage is a human rights issue. There is no self-evident right for anyone to marry, Gog-given, natural, or otherwise. Therefore, it saddens us that the World Assembly has taken this issue and made policy.

That said, there is one ray of light that we cannot forget. This bill did pass, and even many of those who voted against it voted as such because of the same reasons I have stated above. These nations believe in the rights of homosexuals to marry, but do not feel that this is an issue for the World Assembly. This shows that an even larger majority that the voting would suggest believe in the rights of this minority.

We live, then, in a more enlightened time that we, the United Socialist States of Jaynova, would have previously thought. There is hope for this world yet, my friends and comrades.

Gobbannaen WA Mission

03-09-2008, 18:50

Darkesia

03-09-2008, 18:58

Marriage is a form of indecent, state sanctioned, religiously devised, slavery and my nation won't have any part of it.

Religious freaks need to keep their hands off my national government.

This body is consistently manipulated by those tossing around words designed to trigger irrational, emotional responses. I am disappointed, but hardly surprised at this outcome.

Urgench

03-09-2008, 19:03

At local level I can well believe that you can get equality of vote to within 5% tolerances; given that PC tries very hard, you almost certainly manage better than that. (OOC: though wearing my UK local government, it's surprising how quickly demographic change stuffs your accuracy.) However some inaccuracy is inherent in any form of representative democracy, and each succeeding layer of government adds its own 5%. By the time you get to national government, where some of Joe PC's domestic issues really live, Joe's individual voice has become very small and quite unequal, amalgamated and simplified into the mass.

One thing I think we can agree on is that the World Assembly is an order of magnitude and a half too big to be an effective representative democracy. It also wasn't put together with any thought towards proportionality (or it wouldn't have bizarre distortions like the regional delegate vote).

We must say that we are in complete agreement with the honoured and respected Ambassador for the Gobbannean WA Mission's assessment of this organisations level of actual representation of the ordinary citizen.
We have mentioned before that there is no porportionality in the voting system here and though we would like to see some we suspect such a thing will never come to pass.

This being said we are all here voluntarily and should really expect to live with the vissicitudes of the system we have opted in to.

yours e.t.c ,

Urgench

03-09-2008, 19:06

Tzorsland

03-09-2008, 19:14

The resolution Freedom of Marriage Act was passed 5,506 votes to 4,393, and implemented in all WA member nations.

We would like to congratulate the ambassadors to Mendosia and Urgench for their general demeanor during the course of this debate and for the success of the proposal. Naturally the two has nothing to do whatsoever with each other as the majority of the representatives and delegates vote by absentee balot. Even my own region's former delegate never set foot once in this hallowed debating hall. Not that it had a thing to do with the fact that he is a "former" delegate.

We feel sorry for the poor nation of Brutland and Norden ... without marriage how can divorce lawyers survive? You will have my assurances that my nation will implement this resolution immediately and we will not try to circumvent the letter and intent of the law as is so common in so many of the World Assembly nations.

Flibbleites

04-09-2008, 01:35

You'll note they aren't discriminating, and not just denying marriage to gays. No one in B&N can marry now, which makes their nation's laws no more "oppressive" than that of Flibbleites.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, we discriminate equally.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

The Eternal Kawaii

04-09-2008, 02:55

Ambassador, indeed I was never within the borders of your country, so I have to make an argument based on the description your excellency makes of your own Nation. Your excellency has not explained what place, if any, homosexuals have in a society, in your own words, dedicated to perpetuating your church, generation after generation, and where marriage itself is some sort of contract with the State to guarantee the next 'crop' for early indoctrination.

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

The Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii demands a full and formal apology from the government of Mendosia for the bigoted, insulting words of their representative. The children of the Eternal Kawaii are beings to cherish, not things to be referred to as a "crop", as if they were some manner of vegetable.

Mendosia

04-09-2008, 03:26

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

The Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii demands a full and formal apology from the government of Mendosia for the bigoted, insulting words of their representative. The children of the Eternal Kawaii are beings to cherish, not things to be referred to as a "crop", as if they were some manner of vegetable.

Esteemed Ambassador,

The language used was not intended to offend and it was applied in a figurative sense, which is duly described in the lexicographic entry for the word in any good dictionary.

By introducing this fait divers your excellency has avoided addressing the issues raised by my delegation. We are as sure that the children of your Nation have not diverted their attention from the jubilation and appraisal of the Cute One for one single instant on account of our earlier intervention; as we are convinced that your homosexual citizens have never had, until today, the shallowest of hopes of ever finding a place in your society and have an opportunity for happiness.

Because, contrarily to a thesis that is being popularized, including in repeal proposals presented to this house, the fact that the nation your delegation represents has a theocratic form of government does not, in any way, exempt it from the provisions contained in resolution #15 as long as it remains a member of the World Assembly.

The confusion feeding this most infamous thesis is the distinction between a religious rite, of an essentially spiritual nature, and its possible temporal effects (if any) which fall within the province of civil law and, consequently, under the object of resolution #15.

Frisbeeteria

04-09-2008, 04:56

7 minutes ago: NoIamyourfather resigned from the World Assembly.
Well, at least you had the courage of your convictions.

Next time, try to be a little less obnoxious with your thread titles. Thread merged with master topic.

Sasquatchewain

04-09-2008, 10:44

Satan is not God

Really? Oh Lucifer, my life has been a lie!

Urgench

04-09-2008, 11:02

I will not follow the international acts passed by your stupid liberal body.. No gay marriage for me. You suck. Die all of you. Satan is not God

We congratulate the delegacy of NoIamyourfarther on so eloquently expressing the soul of the argument against this resolution and on their government's excellent good sense in deciding on this course of action.

Unfortunately we are unable to comply with their government's "request" for our premature mortality, this should in no way be interpreted as a desire to insult their great nation merely as evidence of how dearly we love living.

We concede that we probably do indeed suck however and that as yet our nation's wisest scholars have not proven that Satan is god, try as they might.

yours in sincerety,

The Narnian Council

04-09-2008, 11:19

Ah Darkesia! Good to see you here...its not often one comes across an NS regional-player (especially one of prominence) in the WA forums as well. Different game of politics here. ;)

You have since posted two full-length posts. You clearly do have the time to address my post, but simply not the inclination.

Indeed, I have in fact been terribly occupied. Though I have returned, despite the fact this is already over, to keep my commitment - and I do apologize for my tardiness.

Furthermore, this resolution does not override anyone's beliefs. If you believe love to be a sin for which someone should be legally punished, as you undoubtedly do, you are unlikely to partake of the opportunity this resolution offers.

What opportunity? As Mendosia has elaborated, this is intended to put individuals before government. And as such, they can commit these acts that our government believes terribly unhealthy and wrong, in the absolute sense of the word. I'm not about to argue morals here, and I've put it bluntly, as because from step one, I don't believe Mendosia had the right interfere with the morality of nations to this extreme. Our leaders certainly won't be interested in partaking of the 'opportunity', but you can bet others will.

Firstly, you are in a fortunately tiny minority in considering homosexuality a controversial issue.

OOC: You must be joking. Do you follow politics at all? Take a look at the recent history in California (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090602076.html).

Secondly, law and order, trade, industry and pollution are very controversial issues.

Oh yes, heated debates come along with all of those issues. But unfortunately, religion (or "no" religion) is one of the most touchy topics that one could ever discuss, as everyone leads their own lives based around their worldview.

Homosexuality hinges directly upon one's morals (or "no" morals) - most especially since it can be argued that it doesn't hurt anyone. Unlike slavery. Or pollution. Or crime. One's opinion of homosexuality is actually determined by whether or not one believes that morality goes any further than simply "love thy neighbor as thyself". The mere acceptance of which is enough to condemn most criminal activity.

Although since I believe that this issue is far more sensitive than your ordinary trade/industry/pollution proposal, and it seems you don't - I doubt we're going to reach any more common ground on the issue.

You would indeed ordinarily have my congratulations, Mendosia, if your proposal were not so disappointingly inappropriate for our world government.

____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Urgench

04-09-2008, 11:46

Indeed, I have in fact been terribly occupied. Though I have returned, despite the fact this is already over, to keep my commitment - and I do apologize for my tardiness.

What opportunity? As Mendosia has elaborated, this is intended to put individuals before government. And as such, they can commit these acts that our government believes terribly unhealthy and wrong, in the absolute sense of the word. I'm not about to argue morals here, and I've put it bluntly, as because from step one, I don't believe Mendosia had the right interfere with morality to this extreme. Our leaders certainly won't be interested in partaking of the 'opportunity', but you can bet others will.

OOC: You must be joking. Do you follow politics at all? Take a look at the recent history in California.

Oh yes, heated debates come along with all of those issues. But unfortunately, religion (or "no" religion) is one of the most touchy topics that one could ever discuss, as everyone leads their own lives based around their worldview.

Homosexuality hinges directly upon one's morals (or "no" morals) - most especially since it can be argued that it doesn't hurt anyone. Unlike slavery. Or pollution. Or crime. One's opinion of homosexuality is actually determined by whether or not one believes that morality goes any further than simply "love thy neighbor as thyself". The mere acceptance of which is enough to condemn most criminal activity.

Although since I believe that this issue is far more sensitive than your ordinary trade/industry/pollution proposal, and it seems you don't - I doubt we're going to reach any more common ground on the issue.

You would indeed ordinarily have my congratulations, Mendosia, if your proposal were not so disappointingly inappropriate for our world government.

____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

The Council of Narnia has unmasked the true depths of their wickedness.

This resolution offers legal recognition to numerous minority groups, doubtless including christians and other religious groups where they are minorities in many nations. This legal recognition of a Human right to equality before the law extends to Ethnic and Racial groups who undoubtedly form very substantial minorities through out the nations of the World Assembly.

The protection of this resolution extends to persons who have been divorced, a state which has been an unfair disbarment from marriage in some nations.

This resolution offers equality in law to those who's governments have strict eugenics programmes which have prevented them from marrying on the basis that they are disabled or otherwise genetically impaired.

All these billions and more are beyond the compassion of the Council of Narnia. And all because the Narnian Council's hatred of homosexuals, whom they offensively describe as "unhealthy" and "immoral", is so overwhelming that it exstinguishes any and all other compassion or understanding they may have.

We repeat our objections that the above comments would be censured if they concerned Jews or Black people, and our observation that in not doing so this organisation permits one form of hate rhetoric and not others purely because homophobia is still inexplicably social acceptable. It should not be in our humble opinion.

We also repeat our objection that in terming homosexuality as "controversial" and thereby attempting to alienate homosexuals from their human rights the Council of Narnia is effectively making gay people wear a pink triangle on their shoulders so that the world will know they are sub-human and may be treated with as much disrespect as the Council of Narnia or any other depraved regime wishes.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Narnian Council

04-09-2008, 11:58

As always, Urgench, whatever floats your boat.

You should also be aware that Darkesia, being the Delegate of Gatesville, is actually stating her opinion against this resolution for NatSov violations. As she said:

I certainly hope every Gatesville citizen voted against that thing.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Urgench

04-09-2008, 12:00

As always, Urgench, whatever floats your boat.

You should also be aware that Darkesia, being the Delegate of Gatesville, is actually stating her opinion against this resolution for NatSov violations. As she said:

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Indeed, and we congratulated them on their logic did we not?

yours e.t.c. ,

The Narnian Council

04-09-2008, 12:06

Indeed, and we congratulated them on their logic did we not?

yours e.t.c. ,

You congratulated her for voting against and speaking of this proposal's NatSov violations? Odd. Especially since you've been a very adamant supporter of this resolution. Even if you do perform a political backflip to cover yourself and state that your words were purely sarcastic - it was very poorly executed...

___________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Urgench

04-09-2008, 12:14

You congratulated her for voting against and speaking of this proposal's NatSov violations? Odd. Especially since you've been a very adamant support of this resolution. Even if you do perform a political backflip to cover yourself and state that your words were purely sarcastic - it was very poorly executed...

___________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

It may suit the Council of Narnia to paint us as being the violators of national sovereignty, but in fact it is they who have proven in far more drastic terms that they hold it in contempt with their so called "fair trial " resolution.

We have never criticised those who genuinely had national sovereignty based objections to this resolution, we merely pointed out to them that the basic human right of equality before the law was superior to the right of nation's to marginalise their own citizens.

We held those nations in disregard who used spurious arguments about national sovereignty as a smoke screen to hide their prejudices, such as yours Ambassador.

Need we point out that the difference is profound.

yours e.t.c. ,

Quintessence of Dust

04-09-2008, 12:29

First, though I highly doubt you'll address it, as you've demonstrated yourself repeatedly determined to dodge the issue, you have still not responded to:
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'.
I'd really appreciate a yes or no. Should I drop my slavery proposal? Because we most assuredly are basing it on our own morality, and will force it on nations where people have different consciences regarding slavery.
What opportunity?
The opportunity to get married.
And as such, they can commit these acts that our government believes terribly unhealthy and wrong, in the absolute sense of the word. I'm not about to argue morals here, and I've put it bluntly, as because from step one, I don't believe Mendosia had the right interfere with the morality of nations to this extreme.
'[T]he morality of nations' is a nonsensical phrase. A nation doesn't have a morality, unless its citizens for some reason do all share the exact same philosophy, to the letter, (and as you freely admit, not the case for your nation), or are members of some hive mind species. Both are unlikely to the extreme. Sorry, to the extreme.

What you really mean to say is 'the morality of certain members of your governing elite', at which point the question becomes: why are they so particularly suited to interpose their morality on others where I, or the representative of Mendosia, or Joe PC, or whoever else, is not? Bear in mind that even if your nation is considered a 'democracy' - a laughably sick designation in the abstract sense - there is no, and can never be any, guarantee that all, or even particularly many, WA national governments are representative.

Furthermore, your government does not have to deviate from its view that homosexuality is immoral. You could even print it in big bold letters at the top of your constitution. Why you're quite so concerned about it, I can't really fathom - I guess if you don't understand basic biology and thus consider it 'unhealthy', a charge for which I strongly doubt you'll ever apologise, it's possibly explainable - but that's not my prerogative. Legalising marriage does not require that you acknowledge the 'morality' or otherwise of homosexuality.
Our leaders certainly won't be interested in partaking of the 'opportunity', but you can bet others will.Exactly! You're saying some Narnians would now get married, though the political elite wouldn't.
Oh yes, heated debates come along with all of those issues. But unfortunately, religion (or "no" religion) is one of the most touchy topics that one could ever discuss, as everyone leads their own lives based around their worldview.Religion can be a factor in all of the issues you named. Take environmentalism, for example:

If you believe that we are the stewards of the Earth, granted this world by God, and charged to look after it, that will lead to a very strong commitment to conservation, rooted in religious faith.

If you believe that the sole Earthly concern should be spiritual preparation for the afterlife, and that the material destruction of the Earth is actually rather inconsequential when one considers the bountiful garden of Heaven that awaits, that will lead to a very strong aversion to conservation, rooted in religious faith.

Now, if I wrote a proposal on toxic waste dumping at sea, even a lot of the more ardent sovereigntists would admit that it is a prized 'international issue' and that, whether or not they agreed with the proposal, the WA had the right to consider it. But whatever prescriptions the proposal contained would undoubtedly conflict with at least one of the above two worldviews.

At this point, it might be useful to refer to the great Quodite sociologist, Max Væver. (If you're not familiar with his work, I suggest some selections from the tome Society and Economy, or his famous and controversial essay, "Why Catholics are lazy bastards".) He held that all people have some form of Weltanschauung, worldview, value rationality, that they construct based on their religion, their community, their experiences.

Can you really think of any proposal, of any form, on any topic, that would end up not somehow contradicting someone's Weltanschauung? Unless you're claiming that only religious ones should be sacrosanct, which seems somewhat odd. There are Christian socialists, Christian Democrats, Christian capitalists. Christians have supported communism and fascism, and libertarianism and anarchism. Clearly, one's religion is not so all-consuming as to determine every aspect of one's Weltanschauung, in which case, why should that portion take such precedence?
Homosexuality hinges directly upon one's morals (or "no" morals) - most especially since it can be argued that it doesn't hurt anyone. Unlike slavery. Or pollution. Or crime. One's opinion of homosexuality is actually determined by whether or not one believes that morality goes any further than simply "love thy neighbor as thyself". The mere acceptance of which is enough to condemn most criminal activity.
There are religious arguments about slavery. Many anti-slavery campaigners were fervently religious. Many slavers were fervently religious.

There are religious arguments about pollution, as I've enunciated above. You could also tie such arguments to competing visions about social justice.

There are religious arguments about crime. Whether or not certain religious texts require, permit, condemn, or prohibit certain forms of punishment is a constant hotly contested issue. My guess would be the majority of questions a posek fields regards potentially criminal acts. And I have to point out, you are yourself arguing gay marriage should be a crime. So, perhaps 'crime' and 'religion' do have some relationship of discussion?
Although since I believe that this issue is far more sensitive than your ordinary trade/industry/pollution proposal, and it seems you don't - I doubt we're going to reach any more common ground on the issue.
Nonetheless, we're still going to have a discussion about, which is the only responsible course when considering policies we both agree to be so sweeping.
OOC: You must be joking. Do you follow politics at all?
Not US politics really, no. Fortunately, this game isn't contingent on that. But, if you're particularly concerned with it yourself, you might consider the religious Right's criticisms of the Warren Court as an example of religion affecting law and order and criminal justice issues.

Wierd Anarchists

04-09-2008, 12:36

I am very glad that a majority supported this proposal. I hope to see more resolutions which make an end to discrimination reaching the floor to be approved.
A sovereign state may have the right to discriminate, but I appreciate a WA which condemns discrimination. I think human rights are more important than the national customs. And if people who think otherwise are leaving the WA, it is indeed their free choice. Maybe they come back later or others will come in. Some really nice nations left the WA earlier because they wrongfully thought no real improvements came on human rights issues when the rights of the nomads didn't get a majority in the vote and many nations even said they were against nomads.

I thank the nation of Mendosia and Urgench for their commitment to the human rights.
Well done!

Regards

Urgench

04-09-2008, 12:47

New Sequoyah

04-09-2008, 16:47

The nation of New Sequoyah wishes to express our deep regret that the World Assembly allowed this resolution to pass. We will be working to repeal this measure, you can count on that.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
WA Delegate from New Sequoyah
Vice Chancellor of The Council of Narnia

Flibbleites

04-09-2008, 17:14

This blatent trampling of National Soverignty shall not go unavenged. The NSO (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx) shall rise again!

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Very Tiny Particles

04-09-2008, 17:29

I have a quick question, which may have been answered elsewhere, but as the discourse on a topic reaches infinity, the amount of time I can devote to reading all of it reaches zero (yes, there is a mathematician in that sentence).

I've been wading through a lot of the discussion about this topic, but I was wondering about the actual wording of the proposal - it seems to me that the major arguments center around whether or not the right to homosexual civil unions should fall under the terms of "human rights" or "moral imperative," but the proposal seems to limit itself in language to terms of civil contracts and inheritance/power of attorney issues. If this is the case, shouldn't opposition be mounted to this idea based on the right of sovereign nations to determine the content and applicability of their own contract law, and/or the recognition of extranational contracts? For instance, in the Disputed Territories, it is legal (although frowned upon) for consenting, rational parties to enter into a contract of indentured servitude (certain labor provisions regulate the terms of such contracts, but do not bar them altogether), but recent legislation makes illegal the transfer of such contracts without express consent from both parties involved (i.e., you may not sell your servitude contract to pay off a debt). It is also our determination that any such transferred contracts originating elsewhere are null and void upon entering the nation - it is our belief that the ability to make such a determination on the character of contract law is an irrevocable facet of our sovereign ability to make laws.

So, what it then boils down to is: does this measure intend to alter the way we are allowed to legislate contract law?

Bears Armed

04-09-2008, 18:36

Universal concepts may not always be universally applied or universally popular but this does not negate their imperative nature.If a concept is not "universally applied or universally popular" then how is it defined as 'universal'. Are you seriously asserting, as seems to be the case, that your own opinion on such matters should automatically be binding on everybody else?!?

As for the plight of non-human sapients we feel that if your nation cannot see that rights should be applied by this organisation to all the citizens of it's members then why should they be applied to talking foxes or armed bears?So because the government of my predominantly Ursine (and thus "non-human") nation considers one specific proposal for a WA on rights to have an effect on sovereignty disproportionate to its importance (and arguably to be against this organistion's core rules, if fully considered), you would deny the fair application of all other laws that this organisation might subsequently pass to ALL sapient beings who happen not to be human? Have you ever heard the term "Sense of proportion"?!?

The confusion feeding this most infamous thesis is the distinction between a religious rite, of an essentially spiritual nature, and its possible temporal effects (if any) which fall within the province of civil law and, consequently, under the object of resolution #15.the very relevant point that this resolution's supporters have ignored is that some religions' rules may not ALLOW nations that are run according to those rules to have separate codes of 'civil law' too, so that this resolution's passage will force any governments that follow such religions devoutly to choose between compromising their beliefs and leaving this organisation...

Mendosia

04-09-2008, 18:43

So, what it then boils down to is: does this measure intend to alter the way we are allowed to legislate contract law?

Ambassador,

It is not the intention of resolution #15 to have a general impact on contract law. The object of the resolution is delimited in article 1.

Although we cannot make a definitive statement about all legal systems in existence, it turns out that most nations having 'marriage' proper classify it (either explicitly or not) as a special and typified contract, subject to a series of particular procedures and predetermined effects. Amongst the most common of these are rules respecting the administration of the common estate and the acquisition of inheritance rights. In most, if not all, of these countries it is legally impossible to celebrate a contract with the same effects outside the regulations established for marriage, and thus not subject to the restrictions that are legally imposed for this special contract.

Many a nation attach other rights and duties to marriage contracts, but our delegation felt it should not go as far as to dictate what these should be, and thus effectively establishing a universal typification of marriage. Our approach was, therefore, to try to delimit what would be the most common characteristics of marriage contracts or, at least, those that have a more practical and palpable impact on persons' lives, and declare that all discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation was unlawful in said contracts.

In nations with no marriage laws whatsoever the resolution has little or no impact, for it is only required that two individuals may celebrate a contract concerning their common estate and mutual rights of inheritance, and that there be no restrictions based on gender or sexual orientation for entering into such contracts.

It has been clear to this delegation, however, that the contention around this resolution is not about the technicalities and the legal rights attached to special contracts. It is mostly, if not completely, a matter of social recognition and the right to use a label rather than anything else. The fact that this World Assembly has approved a resolution demanding equality in the access to marriage to everyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation is an unquestionable beacon of hope to all homosexuals who have been and continue to be discriminated against and sometimes persecuted in their own nations. This worldwide recognition of their right to equality is, in our view, much more important than the actual effects it might have on contract laws in general or marriage laws in particular. And if ever this resolution turns out to have a larger scope than which was envisioned by their drafters, we feel it is for the better, for we cannot see any reason why gender or sexual orientation should ever be grounds for discrimination in contract law.

You may retort, Ambassador, that if our goal was to make a global call to equality, we could have achieved the same with a different resolution that would urge all nations to stop discrimination. But it is our firm belief that such a move would be nothing but rhetoric and that something real had to put forward.

Our success is measured by the raging reactions that we have witnessed in these very Halls from Nations which would have not, we believe, otherwise objected to a general call for the end of discrimination. And although some Nations have produced impeccable arguments against this proposal, based on sovereignty concerns (with which we cannot, nonetheless, agree), most have hidden behind such arguments to hide a deep seated contempt for homosexuals. This was readily demonstrated by the radical difference of opinion some delegations had manifested in their position towards other resolutions that have arguably a much more pervasive impact on national sovereignty. The reason for this change of mind was, it was said, based on the fact that homosexuality was a controversial issue, as if controversy justified inaction and equally controversial issues were not part of the everyday business of this most noble assembly.

We are convinced, Ambassador, that History will judge those who oppose our cause as it has judged those who opposed the fight for equal rights to other minorities that we now take for granted, and which hardly any Nation, safe the most radically reactionary, has today the courage or rather the indecency of openly questioning, let alone oppose.

Urgench

04-09-2008, 18:57

If a concept is not "universally applied or universally popular" then how is it defined as 'universal'. Are you seriously asserting, as seems to be the case, that your own opinion on such matters should automatically be binding on everybody else?!?

So because the government of my predominantly Ursine (and thus "non-human") nation considers one specific proposal for a WA on rights to have an effect on sovereignty disproportionate to its importance (and arguably to be against this organistion's core rules, if fully considered), you would deny the fair application of all other laws that this organisation might subsequently pass to ALL sapient beings who happen not to be human? Have you ever heard the term "Sense of proportion"?!?

the very relevant point that this resolution's supporters have ignored is that some religions' rules may not ALLOW nations that are run according to those rules to have separate codes of 'civil law' too, so that this resolution's passage will force any governments that follow such religions devoutly to choose between compromising their beliefs and leaving this organisation...

The point we have tried to make to the honoured Ambassador is simple, many, many nations would and indeed have made the point that a resolution extending rights to Non-humans would be a law with an "effect on sovereignty disproportionate to its importance" and that to waste this organisation's time with such a statute has no "Sense of proportion".

Your insistance that one group i.e. Non-humans sapients has more claim on basic universal rights is an oxymoron, if you do not believe that everyone Human or not is deserving of these rights.

Therefore if your position is that minority human beings are not deserving of their rights then it follows that the minority of non-human sapients in this organisation is no more deserving.

If this organisation were to legally recognise non-human sapients (as we wish it would by the way) for the purposes of law making surely you would wish that the category of laws currently called "human rights" to apply to Non-humans? or would you acquiese in these rights only ever applying to Humans?

yours e.t.c. ,

Mendosia

04-09-2008, 19:22

the very relevant point that this resolution's supporters have ignored is that some religions' rules may not ALLOW nations that are run according to those rules to have separate codes of 'civil law' too, so that this resolution's passage will force any governments that follow such religions devoutly to choose between compromising their beliefs and leaving this organisation...

Ambassador,

It is a recognized rule of international law that resolutions passed by this Assembly enjoy supremacy over national law. And, unless your excellency is somehow questioning this point, we believe your argument is devoid of substance.

The people of Mendosia are fervent believers in representative democracy and, consequently, we have a democratically elected parliament. Our Constitution and all provisions therein were democratically drafted and approved and yet none of those provisions is exempt from the reach of international law. And if ever this body approves a resolution that we feel violates our democratic values we will surely contemplate resignation from this organization.

We fail to see why theocracies should be given any status of exemption from this, or why should God-given law deserve more respect from your excellency than democratically enacted legislation. Your excellency seems to suggest that the beliefs of the sort our citizens share are somehow more malleable and our people more tame than the fervently religious nations your excellency alluded to. Is it because religions tend to protest louder? Is it because their laws are considered dogma?

Would Mendosia be granted your support if our people all suddenly came to believe that our Constitution was in fact drafted by an unworldly spirit influencing our representatives and was, consequently, sacred and any attempt from this Assembly to pass legislation contradicting it was 'compromising our beliefs'?

Although we do not question this Assembly's duty to respect all nations, including Theocracies, we do not see why it should be at the mercy of any, particularly of nations which claim that they are not at liberty to change their laws. If we adopt the absurd position that we cannot 'infringe' on these nations views we risk being in the impossible situation of not being able to legislate on anything, given the unbounded scope and limitless rules dogmatic law can adopt and prescribe.

Urgench

04-09-2008, 19:32

Indeed the esteemed Ambassador for Mendosia puts the case perfectly.

We would also point out that as we have said before in this debate, even Theocracies have laws which deal specifically with the lives of their citizens as opposed to laws wich deal directly with their churches, since one cannot in reality make the laws which determine specifics for church apply to the individual in all cases or the opposite.

These laws which deal, theologically no doubt, only with the lives of individuals are non the less for all intents and purposes and no matter what they may be called, civil laws.

It is into this class of laws, divinely inspired or not, that this resolution will presumably fit.

yours e.t.c. ,

Snefaldia

04-09-2008, 23:17

As always, Urgench, whatever floats your boat.

You should also be aware that Darkesia, being the Delegate of Gatesville, is actually stating her opinion against this resolution for NatSov violations. As she said:

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

How else did you expect the Gatesvillieans to vote?

N.T.
etc.

Gobbannaen WA Mission

05-09-2008, 00:15

Oh yes, heated debates come along with all of those issues. But unfortunately, religion (or "no" religion) is one of the most touchy topics that one could ever discuss, as everyone leads their own lives based around their worldview.
That would be why the proposal carefully side-stepped making any demand of religious rites and focused instead on the secular issues. Unlike you.

Further, if you seriously think that there are no religions with strong moral opinions on ecology, trade and so on, frankly you're off with the fairies again. I doubt you'd be much interested in Strict Druidism, but I challenge you to read Genesis 1 and 2 and argue that Christians don't have an absolute duty to ecological stewardship.

Homosexuality hinges directly upon one's morals (or "no" morals) - most especially since it can be argued that it doesn't hurt anyone. Unlike slavery. Or pollution. Or crime. One's opinion of homosexuality is actually determined by whether or not one believes that morality goes any further than simply "love thy neighbor as thyself". The mere acceptance of which is enough to condemn most criminal activity.
Fortunately we don't need to go further. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is the moral axiom that demands that we do not allow prejudice to go unchallenged, that we work against discrimination in all forms, for the sake of the perpetrator as well as the victim if you're really going for it.

This resolution takes the subject of marriage, and says "There will be no prejudice here."

I'm really not getting where you think you have a moral leg to stand on.

Very Tiny Particles

05-09-2008, 00:24

In nations with no marriage laws whatsoever the resolution has little or no impact, for it is only required that two individuals may celebrate a contract concerning their common estate and mutual rights of inheritance, and that there be no restrictions based on gender or sexual orientation for entering into such contracts.

...

We are convinced, Ambassador, that History will judge those who oppose our cause as it has judged those who opposed the fight for equal rights to other minorities that we now take for granted, and which hardly any Nation, safe the most radically reactionary, has today the courage or rather the indecency of openly questioning, let alone oppose.

The Mendosian delegation had framed its explanation much to the satisfaction of the Disputed Territories' Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Though we are a small nation, and our government recently elected, we are a people proud of our legal system and our ability to elect leaders whose judgment not only reflects the values of electorate, but maintains a focus on upholding the sovereignty of our great nation. Thus, it was with trepidation that our foreign office received word of your resolution and its possible impact on our legislative process. Your reply has convinced us, though, that the resolution should have little impact on our ability to legislate civil contracts, and as such, we are fully prepared to support its inception, and we applaud the spirit of humanity that engendered it.

Krioval Reforged

05-09-2008, 07:20

Mendosia

05-09-2008, 13:36

Congratulations are due to the author. It is a fine day in this Assembly when a resolution such as this one can come to pass. Also, congratulations are due to those who were able to keep their commentary civil - on both sides of the debate.

Ambassador, we humbly accept your words of encouragement and we would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and express our gratitude towards all the other representatives who have similarly commended our initiative.

A special word to the delegation of Urgench which has championed this cause as its own and therefore equally shares our victory.

But enacting this historic resolution would not have been possible without the votes of thousands and thousands of Nations which have thus expressed their progressive values and their anti-discrimination stance. We must recall that when this resolution was first proposed many looked at it with sympathy but declared it had absolutely no chance to pass.

Ever since this resolution was passed, however, repeal proposals have not stopped pouring into the World Assembly docket. As I write these words, 10 out of 27 proposals with the Delegates Committee are repeal proposals against the Freedom of Marriage Act. One is illegal, another states a series of offensive and untrue statements, yet another offers no argument whatsoever, and the remaining recapitulate some of the arguments that were most conspicuously defeated in this discussion at the Forum. I am somewhat disappointed because better arguments than those used in these repeal proposals were presented here.

Urgench

05-09-2008, 16:05

The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the honoured Ambassador for their words.

What little we have contributed cannot qualify us for a victory which is rightfully Mendosia's.

yours e.t.c. ,

Omigodtheykilledkenny

05-09-2008, 16:56

Besides, it is pretty clear to our delegation that indefinitely suspending marriages as way to circumvent resolution #15 violates this resolution for it deprives couples from the protections they are entitled to.Nope. Your resolution only applies to civil contracts - B&N just outlawed them. End of story.

Additionally, the Nation you praised errs when believing that religious rites can continue to be performed with any sort of legal effects without violating the Freedom of Marriage Act, for it protects the rites but not any temporal effects they might have.Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), who is to say the B&N government is going to confer any legal status upon religiously performed marriages?

Urgench

05-09-2008, 17:07

Nope. Your resolution only applies to civil contracts - B&N just outlawed them. End of story.

Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), who is to say the B&N government is going to confer any legal status upon religiously performed marriages?

Presumably that doesn't really constitute an attempt to circumvent this resolution honoured Ambassador since it is non-discriminatory. If Brutland and Norden were to recognise any form of legal status between to persons on the model of a marriage, religious or otherwise it would then have to do so to all persons who would wish to avail of such a status without discrimination.

Brutland and Nordens's gross over reactions have only ended with them undoing many of their peoples legal rights, is it really worth such chaos and panic for the sake of allowing gay people to have their unions recognised across the w.a. ?

yours e.t.c. ,

Mendosia

05-09-2008, 17:20

Nope. Your resolution only applies to civil contracts - B&N just outlawed them. End of story.

Ambassador, we have argued at length and many others have concurred and even opposed the resolution because of the fact it actually REQUIRES that every Nation guarantees minimal protection to unions of two persons, either by a state-sponsored contract or by allowing the celebration of private contracts. Whereas the Nation you allude to can in fact ban marriages as they used to be known, it must, however, provide an alternative legal solution to guarantee the said minimal protection.

Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), who is to say the B&N government is going to confer any legal status upon religiously performed marriages?

The news feed the Nation released, Ambassador, does refer to the effects of religious ceremonies which are still protected by several 'laws and statutes', if we recall correctly. And if the Ambassador disputes the thesis that the temporal effects of religious ceremonies are beyond the reach of the resolution then our delegation would very much like to hear an argument stating your excellency's case. Because unless we are in the presence of a very unorthodox notion of civil law, or of religious rite for that matter, we do not see how one can justify your claim.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

05-09-2008, 18:10

Ambassador, we have argued at length and many others have concurred and even opposed the resolution because of the fact it actually REQUIRES that every Nation guarantees minimal protection to unions of two persons, either by a state-sponsored contract or by allowing the celebration of private contracts.It doesn't say that. It only applies to "civil contracts," or did you read your own resolution? "Allowing" "private contracts" (whatever those are) does not automatically extend the mandate of your bill. If you wanted these protections to apply to privately ordained unions, you really should have specified as such in the text, because member nations should not be held to implement mere implications of laws. We're only required to uphold the letter of the law here, not the spirit.

The news feed the Nation released, Ambassador, does refer to the effects of religious ceremonies which are still protected by several 'laws and statutes', if we recall correctly.Regulated, not protected. There's quite a difference.

Urgench

05-09-2008, 18:22

Omigodtheykilledkenny

05-09-2008, 18:34

Respected Ambassador, Article 2's clauses a), b) , and C) rather comprehensively cover all contracts of union, private or state instituted, don't you think?No, because Article 1 limits the resolution's scope to civil contracts. Believe it or not I learned to read.

Urgench

05-09-2008, 18:37

No, because Article 1 limits the resolution's scope to civil contracts. Believe it or not I learned to read.

Goodness there's no need to be snippy respected and esteemed Ambassador.:p

In this case one can take it that the resolution has redefined the concept of a civil union to include the definitions created by it in the rights and status it creates in later articles and clauses, no? Which would include it's now being any contract of union of this kind, we think.

yours sincerely,

Mendosia

05-09-2008, 18:42

It doesn't say that. It only applies to "civil contracts," or did you read your own resolution? "Allowing" "private contracts" (whatever those are) does not automatically extend the mandate of your bill. If you wanted these protections to apply to privately ordained unions, you really should have specified as such in the text, because member nations should not be held to implement mere implications of laws. We're only required to uphold the letter of the law here, not the spirit.

Ambassador,

We are not sure whether seniority grants your excellency the right to lecture us on either the mandate of this assembly or even the meaning of the laws we write. If it does, it should not, for even the most positivist amongst us understands that there is always room for interpretation in a legal text, regardless of whether one insists that there is a literal interpretation, that is nothing but pure fantasy and self-delusion. If we have to compensate for the lack of a Court with greater clarity of language so be it, but do not come here to tell us of literal interpretations and certainly do not come here to berate us as well as all the Nations that have approved the Freedom of Marriage Act.

Moreover, if there are necessary consequences to something that it positively stated in a legal text it would be absurd and self-contradictory to sustain the thesis that these are not applicable.

In this case, however, we do not think this is a matter of interpretation or lack of clarity, but rather of your excellency's understanding of the meaning of 'civil contract'.

The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that the term 'civil' means:

civil [ˈsɪvɪl], a. Also 4-7 with usual interchange of u and v, i and y, l and ll, le.

Etymology: a. Fr. civil ad. L. cīvīl-is of or pertaining to citizens (f. cīvis citizen), their private rights, etc., hence relating to the body of citizens or commonwealth, political, public; also, pertaining to the citizen as distinct from the soldier; and citizen-like, polite, courteous, urbane. The sense-development, being already effected in L., has received only slight extension in Fr. and Eng.

A adj. I 1 Of or belonging to citizens; consisting of citizens, or men dwelling together in a community, as in civil society, civil life; also, of the nature of a citizen, as civil man, civil creature. The literal sense ‘of citizens’ is rare (quot. 1848).

So we would say that a 'civil contract' is nothing but a contract with civil effects, as opposed to military or ecclesiastical effects for that matter. So this 'civil contract' could take the form of a typified contract enshrined in civil law, or simply an atypical contract celebrated between two people enjoying their civil capacity -- what I called a private contract before to make my point, in any case a contract.

The Freedom of Marriage Act provides the following:

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.

Now, if the resolution defines its object as being civil contracts and further requires that the minimum conditions must exist to protect the union of two people, and that said protection must include provisions regulation the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights, how would you suggest that a Nation should implement these protections, if not using contracts or something with a totally equivalent effect?

And if your excellency retorts saying that protecting something can amount to doing nothing about it, than I would say that indeed your delegation has a very liberal notion of 'literal interpretation'.

Gobbannaen WA Mission

05-09-2008, 19:55

Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), who is to say the B&N government is going to confer any legal status upon religiously performed marriages?

If B&N do confer any legal status on religiously performed marriage (whether in tax law, inheritance law, consent law or whatever), then it becomes a civil contract as well as a religious one, and the resolution applies. If it doesn't, that's fine, but I think the B&N government may find this a less than popular thing when people start tripping over it.

Tzorsland

05-09-2008, 21:15

If B&N do confer any legal status on religiously performed marriage (whether in tax law, inheritance law, consent law or whatever), then it becomes a civil contract as well as a religious one, and the resolution applies. If it doesn't, that's fine, but I think the B&N government may find this a less than popular thing when people start tripping over it.

Absolutely not! Absolutely yes! Absolutely not! In that order. The resolution as it was written is quite specific on the scope of the contracts; common property and inheritance. That's it! It has nothing whatever to do with tax law, or consent law in any way shape or form. If you want to tax every left handed married male of hetrosexual orienation and give a tax break to every right handed unmarried female of homosexual ortientation there is nothing in this resolution that prohibits you from doing so. Nor is hospital visitation rights covered in this resolution.

As for "Oxford" I prefer "Merrian-Webster"

5 a : based on or skilled in the Roman civil law <a civil doctor -- Shakespeare> b : relating to private rights and to legal proceedings in connection with them : relating to rights and remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings -- distinguished from criminal and political <a civil liability> <civil jurisdiction> <a civil suit> <a civil remedy> -- see CIVIL LAW c : as defined by law : having to do with legal rights or status <civil disabilities> -- compare NATURAL 5; see CIVIL DEATH

A civil contract is a contract between two or more private parties but the resolution only concerns the contract in regards "effects on the common estate and inheritance rights." If a religious contract does not involve these rights this resolution doesn't apply,. PERIOD.

It is certanly possible to have a society in which neither of these are so contracted in a specific contract. So called "married couples" must still keep seperate accounts and inheritance is based on individual legal documents called "wills." In fact you can still just forget about inheritance all together.

Not that Tzorsland would ever do such a thing. But it is still possible.

Mendosia

05-09-2008, 22:35

A civil contract is a contract between two or more private parties but the resolution only concerns the contract in regards "effects on the common estate and inheritance rights." If a religious contract does not involve these rights this resolution doesn't apply,. PERIOD.

Precisely, the resolution concerns civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and it has a thing or two to say about the administration of the common estate and inheritance rights. But it is not just about those effects. It is primarily about any contract regulating the union of two persons.

(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.

If we only read this paragraph there is nothing to say that the effects of such contracts on the common estate and inheritance rights are not none whatsoever. Notice that it says "and its effects", rather than "limited to its effects".

If there were any doubts it suffices to read article 2 (a) and article 3 (b) e (c) to understand these concern unions of two persons rather than the effects on common estate and inheritance rights of such unions.

The resolution is therefore clear that the State can attach more rights to these contracts. And it also says that any contracts with 'similar goals', i.e., regulating the union of two persons, are entirely covered by the non-discrimination clause.

It is certanly possible to have a society in which neither of these are so contracted in a specific contract. So called "married couples" must still keep seperate accounts and inheritance is based on individual legal documents called "wills." In fact you can still just forget about inheritance all together.

If in such a society people have the legal possibility to freely administrate their estate (either common or separate) and make wills, then any two persons can indeed simulate, although not perfectly, the effects of the prototypical marriage contract, but I'm not entirely convinced this amounts to protecting the union of two persons.

The resolution as it was written is quite specific on the scope of the contracts; common property and inheritance.

That's it! It has nothing whatever to do with tax law, or consent law in any way shape or form. If you want to tax every left handed married male of hetrosexual orienation and give a tax break to every right handed unmarried female of homosexual ortientation there is nothing in this resolution that prohibits you from doing so. Nor is hospital visitation rights covered in this resolution.

I have disputed this above already, and argued that the non-discrimination clause extends to any rights any State decides to give any union of two persons, regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

Gobbannaen WA Mission

06-09-2008, 04:02

Absolutely not! Absolutely yes! Absolutely not! In that order. The resolution as it was written is quite specific on the scope of the contracts; common property and inheritance. That's it!
Nope. The contracts must include common property and inheritance, but may include anything else the government chooses. The specification is "shall include but are not limited to," not "only applies to."

It has nothing whatever to do with tax law, or consent law in any way shape or form.
Unless the government makes it so.

If you want to tax every left handed married male of hetrosexual orienation and give a tax break to every right handed unmarried female of homosexual ortientation there is nothing in this resolution that prohibits you from doing so.
Except for the fact that you've just recognised "married" as a status in law that a person can have, and gave explicit protections to a certain subclass of married people. If you don't then define what you mean by "married", your law is going to be pretty ineffectual. And once you've done that, you've activated the resolution.

Nor is hospital visitation rights covered in this resolution.
Unless a government chooses to make hospital visitation rights something that marital status has protections over. If it does, those rights have to be non-discriminatory.

It is certanly possible to have a society in which neither of these [common estate and inheritance rights] are so contracted in a specific contract. So called "married couples" must still keep seperate accounts and inheritance is based on individual legal documents called "wills." In fact you can still just forget about inheritance all together.
Absolutely. You can forget about inheritance all together. If you don't, however, you are giving legal recognition to marital status, and the resolution applies.

Nations like Brutland & Norden can stop civil marriage if they're really that upset with the idea of giving gays the same rights as anyone else. To do that, though, they have to not recognise marriage at all in any civil way. In my not so humble opinion, that causes more problems than it "solves", and I can't see it as anything but cutting their nose off to spite their faces.

Brutland and Norden

06-09-2008, 04:46

taken from the magazine Vista
Delayed
NORDVILLE – Bruno Piccarello and Marianna Stanziola had been waiting excitedly waiting for September 07, 2008. It is not just because it was Union Day, the national holiday commemorating the union of Brutland and Norden, it is also because they would be celebrating another union… their marriage.

Make that ‘should have been celebrating’. With Brutland and Norden’s suspension of the performance all civil marriages, Bruno and Marianna are wondering when will their most awaited day come.

“We had prepared everything,” Marianna told me as she showed me her wedding gown. “Invitations, reception, party, honeymoon, and the works. But apparently, it’s not just going to happen.”

The pair had already arranged for a church wedding too. “We plan to have a civil marriage this Union Day, and then the church wedding on November, on her birthday,” Bruno said. “So we’ll just wait until November to get married. As for the preparations we had for this September, it’s hard and costly to cancel them, so I think we’ll just hold those parties and go on vacation.”

“We’ll just think of something to celebrate,” Marianna said with a wry smile, “like Union Day.”

No marriages in Brutland and Norden
Under the newly-passed law, issuance of licenses/contracts for civil marriages is suspended indefinitely. Only recognized religions, none of which allow same-sex marriage, can perform marriages now. However, those marriages will not be covered by Brutland and Norden’s also-suspended laws governing civil marriages, it will be covered by laws governing churches and religions. The government had entirely distanced itself from the marriage business.

This came after the World Assembly passed a resolution, the “Freedom of Marriage Act” (FoMA), which intends to legalize same-sex marriages. Currently, six jurisdictions have same-sex marriage, while the entire province of Brutland and 49 other non-Brutish grants do not recognize these marriages. Parliament suspended the performance of marriages so the current Nord-Brutlandese law will not violate the World Assembly Resolution.

Paradoxical Effect
But paradoxically, FoMA achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to achieve. With Parliament’s action, not only heterosexual marriages were outlawed, homosexual marriages were also outlawed in jurisdictions that allow them.

Like Bruno and Marianna, Benito Cogliano and Baldassare Gomicola also had scheduled their civil marriage for Union Day. “The person at the Mayor’s Office said that we were lucky to have found a slot for Union Day,” related Benito. “Union Day is a popular day to get hitched. And we had planned for it from day one.”

Benito and Baldassare had been living together for five years already, and it is only now that they decided to make the move from their home city of Borgòrinna di Dennillia to the Nordener capital in order to get married.

“It was a tough decision,” said Baldassare, “but it had to be done. We resigned from our work, lived far from our families, and so on. Nordville was the best choice to make a new life. Big city, lots of jobs, with a vibrant nightlife and gay scene.”

Only six Nord-Brutlandese jurisdictions offer same-sex marriages: the grants of Asernia, Desantorica, and Fiano, and the cities of Colfetta, Nordville, and Spadavecchia. Of the six, Nordville was deemed to be the easiest jurisdiction to get a civil marriage. Still, I asked them about the greatest legal or bureaucratic obstacle they encountered in their quest to get married.

“Proof of residence. It is so damn easy to get a civil marriage license here that probably the hardest thing to comply with in Nordville is the proof of residence. You have to have had resided in Nordville for at least six months. Our six months as finished on September 1. Some people just rent out flats and present receipts from their landlord as proof of residence. Then they live somewhere out there… but their marriage is not recognized as valid in the places where they are,” Benito said. “On the other hand, we intend to live in this city. Because here in Nordville, we are free, and we are respected as human.”

“We had arranged for everything, readied everything… we even scheduled the wedding half a year before! Only the proof of residence was lacking,” continued Baldassare, “So as soon as we had completed our six months here and had gotten our proof of residence, we would have married. But now, that won’t just happen. Marriages are performed only by churches now, and none of them have marriages for gays like us.”

“Damn those homophobes,” Benito said rather dourly. “But I also dislike those idiots who tried to force the issue down Brutland and Norden’s throat. Now not only we cannot marry, others who have nothing to do with the issue also cannot marry.”

“But it is after all the Parliament is very keen on preventing gays to marry,” I reminded them. “They could have just complied instead of getting on with this suspension of marriages.”

“You have a point right there, but let’s look at it this way,” Benito told me, “you should not force the issue on people. The key there is to win over hearts and minds, convince the people that it is right and just, and eventually they will accept same-sex marriage. It is a slow process, but it is the sure process. Slow but sure… look at Brutland and Norden, it is already making progress. Nordville now has same-sex marriages. Fiano also now has same-sex marriages. Desantorica and Colfetta too. Eventually all will get to this point… But this resolution or something forced the issue on the country, galvanized the people against same-sex marriage… it will be hard to win them over because they feel that they are being dictated to. Trust me, Parliament will find a way to circumvent the resolution and our objectives will be harder to attain. This method they had done is the fast, rash, and counterproductive method.”

“And besides,” Baldassare added, “even if Parliament acquiesced and legalized same-sex marriages, the attitude of the people is still the same – strongly against. Yes we can marry, but what would we face out there? I agree with Benito – we must win them over first. That way they would have no opposition to and would accept same-sex marriage.”
…

Urgench

06-09-2008, 14:04

Whilst the above quoted article may certainly be of interest to professionals in the field of sociology who's interest extends to the effects of mass hysteria it is distinctly uninstructive as to the nature of the legal ramifications of the Freedom of Marriage statute.

The government of Brutland and Norden seems to be under the mistaken impression that this resolution's power only extends to the actual celebration of personal unions, and not to the grant of legal status which governments may make of such unions. It also seems to imagine that it can continue to recognise the status of those of it's citizens who are already married without offering this recognition to those of their citizens who now wish to avail of the new dispensation.

In effect Brutland and Norden has forced itself into devorcing all of its currently married citizens because it cannot continue to recognise their legal status without recognising the legal status of everyone who might wish to avail of such recognition. Simply it cannot say " we will not recognise gay marriage therefore we will stop recognising future marriages" without having to undo all marriages it currently recognises.

It is in our opinion specious to blame the world assembly or this resolution for this absurd situation. The government of Brutland and Norden has a choice after all, it can recognise personal unions under the provisions of this resolution ( that is without discriminating against gay people ) or it can divest millions of it's citizens of their legal status. If the government of Brutland and Norden chooses the latter its citizens have only their government to blame for their anguish, unless of course they are happy to be devorced simply so that others may not be married.

yours e.t.c. ,

Sasquatchewain

06-09-2008, 15:16

Urgench

06-09-2008, 15:42

Well, actually, that would only happen if Resolution 15 is presented as an ex post facto law.

Which is usually seen as a serious breach in the Rule of Law.

Resolution 15 does not instate any ex post facto articles and therefore does not require that, should a nation decide to repeal all future marriages, it also must repeal all previous marriages.

However, the People of Sasquatchewain are equally at awe at what we see as the nation of Brutland and Norden's stubborn and rash decision.

The resolution need not be seen as ex post facto at all since the recognition of legal status of currently married persons in Brutland and Norden is an ongoing thing in theory and as such cannot be continued under this resolution unless this resolution is applied to this recognition.

yours e.t.c. ,

Sasquatchewain

06-09-2008, 16:44

However, much like a prison sentence, the marriage was officiated while still under the law. Even with a change in legislature, unless the law is passed in the form of an amnesty law, it need not affect those already affected by its predecessor (ie. unless a law legalizing murder is passed as an amnesty law, prisoners in for murder will remain behind bars).

The FoMA's A1.a is stated as follows:
"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."
While it does not define its non-ex post facto stance, it also does not present itself as retroactive. Due to the historical disuse and global dislike of ex post facto laws, it can be easily interpreted as not being retroactive.

Had the article instead been stated as "This resolution applies to any and all civil contracts...", the argument for its retroactivity would be much strengthened, but that is unfortunately not the case.

Urgench

06-09-2008, 17:06

Indeed by quoting this passage you prove our point, since the effects on common estate and inheritance are ongoing concerns and a part of the remit of the bill. In any case the bill specifically does not effect the recognition of the officiation or officiation in any way. The resolution effects government recognition of the legal status acheived and maintained in the future by two persons on their having been joined in a personal union.

We are not making an argument about retroactivity we are making an argument about recognition of ongoing legal status

yours e.t.c. ,

Sasquatchewain

06-09-2008, 19:37

Urgench

06-09-2008, 22:09

A legal status officiated at a certain date, a date when marriages were allowed.

Once again, as in a prison, if a law is passed and a criminal's crime is no longer considered a crime, he will still remain in prison and do his time. His legal status is that of "convicted criminal," even after his conviction would no longer be valid if tried in the present time.

So is a married person still legally considered "married" even if marriages are declared abolished. In a way, one could say the law abolishing marriage actually only abolishes the signing of marital contracts. Any signing done before the law was passed is secure.

Respected Ambassador that is a false analogy. Criminal status is confered on a one time basis by a court and those upon whom it is confered may in most cases expect to one day divest themselves of it as soon as their debt to society is discharged. The status of a married person is expected to last as long as the marriage lasts, the individuals enjoying this status choose to do so for a number of reasons and the state does so for its own. This legal status has lasting and in many cases substantial legal rammifications for those who's governments wish to bestowe this upon them.

We do not understand Brutland and Norden to have abolished all marriages or the recognition of marriages engaged upon before this resolution, they have only disavowed government recognition of contraction of future acts of personal union.

Abolish acts of personal union for all by all means, but one must do so by abolishing legal recognition of personal unions of all kinds both putative and current.

Must we repeat that this resolution does not concern itself with when, where or how contracts of personal union are celebrated but with whether or not member nation's governments legally recognise them.

We will be calling for the expulsion of Brutland and Norden from the World Assembly should they not bring their national law in to line with the requirements of this resolution at the soonest possible juncture.

yours e.t.c. ,

Gobbannaen WA Mission

07-09-2008, 00:52

So is a married person still legally considered "married" even if marriages are declared abolished. In a way, one could say the law abolishing marriage actually only abolishes the signing of marital contracts. Any signing done before the law was passed is secure.

True. Any legal distinction made on the basis of an existing marital contract, however, invokes the resolution. B&N only get to ignore the resolution if no law in the land makes any use of marital status. If any do, that pre-existing marital status is an ongoing civil status. Why is this so hard to understand?

Brutland and Norden

07-09-2008, 09:40

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/5535/unnonedw1.png

Parliament mulls marriage bills
September 07, 2008
by Pierro Stellanello
KINGSVILLE - After the spectacular suspension of civil marriages in Brutland and Norden, the Parliament is getting busy trying to work on Nord-Brutlandese laws in order to comply with or circumvent the newly-passed and much-hated World Assembly resolution "Freedom of Marriage Act" (FoMA).

Several bills were on the floor of the General Court, all of which had been reviewed and approved by the Brutland and Norden section of the highly-secretive World Assembly Compliance Commission. Parliament is expected to approve or reject all of the bills within a month.

Declassification
The first bill to reach the floor was one authored by conservative MP Emilia Libiriana [PP: Arcadia, Brutland]. Her bill, CGP. 29-069, would declassify homosexuals as persons. "Obviously, declassifying homosexuals as persons is the easiest way out. The resolution applies to persons, right? Not to bears or broccoli, or anything the nation does not recognize as a 'person'. They say we think homosexuals are not human? Then we'll give them what they want!"

"It is disturbing that the simple expedient of not recognizing homosexuals as "persons" can circumvent the resolution," commented Social Democratic leader and MP Ferrina Ilario [PDS: Vilònorda Esta–Universitade, Norden], a known advocate of gay rights. "I think that FoMA is a highly flawed resolution."
....

Legalization of Civil Unions
Another obvious solution was to comply with the resolution and legalize civil unions. MP Serratello introduced a bill, CGP 29-070, which will legalize civil unions, which can grants to both different-sex and same-sex pairs. All marriages performed by the government will be termed as "civil unions", leaving the term "marriage" to be used by churches.
...

Resigning from the World Assembly
Resignation from the World Assembly was another viable option. A resolution, CGR 29-102, authored by MP Isaac Cardarella [PP: Viledenno Sordosta - Mendicino, Norden] calls on the government to withdraw and resign from the World Assembly. "Withdrawal from the World Assembly makes Brutland and Norden exempt from enforcing its outrageous resolutions... not just this one."
...

Pre-Nuptial Agreements
Another pending bill, CGP 29-073, would strengthen pre-nuptial agreements and would make these contracts highly encouraged. While it may seem to violate FoMA at first sight, closer examination of the proposal would say otherwise.
...

New Status Quo
Some argued that the current suspension is enough. "Actually, we don't need to pass anything, except the suspension," opined Justice Minister Fiambretti. "We have enough laws to cover everything."

Fiambretti explains that with the suspension of the performance of civil marriages and laws governing such, the government had entirely distanced itself from the marriage business. The vacuum created by the withdrawal of the state from the marriage business will be taken over by the churches. In short, the churches will be the ones solemnizing, implementing, and governing religious marriages.
...
read the full article at http://en.lunnone.co.nem/09072008/novo/9j617ddx5.htm (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13991034#post13991034)

Mendosia

07-09-2008, 11:34

read the full article at http://en.lunnone.co.nem/09072008/novo/9j617ddx5.htm (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13991034#post13991034)

OOC: the article is really very amusing I must say, and thorough.

IC:
Ambassador,

Our delegation must protest and action needs be taken immediately. The media informs us that several bills have reached the parliament of Brutland and Norden, most of them justified by nothing but flawed legal argument, to say the least.

Although legalizing civil unions or resigning the WA are viable and perfectly legal options, all the others are an affront to this body. The definitions that Brutland and Norden decides to implement by decree are immaterial. This Assembly needs not define ad nauseam all the terms it uses. Lexicographers have done it in our behalf and changing the meaning of words by fiat does not change what this Assembly meant by its resolution.

Maintaining the status quo is illegal, as many have argued before. Additionally, we do not see how pre-nuptial agreements could circumvent the resolution. These are nothing but additional effects of a contract regulating the union of two persons, with an optional nature, and which fall perfectly under the protection of the non-discrimination clauses.

Urgench

07-09-2008, 13:06

OOC: the article is really very amusing I must say, and thorough.

IC:
Ambassador,

Our delegation must protest and action needs be taken immediately. The media informs us that several bills have reached the parliament of Brutland and Norden, most of them justified by nothing but flawed legal argument, to say the least.

Although legalizing civil unions or resigning the WA are viable and perfectly legal options, all the others are an affront to this body. The definitions that Brutland and Norden decides to implement by decree are immaterial. This Assembly needs not define ad nauseam all the terms it uses. Lexicographers have done it in our behalf and changing the meaning of words by fiat does not change what this Assembly meant by its resolution.

Maintaining the status quo is illegal, as many have argued before. Additionally, we do not see how pre-nuptial agreements could circumvent the resolution. These are nothing but additional effects of a contract regulating the union of two persons, with an optional nature, and which fall perfectly under the protection of the non-discrimination clauses.

Indeed we are in complete concurrance with esteemed and respected Ambassador for Mendosia. The government of Brutland and Norden seems to be thrashing around in desperation for a legal circumvention to this resolution which its legal community does not seem ingenious enough or simply able to provide.

The statute was conceived with exactly this kind of contingency in mind, which is why the very good foresight of its authors saw to encompassing the entire field of personal unions in law and their recognition by government. Changing the law regarding pre-nuptual agreements will therefore be of no avail to the government of Brutland and Norden.

Of course the government of Brutland and Norden could assuage its sweaty desire to discriminate against gay people at any cost by depriving its homosexuals of their status as "persons" if it so chooses. This act would mark Brutland and Norden out as a nation in the first rank of those which are morally bankrupt and beyond the description of civilised, forever earning it the approbrium not to say contempt of the international community and forever earning it the enmity of those nations who's actions are defined by more than the meaness and paucity of reason of a vicious savage.

Brutland and Norden's government is currently and flagrantly in contravention of the resolution on freedom of marriage and therefore the government of the Emperor of Urgench is formally requesting that the nation of Brutland and Norden be expelled from the World Assembly, untill such time as they can bring themselves to respect its laws.

Further the government of the Emperor of Urgench is offering unconditional assylum to all Brutland and Norden's people who because of their governments obscene prejudice are currently being persecuted because of their sexuality. At the same time we are severing all diplomatic links formal and informal with Brutland and Norden and will expell any of its citizens found inside our borders who have not chosen to take advantage of our asylum laws in respect of their sexuality.

yours e.t.c. ,

Brutland and Norden

07-09-2008, 13:18

OOC: the article is really very amusing I must say, and thorough.
OOC: Thank you. *bows* :D

IC:
--snip--
--snip--
Go on and howl all you want.

M.R.S.

Urgench

07-09-2008, 13:25

OOC: Thank you. *bows* :D

IC:

Go on and howl all you want.

M.R.S.

The Ambassador for Brutland and Norden shows their ignorance of our custom of never speaking above a whisper thus we are unable and frankly unwilling to comply with their request.

Let it be known that we will not cease to call for their nations expulsion from this organisation and that untill they show this organisation and their own people the requisite respect we will view them as a paraiah state, rogue and beyond the law. They should know that in accordance with our law, 12.8 billion darangs in private assets held in the Urgenchi banking system by foreign nationals with Brutland and Norden citizenship is being frozen with a view to using these assets to fund the settlement of this nation's fleeing millions in to our society.

They should seek no rest from us in this matter unless and untill they decide to act in accordance with the law and with common decency.

yours e.t.c. ,

Brutland and Norden

07-09-2008, 13:55

OOC: My last post in this thread. Goin' to be busy within the next few days... :( ('sides, let's have this thread die and sink to the bottom of the pit. It's getting boring already. :p)

IC:
http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/5535/unnonedw1.png

Protests mar Union Day
September 08, 2008
by Giannina Biancaniello
KINGSVILLE - Protests erupted across many Nord-Brutlandese cities yesterday, marring one of the most awaited days in the Nord-Brutlandese civil calendar, Union Day. Every September 7, the country celebrates the birth of their nation through the union of the Kingdom of Brutland and the Queendom of Norden.

Many of the protests were against the World Assembly resolution "Freedom of Marriage Act" (FoMA), though some were held against Parliament's suspension of marriages and a few were in support of gay rights. Pierferrando Cartini, Brutland and Norden's Police Chief, estimated that across the country, 400,000,000 turned out against FoMA, 6,000,000 turned out against the suspension, and 50,000 turned out in support of gay rights.
...

Polls
The overwhelming number of anti-FoMA marchers may not be just due to the organization of the protests, but also to the sentiments of the Nord-Brutlandese themselves. According to the newly-released TRNM/L'Unnone/VosePopola poll, 89% of Nord-Brutlandese oppose same-sex marriage, with 77% "strongly opposed" to it. Of those opposed, 54% said that Brutland and Norden should get out of the World Assembly, and 61% said that the suspension of marriages was "necessary".

Relations with Urgench
According to sources in the World Assembly, the nation of Urgench also severed all diplomatic links with Brutland and Norden, expelled Nord-Brutlandese citizens, and froze its assets, primarily because of Brutland and Norden's stand against FoMA. When asked about the issue, the spokesperson from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) answered, "Urgench? What the hell is that?"

The spokesperson later amended his answer to, "As far as we know, we have no relations, formal or informal, with an entity known as 'Urgench'. We also have no record of Nord-Brutlandese citizens residing in such an entity. Nevertheless, if they would like sever relations, then we'll gladly sever relations too, whatever they are. If they'd expel our citizens, we'd expel their citizens too."

"What is this talk about asylum? What is Urgench anyway? A ship? Some brand of junk food?" The MoFA later issued a statement that they had requested the Royal Nord-Brutlandese Coast Guard to ground any ship named 'Urgench'. A foreign brand of vegemite-flavored extra-crispy potato chips called 'Orgench' (Organic Crunch) was also voluntarily pulled from shelves of high-end stores in Kingsville and stored in a huge freezer. The MoFA advised citizens to "know where you are applying asylum to."

full article at: http://en.lunnone.co.nem/09082008/novo/3t441gst6.htm (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13991260#post13991260)

NationStates Jolt Archive

PASSED: Freedom of Marriage Act [Official Topic] - Page 2