NationStates Jolt Archive

The Nations of the World Assembly,

NOTING that this resolution requires mandatory legalization of homosexuality in WA Member Nations,

CONSIDERING that homosexuality is controversial,

UNDERSTANDING that many nations may wish to choose to legalize or ban homosexuality themselves,

REPEAL "Freedom of Marriage Act".


Any suggestions?

The Freedom of Marriage act does not require mandatory legalisation of homosexuality it does not even require decriminalisation.

The work of decriminalisation of homosexuality was actually achieved by the Sexual Privacy act but we don't expect that the honoured Ambasador for Spartzerina would have noticed that.

The assertion that "homosexuality is controversial" , being as it is the central argument of this resolution, is utterly absurd and is in any event disproved by the fact that the Sexual Privacy act was so widely popular as to achieve a large majority at vote.

It may be the case that the people or more likely the government of Spartzerina, in their pre-modern state have maintained their ancient and bizarre prejudices so strongly as to presume that a controversy exists beyond their borders on this subject, but reality has already thrust itself upon them and it seems they are unable to comprehend it.

If every resolution were liable to repeal on the singular basis that some nations had voted against it then there would be no legislative cannon of the w.a. at all. Need we remind the honoured Ambassador that the Empire of Urgench was suffered to submit itself to the cultural thuggery or the Fair Criminal Trial act and despite our vigorous opposition to it we are yet to bring cause against it in repeal, and this because we understand that this organisation has a democratic will which in that case while being contrary to our own held that the Fair Criminal Trial Act would have positive effects for a very large number of nations. We recommend this attitude to all those who are so bent on reversing the democratic will of this organisation on this topic, and obviously especially to the respected Ambassador for Spartzerina

Oh and marriage is spelt marriage, honoured Ambassador.

yours e.t.c. ,

(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.

"Nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex." I interpret that clause as requiring mandatory legalization of homosexuality.

It may be the case that the people or more likely the government of Spartzerina, in their pre-modern state have maintained their ancient and bizarre prejudices so strongly as to presume that a controversy exists beyond their borders on this subject, but reality has already thrust itself upon them and it seems they are unable to comprehend it.

We are able to comprehend it, we just don't like homosexuality. "Bizarre prejudices", they are not.

However, we are open to suggestions on how this resolution can be improved. I would prefer help, not criticism. This is the very reason I put this draft in this forum.

However, thank you for your most recent post, honored Ambassador. That is what I needed.

"Nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex." I interpret that clause as requiring mandatory legalization of homosexuality.



We are able to comprehend it, we just don't like homosexuality. "Bizarre prejudices", they are not.

However, we are open to suggestions on how this resolution can be improved. I would prefer help, not criticism. This is the very reason I put this draft in this forum.

However, thank you for your most recent post, honored Ambassador. That is what I needed.




The Ambassador for Spartzerina may imagine that it is perfectly acceptable to parade their vile bigotry before the membership of this organisation and even to seek approval for it.

But we assure them that if they imagine that we will watch this hate-law being formulated without comment then they are just as mistaken as they are in all their other presumptions.

We have underlined the portion of the Amassador's words which betray them as motivated by a deeply misguided and unhealthy logic.


yours e.t.c.

It's hardly a 'hate law'. It only seeks to repel a resolution.

I agree that it's difficult to pass any resolution, especially to repel a human right resolution but I think with a well written repel, coupled with a aggressive telegram campaign to delegates, it is not impossible.

Nothing is impossible. But some things are just wrong.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain were against FoMA when it was in quorum, but now that it has been instated, we believe that it is wrong to repeal it. Families have already been created under it and, though marriage is arguably not a universal human right, the passing of the Act has turned it into a de facto WA human right. To repeal this is to repeal a human right.

As well, FoMA simply allows for legal homosexual romantic/civil relationships. Nations are free to criminalize homosexual sex... though they'll have a tough time proving it under the Sexual Privacy Act.

Nations are free to criminalize homosexual sex

False, resolution 16, article 3a and 4b

3 (a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

4 (b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals.

To clarify something, it has only become a legal right, not a human right.

Nothing is impossible. But some things are just wrong.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain were against FoMA when it was in quorum, but now that it has been instated, we believe that it is wrong to repeal it. Families have already been created under it and, though marriage is arguably not a universal human right, the passing of the Act has turned it into a de facto WA human right. To repeal this is to repeal a human right.

As well, FoMA simply allows for legal homosexual romantic/civil relationships. Nations are free to criminalize homosexual sex... though they'll have a tough time proving it under the Sexual Privacy Act.


fortunately respected Ambassador you are incorrect, Homosexuality cannot be banned by any nation and nor can passed bans have continued because of the passing of the Sexual Privacy act.

All consenting adult sexual activity has been decriminalised.

yours e.t.c. ,

Homosexuality cannot be banned by any nation and nor can passed bans have continued because of the passing of the Sexual Privacy act.

First time you agree with me.

MapleLeafss;14066106']First time you agree with me.


We were not agreeing with the respected Ambassador merely stating the obvious.

yours e.t.c. ,

I was also stating the obvious to ambassador Sasquatchewain.

Any suggestions?

Honest mistake? This isn't the resolution that stops you criminalising homosexuality, so your one and only argument is in fact false.

Well, since this proposal doesn't seem to be liked at all, I don't think I will pursue this any further. Thank You.

Spartzerina

Steelternia doubts the legality of the "Freedom of Marriage Act" in the sense that it seems to be contradictory to the ideals of the World Assembly. Steelternia firmly believes in the rights of all people of consenting age and responsibility to explore what they feel and how they believe they can see to explore it.

However, Steelternia does not believe the World Assembly has the right to infringe upon the sovereignty of nations in any manner. We can hold nations to a standard and enforce thereof, but we cannot dictate the legislation of the member nations. To do so undermines the authority of a nation and its government. There are cases where the World Assembly can expect a nation to act a certain way. This, however, is not one of them. Nations have the right to forbid homosexuals from marrying. They do not, however, have the right to prosecute them for being homosexual and practicing it.

Steelternia opposed the last resolution because of this reason. It dictates the exact legislation that must be undertaken on this issue. Instead, what should have been done, is that the resolution defines what is seen as neglect, abuse (sexual, emotional, physical, etc.) and affiliated crimes, and requires all nations to weed it out in their own way. Failure to do so ends in expulsion. Instead, the WA is acting like an international legislative and executive body, dictating what must be done and the conditions in which it is held.

Although Steelternia is not the Delegate of its region, it supports repealing the Freedom of Marriage Act because it encroaches upon the rights of a nation to establish its own laws within humanitarian reason. In fact, what if a nation does not recognize the idea of marriage at all from a legal standpoint? Does the World Assembly have the right to force the idea of marriage upon that culture, even when it is alien to them? No, they don't.

At the very least, the World Assembly needs to be more careful in its wording and thoughts.

Offices of the Chancellor

Well, since this proposal doesn't seem to be liked at all, I don't think I will pursue this any further. Thank You.

Spartzerina

I disagree, there are lot of people who are for protecting gay and lesbian against discrimination without touching the question of marriage. I might agree to a civil union between 2 people of same sex conferring all the rights as married couple but leave the traditional definition of marriage as an union between one man and one woman.

MapleLeafss;14066899']I disagree, there are lot of people who are for protecting gay and lesbian against discrimination without touching the question of marriage. I might agree to a civil union between 2 people of same sex conferring all the rights as married couple but leave the traditional definition of marriage as an union between one man and one woman.

That's just it, though. This resolution is based upon a tradition, a tradition that only has legal basis because it is so widespread. In some places it is tradition to marry multiple spouses. In others, it is tradition not to be married at all. Even yet, it is tradition in some nations to marry close relatives! Because there are so many definitions and views on marriage, which is a tradition and that alone, the WA has very little, if any, authority to make any ruling on it. If a nation banned marriage, then, by definition of this act, they would be expelled from the WA. The WA might as well ban the practice of the Briss or force it upon all nations!

That's just it, though. This resolution is based upon a tradition, a tradition that only has legal basis because it is so widespread. In some places it is tradition to marry multiple spouses. In others, it is tradition not to be married at all. Even yet, it is tradition in some nations to marry close relatives! Because there are so many definitions and views on marriage, which is a tradition and that alone, the WA has very little, if any, authority to make any ruling on it. If a nation banned marriage, then, by definition of this act, they would be expelled from the WA. The WA might as well ban the practice of the Briss or force it upon all nations!

I was talking of tradition in my nation. I agree that the definition of marriage should be left to each individual nation so each nation can define however it wants, not force one definition as it is the case with the "Freedom of Marriage Act".

Exactly. So we need to make this clear, and rewrite this resolution competently so that the WA does not force this corrupted standpoint on its members.

We need to repel it first..

No, I'm talking about the repealing resolution. It needs to be rewritten, it looks like it was written by a nine year old.

Steelternia doubts the legality of the "Freedom of Marriage Act" in the sense that it seems to be contradictory to the ideals of the World Assembly. Steelternia firmly believes in the rights of all people of consenting age and responsibility to explore what they feel and how they believe they can see to explore it.

However, Steelternia does not believe the World Assembly has the right to infringe upon the sovereignty of nations in any manner. We can hold nations to a standard and enforce thereof, but we cannot dictate the legislation of the member nations. To do so undermines the authority of a nation and its government. There are cases where the World Assembly can expect a nation to act a certain way. This, however, is not one of them. Nations have the right to forbid homosexuals from marrying. They do not, however, have the right to prosecute them for being homosexual and practicing it.

Steelternia opposed the last resolution because of this reason. It dictates the exact legislation that must be undertaken on this issue. Instead, what should have been done, is that the resolution defines what is seen as neglect, abuse (sexual, emotional, physical, etc.) and affiliated crimes, and requires all nations to weed it out in their own way. Failure to do so ends in expulsion. Instead, the WA is acting like an international legislative and executive body, dictating what must be done and the conditions in which it is held.

Although Steelternia is not the Delegate of its region, it supports repealing the Freedom of Marriage Act because it encroaches upon the rights of a nation to establish its own laws within humanitarian reason. In fact, what if a nation does not recognize the idea of marriage at all from a legal standpoint? Does the World Assembly have the right to force the idea of marriage upon that culture, even when it is alien to them? No, they don't.

At the very least, the World Assembly needs to be more careful in its wording and thoughts.

Offices of the Chancellor




They honoured Ambassador's argument against the Freedom of Marriage act is faulty. We imagine that they have been confused by those who have insisted that the FoMa was designed specifically for the recognition of gay marriage when in fact it recognises all forms of personal contract on the model of marriage engaged upon by consenting persons. It therefore requires member states to recognise inter-racial marriages, inter-ethnic marriages, inter-faith marriages, inter-class and inter-caste e.t.c.,

Is the honoured Ambassador really saying that this organisation has no business protecting people who on reaching adulthood and finding the person they wish to live in union with but cannot because of ancient and absurd superstitions and illogical prejudices?

Are they now calling for the billions of personal unions now undertaken within the membership of this organisation under the auspices of the FoMa to be disolved?

What of families now created by persons who's acts of personal union have now been recognised?


yours e.t.c.,

The Freedom of Marriage act's only goal, as currently written, is to impose one form of marriage (gay marriage) on all WA member nation. There is no mention of inter-ethinic, inter-faith, inter-class and inter-caste marriage.

MapleLeafss;14067343']The Freedom of Marriage act's only goal, as currently written, is to impose one form of marriage (gay marriage) on all WA member nation. There is no mention of inter-ethinic, inter-faith, inter-class and inter-caste marriage.



This article protects all forms of personal union between 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."


It does not specify which persons may engage in these unions.

The later articles included in the statute are non-discrimination articles which specifically mention persons of the same sex, but the protection applies to all personal unions also. It is hardly surprising the the Ambassador for MapleLefss fails to understand this.

The fact of the matter is that the FoMa does legalise civil unions of adults of every kind imaginable.

yours e.t.c. ,

They honoured Ambassador's argument against the Freedom of Marriage act is faulty. We imagine that they have been confused by those who have insisted that the FoMa was designed specifically for the recognition of gay marriage when in fact it recognises all forms of personal contract on the model of marriage engaged upon by consenting persons. It therefore requires member states to recognise inter-racial marriages, inter-ethnic marriages, inter-faith marriages, inter-class and inter-caste e.t.c.,

Is the honoured Ambassador really saying that this organisation has no business protecting people who on reaching adulthood and finding the person they wish to live in union with but cannot because of ancient and absurd superstitions and illogical prejudices?

Are they now calling for the billions of personal unions now undertaken within the membership of this organisation under the auspices of the FoMa to be disolved?

What of families now created by persons who's acts of personal union have now been recognised?


yours e.t.c.,

With all due respect, you do not seem to understand what we are saying. Marriage itself cannot be ruled upon by the WA because marriage, even the idea of civil union, is a tradition. It is unethical for the WA to be dealing with a tradition, and a tradition alone. By forcing the rights of marriage upon all member nations, it undermines the culture of a nation, the laws of a nation, and how we define human rights and national rights. It is not specifically for Gay marriage, it for all marriage! The WA has no authority to define traditions within a nation, nor does it have the authority to force a tradition, or a version of the tradition, upon any nation or its people. Are people being hurt by the tradition of marriage? Perhaps indirectly, but no. Is marriage necessary to survive and thrive? No. People do not NEED to be married in order to live, in order to live comfortably, or even to have children. That is why Steelternia does not believe that marriage is a human right, and we do not believe the Freedom of Marriage protects the rights of anyone. Instead, it violates the rights of nations to define marriage in their own way, if they recognize it at all.

Marriage is a tradition and it is a value, but it is not a moral or a right.

What the WA DOES have the authority to do, however, is protect those who wish to partake in the ceremony of marriage. The WA can see to it that those who do get married are not prosecuted FOR BEING MARRIED. But we cannot force a nation to legally recognize marriage.

With all due respect, you do not seem to understand what we are saying. Marriage itself cannot be ruled upon by the WA because marriage, even the idea of civil union, is a tradition. It is unethical for the WA to be dealing with a tradition, and a tradition alone. By forcing the rights of marriage upon all member nations, it undermines the culture of a nation, the laws of a nation, and how we define human rights and national rights. It is not specifically for Gay marriage, it for all marriage! The WA has no authority to define traditions within a nation, nor does it have the authority to force a tradition, or a version of the tradition, upon any nation or its people. Are people being hurt by the tradition of marriage? Perhaps indirectly, but no. Is marriage necessary to survive and thrive? No. People do not NEED to be married in order to live, in order to live comfortably, or even to have children. That is why Steelternia does not believe that marriage is a human right, and we do not believe the Freedom of Marriage protects the rights of anyone. Instead, it violates the rights of nations to define marriage in their own way, if they recognize it at all.

Marriage is a tradition and it is a value, but it is not a moral or a right.

What the WA DOES have the authority to do, however, is protect those who wish to partake in the ceremony of marriage. The WA can see to it that those who do get married are not prosecuted FOR BEING MARRIED. But we cannot force a nation to legally recognize marriage.




On what authority is the honoured Ambassador drawing to declare what the World Assembly may or may not legislate upon? In fact the w.a. may legislate on any issue it desires as long as it is legal.

In this case respected Ambassador the w.a. saw a grievous and unjustifiable form of discrimination and rectified it.

It is absolutely the work of the World Assembly to protect all inhabitants of its membership from wicked intolerance and unreasonable forms of discrimination.

If the honoured Ambassador thinks that the rights of states to mistreat their citizens should come before the rights of individuals to live their lives in peace and freedom from unfair disadvantage then we fear they have no business lecturing this organisation on ethics.

The FoMa is a fair and reasonable request of the membership of this orgnisation to end a specific from of discrimination, and as such it is immoral to insist on repealing it especially if no other non-discrimination legislation is being proposed by those who wish to repeal it.


yours e.t.c. ,

If the World Assembly believes it can legislate upon any issue, regardless of its contents, then it has violated its own purpose. The World Assembly is not a world government. It is an assembly of nations to decide what standard that they hold themselves to. That is Steelternia's stance. On what authority do you have to dictate what we believe the World Assembly's purpose is?

Steelternia believes that member nation of the WA, by joining it, must prevent human rights violations and stop them within their own nations. Discrimination against a group by restricting their political or civil rights is a violation by the member nation. But dictating what is and what is law within a nation is a violation by the WA. We joined the WA to show that we hold ourselves to a standard of ethics, but we do not believe that the Freedom of Marriage Act holds itself to that standard of ethics.

We have already stated our stance on prosecution of individuals who marry in any condition. If anyone is too blind to understand it, then they are too blind to be a proper ambassador.

FoMA is a violation of the purpose of the WA and has no place in this organization. It supersedes the rights of a nation to enforce the WA's rulings in their own manner. FoMA is ethical on a civilian level, but there are better ways to enforce it to be ethical on both a civilian and government level. FoMA is a noble attempt, but a better attempt could have been made. If the repeal of FoMA is made, Steelternia will personally propose a proper act to protect the rights of those who marry.

Why does the respected Ambassador choose the FoMa in particular when the Fair criminal Trial act is a far greater violation of member state's ability to organise their own laws and several other statutes for that matter?

If the honoured Ambassador is truelly interested in promoting human rights then would they perhaps wish to add their input to the drafting of our resolution on non-discrimination?

they can find it here- http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=567124

yours e.t.c. ,

If the World Assembly believes it can legislate upon any issue, regardless of its contents, then it has violated its own purpose. The World Assembly is not a world government. It is an assembly of nations to decide what standard that they hold themselves to. That is Steelternia's stance. On what authority do you have to dictate what we believe the World Assembly's purpose is?
Exactly the same as you do. Oh, and resolution 2, which suggests you're wrong.