NationStates Jolt Archive

This assembly,

SALUTING the passage of resolution #15, Freedom of Marriage Act, that recognizes the right of two persons of same sex the right of civil union,

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals deserve full and equal protection under domestic law,

WELCOMING that religious communities are exempt from resolution # 15,

AFFIRMING that children should be raised by both a father and a mother,

ALSO AFFIRMING the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman has always been universally upheld throughout the history of the institution of marriage itself,

DEEPLY CONSERNED that the legalization of same-sex marriage would harm families and society as a whole,

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under resolution #16, Sexual Privacy Act,

THEREFORE declaring that the freedom of marriage act is redundant and unnecessary,

ALSO RECOGNIZING that WA member state shall not discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals under existing WA law,

REPEALS Resolution #15, Freedom of Marriage Act.

Only a very fast rough draft

Religious communities should not be allowed to persecute and sideline anyone out of superstitious prejudice, what an abominable idea.

In what society has this ideal of children being raised by both mother and father ever been the absolute norm or even been proved to be of such benefit to society?

What defintion of marriage is this repeal using which makes so fatuous a claim about the entirety of human history?

What possible evidence is there that gay marriage is so great a danger to marriage of heterosexual persons and society at large?


The presumptions behind this repeal are gross and ignorant generalisations or unthinking prejudice which is incompatible with logic or the available facts.
We challenge the authors of this resolution to give account of this repeal which is none of these things.

yours e.t.c. ,

All those AFFIRMING, ACKNOWLEDGING, and RECOGNIZING clauses amount to 'New Law in a Repeal', which is illegal.

Nope.

All those AFFIRMING, ACKNOWLEDGING, and RECOGNIZING clauses amount to 'New Law in a Repeal', which is illegal.

Then are you saying noting, regretting are legal?

This assembly,

SALUTING the passage of resolution #15, Freedom of Marriage Act, that recognizes the right of two persons of same sex the right of civil union,

NOTING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals deserve full and equal protection under domestic law,

WELCOMING that religious communities are exempt from resolution # 15,

NOTING that children should be raised by both a father and a mother,

ALSO NOTING the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman has always been universally upheld throughout the history of the institution of marriage itself,

DEEPLY CONSERNED that the legalization of same-sex marriage would harm families and society as a whole,

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under resolution #16, Sexual Privacy Act,

THEREFORE declaring that the freedom of marriage act is redundant and unnecessary,

ALSO NOTING that WA member state shall not discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals under existing WA resolution,

REPEALS Resolution #15, Freedom of Marriage Act.

hmm...

You know, one solution might just be to get over it, and move on.

MapleLeafss;14059366']Then are you saying noting, regretting are legal?

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I was referring to the content of the clauses, not specific words.

I said that proposing new law in a Repeal is illegal. Any phrases that read as new law will cause this proposal to be illegal, regardless of word choice. All the phrases that begin with 'NOTING' also read like new law. The fact that I originally omitted them should in no way be read as an endorsement.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I was referring to the content of the clauses, not specific words.

I said that proposing new law in a Repeal is illegal. Any phrases that read as new law will cause this proposal to be illegal, regardless of word choice. All the phrases that begin with 'NOTING' also read like new law. The fact that I originally omitted them should in no way be read as an endorsement.

That's why there is a draft and a forum..

NOTING that children should be raised by both a father and a mother,

ALSO NOTING the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman has always been universally upheld throughout the history of the institution of marriage itself,

DEEPLY CONSERNED that the legalization of same-sex marriage would harm families and society as a whole,

there are only arguments against resolution 15, not new law..

This assembly,

Understanding that the intended purpose of resolution #15 is to advance the rights of gay and lesbian individuals especially on marriage;

CONVINCED that gay and lesbian individual rights are already well protected under resolution #16, Sexual Privacy Act, notably on,
- Right to sexual privacy
- Freedom to express their love for persons of the same gender;
- Freedom from imprisonment based on sexuality;
- Nondiscrimination against gay and lesbians;

NOTING however that the question of marriage might be more delicate, especially on some WA nations;

UNDERSTANDING that this repel will NOT prevent any WA nations from recognizing same sex marriage;

REPEALS Resolution #15, Freedom of Marriage Act.

Hopefully this one is legal..

It may be legal ( we do not offer an opinion on that) but it is not less morally reprehensible.


yours e.t.c.

It may be legal, but it is not less morally reprehensible.

It appears to be legal, and I can't disagree with the second clause either.

Forcing same sex marriage, especially on theocracy, is what I find morally reprehensible.

It appears to be legal, and I can't disagree with the second clause either.

Thank you, WA is composed of many different nations, with many different opinions.

We hope that this repeal has all the success of its numerous predecessors that have attempted to make it to quorum. In other words, we hope it crashes and burns so spectacularly that the resulting fire would be large enough for 1 billion schoolchildren to roast marshmallows in it and sing songs around it.

Oh, and we're opposed. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

MapleLeafss;14059493']Forcing same sex marriage, especially on theocracy, is what I find morally reprehensible.


What you approve of then is allowing nations to sideline and ignore the very real relationships of millions of people. You approve of nations treating some of their citizens as second class or worse.

Where does moral relativism end? Would you see a ban on female circumcision as an unfair imposition on a theocracy which practices this atrocious mutilation?


yours e.t.c. ,

What you approve of then is allowing nations to sideline and ignore the very real relationships of millions of people. You approve of nations treating some of their citizens as second class or worse.

Where does moral relativism end? Would you see a ban on female circumcision as an unfair imposition on a theocracy which practices this atrocious mutilation?


yours e.t.c. ,

My resolution makes it clear that my nation approves resolution 16, recognizing gay and lesbians right. It's only on question of marriage that our supreme leader instructed me to try to repel.

MapleLeafss;14059516']My resolution makes it clear that my nation approves resolution 16, recognizing gay and lesbians right. It's only on question of marriage that our supreme leader instructed me to try to repel.



In fact the only thing that resolution 16 did was to decriminalise homosexuality within the w.a. Non discrimination has yet to be dealt with. So your nation only agrees to the most basic of possible protections for gay people. It is deceitfull to portray your position, Ambassador, as somehow in harmony with a human rights agenda. It is not. The agenda of this resolution is one of latent or patent prejudice which refuses to see some human beings as deserving of the same treatment as others based on completely illogical criteria which are unfair and deeply unpleasant.

It is with no surprise that we note you have not addressed our question about the limits of pernicious moral relativism, and indeed how could you do so? Moral relativism of this kind is indefensible.

yours e.t.c. ,

We note with some annoyance that Repeal "Gay Rights" (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=143) seems to have been the template used on multiple drafts of this repeal. We're not saying the author can't do that, but we're annoyed all the same.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

Yes I used it as template.

We are opposed. The protection of same-sex marriages is one of the reasons we joined the WA to begin with, and we will not support any legislation that repeals that protection.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

MapleLeafss submitted a proposal to the World Assembly Repeals Council entitled "Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"".

I urge all delegates to support my resolution.

We urge all delegates not to approve this dreadfull repeal.

yours e.t.c. ,

UNDERSTANDING that this repel will NOT prevent any WA nations from recognizing same sex marriage;
BUT NOT GIVING A DAMN that it will prevent some couples from being married;

Opposed.