NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a little something I threw together in the wake of the Freedom of Marriage Act and the controversy surrounding it:

Full Faith and Credit in Marriage Act

The World Assembly,

RESPECTING the ideals of national sovereignty and self-determination,
RECOGNIZING the many diverse policies that govern marriage and other similar contracts throughout the WA, and,
REGRETTING the problems that may occur when individuals bound by such contracts travel in nations where the laws and regulations that govern such contracts differ from those in their home country,

hereby,

1. REQUIRES WA member states to grant full faith and credit to marriages and other similar contracts performed by other WA member states that bind foreign nationals who are in the country on a temporary basis (such as tourists, business travelers, and others who do not intend to permanently settle in the country),
2. GUARANTEES the right of member states to require that foreign marriages and contracts be modified to conform to applicable domestic regulations if the individuals bound by such contracts choose to become citizens or permanent residents of, or otherwise permanently settle in said nation, and,
3. ENCOURAGES member states to adopt similar policies regarding marriages and other similar contracts performed by non-member states.


Any comments, suggestions, questions, and other feedback are welcome.

Am I correct in assuming that this is trying to have "marriages" that are accepted by the State of origin, accepted in a state of of another member of the WA even if that state does not recognize those rights to their own citizens?
For Example, In your state marriage to donkey's may be an acceptable where as in mine it may be at best considered bestiality or at worst, utter criminal perversion?
It is for that reason alone I am thinking this is not passable. Not just for the National Sovereigntists among us but for those nations with middle to high moral codes.

Am I correct in assuming that this is trying to have "marriages" that are accepted by the State of origin, accepted in a state of of another member of the WA even if that state does not recognize those rights to their own citizens?
For Example, In your state marriage to donkey's may be an acceptable where as in mine it may be at best considered bestiality or at worst, utter criminal perversion?
It is for that reason alone I am thinking this is not passable. Not just for the National Sovereigntists among us but for those nations with middle to high moral codes.



Might we ask what " middle to high moral codes " are revered Ambassador?


yours sincerely,

Might we ask what " middle to high moral codes " are revered Ambassador?


yours sincerely,

Interesting question from the member for Urgench where the question is to define morality and what it means for every nation in the WA and indeed the crux of the problem. Again I go back to my donkey marriage analogy. Donkey Marriage would be seen by those of an extreme liberal ilk to be acceptable but those who would be more conservative would not. Marriage is many different things to many different people and nations however cant be legislated over by a body such as this.
Further if such a resolution were adopted by the Assembly it would no doubt cause huge problems in other areas of National Legal concern. Can you pass a WA resolution that would defacto over write domestic legislation covering everything from equality to human rights where they exist in a WA member state? Don't get me wrong, The Nation of Venerable libertarians looks upon its self as a Liberal State where Church and its morality has no part in the daily rights of its civilians to do as they wish so long as no domestic laws are being broken or the rights of another civilian are being denied.
Also I will add that our position is that when in rome you do as the romans do and if you don't like what the romans get up to you leave.

Interesting question from the member for Urgench where the question is to define morality and what it means for every nation in the WA and indeed the crux of the problem. Again I go back to my donkey marriage analogy. Donkey Marriage would be seen by those of an extreme liberal ilk to be acceptable but those who would be more conservative would not. Marriage is many different things to many different people and nations however cant be legislated over by a body such as this.
Further if such a resolution were adopted by the Assembly it would no doubt cause huge problems in other areas of National Legal concern. Can you pass a WA resolution that would defacto over write domestic legislation covering everything from equality to human rights where they exist in a WA member state? Don't get me wrong, The Nation of Venerable libertarians looks upon its self as a Liberal State where Church and its morality has no part in the daily rights of its civilians to do as they wish so long as no domestic laws are being broken or the rights of another civilian are being denied.
Also I will add that our position is that when in rome you do as the romans do and if you don't like what the romans get up to you leave.




We thank the honoured and esteemed Ambassador for their reply to our quiery. We ask because we consider ourselves to be a nation of highly moral people, defined by our regard for our fellow beings, and strongly moved by the plight of others. We are concerned that the socially conservative member states may be considered somehow more moral by the respected and revered Ambassador.

Our position is ambivalent on this resolution there are situations we can see this resolution benefitting, but the ideal of personal freedom need not extend so far that one may expect to impose ones personal proclivities on an unwilling host.

yours e.t.c.,

Am I correct in assuming that this is trying to have "marriages" that are accepted by the State of origin, accepted in a state of of another member of the WA even if that state does not recognize those rights to their own citizens?
For Example, In your state marriage to donkey's may be an acceptable where as in mine it may be at best considered bestiality or at worst, utter criminal perversion?
Hmm. I don't see how it makes much odds, actually. You can still apply your morals and either not allow Ffred the donkey-lover into the country -- it is for temporary visitors, not immigrants, after all -- or chuck him in jail for bestiality if that's your thing. Having Daisi the Donkey as his lawful wife is just going to make the resulting legal procedures that bit more entertaining.

Much more usefully, it means that there's no argument over who is or isn't married to whom when arguing with a hospital about emergency treatment, for example.

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

We are of divided minds on this proposal. On the one hand, it means adding another check-box to our tribal territories' visa application lists to keep out foreigners intending upon performing unclean practices while on Kawaiian tribal territory. On the other hand, it would provide our nomadic kinsmen with WA recognition and legal protection of the Kawaiian practice of child-betrothal, so it has that going for it.

I think the main (and perhaps more obvious beyond picking on donkeyphiles) impact upon this is homosexual marriage, and the same arguments could be made here as with donkey love. So clearly what this proposal does is encourage homosexual honeymooners to visit other nations.

Well, given how FoMA made homosexual marriage (that which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet) legal, is there any reason why homosexual newly-weds shouldn't be allowed to travel internationally while still being recognized?

FoMA has a number of problems but the biggest problem is that it is limited to “civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.” SPA probably has better applications here, but once again one can come across age of consent variations across national boundaries.

On the other hand I can see a number of side issues not covered in either FoMA or in SPA that would be covered under FFaCiMA. These could be simple things where different nations have different rights and privileges attached to marriage which would cause trouble to a traveler if revoked in a foreign country.

It probably needs a little work though to really make it something that will be obvious within the context of FoMA and SPA yet stand alone should either be repealed.

1. REQUIRES WA member states to grant full faith and credit to marriages and other similar contracts performed by other WA member states that bind foreign nationals who are in the country on a temporary basis (such as tourists, business travelers, and others who do not intend to permanently settle in the country),
2. GUARANTEES the right of member states to require that foreign marriages and contracts be modified to conform to applicable domestic regulations if the individuals bound by such contracts choose to become citizens or permanent residents of, or otherwise permanently settle in said nation

We are opposed, due in part to the wording of these two parts. Our nation does not, and will never, accept any marriage involving a sentient being and anything nonsentient. If it cannot willingly give consent to the marriage, then we do not support allowing the marriage to be recognized and will not hesitate to take immediate steps, under the full weight of law, to arrest that person and deport them back to their own nation... assuming they do not resist and give the more trigger-happy members of our military a reason to have to request a copy of that nation's funeral practices.

And while we could restrict tourism of our nation based upon marriage practices, the simple fact is that we currently do not wish to. It would make our government even more restrictive than it already is and we are not yet comfortable with the idea of restricting travel for people of other nations when we do not restrict the travel of our own slaves.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

And while we could restrict tourism of our nation based upon marriage practices, the simple fact is that we currently do not wish to. It would make our government even more restrictive than it already is and we are not yet comfortable with the idea of restricting travel for people of other nations when we do not restrict the travel of our own slaves.

So in other words you want to have your cake and eat it. That's a bit optimistic around here. Quite apart from that, you are already restricting travel for some in any case by making it unsafe from them. Ffred doesn't stop being a donkey-lover just because he hasn't brought Daisi with him. By ignoring this at his point of entry, you are leaving things open for him to get shot up later on.

Being so virtuous as to not restrict travel while tacitly encouraging murder isn't actually all that morally impressive, you know.

So in other words you want to have your cake and eat it. That's a bit optimistic around here. Quite apart from that, you are already restricting travel for some in any case by making it unsafe from them. Ffred doesn't stop being a donkey-lover just because he hasn't brought Daisi with him. By ignoring this at his point of entry, you are leaving things open for him to get shot up later on.

Being so virtuous as to not restrict travel while tacitly encouraging murder isn't actually all that morally impressive, you know.

So if someone resists arrest, your police forces just give them a stern warning and then hope they'll stop resisting? Because if you think your police forces may not have to use violence and possibly even lethal solutions to deal with some criminals, I would think you're accusing the wrong nation of issues involving paradoxes and cake.

And the lack of safety itself is reliant entirely upon if they resist arrest. It's far easier for them, not to mention far more pleasant, if they do not resist, and are shipped back to their nation. And if they do not practice it within our nation, we have no reason to bother them about the fact they practice it in their own. What they do in their own home related to marital practices is none of our business and it's best they keep it that way.

And, besides, it's best to note that murder is the unlawful taking of life. If someone puts up enough resistance to getting arrested and ends up getting killed because of the actions our police are forced to take to do their jobs, then that's technically not murder, since we do recognize that our law enforcement officers may sometimes be in a situation where they have to take a life. But if the police were to just shoot Ffred in the head without giving him a chance to give up and be arrested, then it would be murder.

I think you've essentially proved my point.

And I think you missed mine.