NationStates Jolt Archive

To All WA Members:

I am currently trying to pass a proposal in the World Assembly. I would like to ask you for your approval and support. I proposed to repeal Resolution #15, "Freedom of Marriage". Resolution #15 contains many errors, undefined terms, and inconsistencies. I also believed marriage should be between one man and one woman, but it is up to the nation whether to grant marriage to homosexuals. Please review this proposal on page two of the submitted proposals page. I sincerely appreciate your support.

Note: There are two proposals submitted to repeal Resolution #15. Approve the one submitted by me, with more writing that explains why it should be repealed, not the one saying "homosexuality is inhuman".
Thanks,
RMV

No.

Nemo Taranton
Minister of W.A. Affairs

What possible inducement could your delegation offer that would gain the widespread support of the membership of this organisation for your repeal, honoured Ambassador ?

If you want to debate or discuss a proposal, you should at least provide it for review:

Repeal "Freedom of Marriage Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #15
Proposed by: RMV

Description: WA Resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: NOTING that Resolution #15 fails to define "minorities";

CONVINCED that the "minorities" that Resolution #15 fails to define may include sexual predators, pedophiles, and criminals;

NOTING that many nations are against same-sex marriage, pedophilia, and granting marriage rights to criminals;

EMPHASIZING that Resolution #15 allows citizens may choose to marry whomever, or whatever, they want, including, but not limited to, people of the same gender, inanimate objects, and animals;

AGREEING that while Resolution #15 is repealed, nations may choose whether or not to allow freedom of marriage;

BELIEVING that while homosexuality may be practiced in private, nations should not be forced to grant homosexuals the right to marry;

NOTING that not all of the "minorities" that Resolution #15 fails to define have been "oppressed for ages";

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution 15 contains many undefined terms and inconsistencies;

The World Assembly hereby repeals Resolution #15, "Freedom of Marriage".




Approvals: 9 (RMV, Cobdenia, NewTexas, GRAS, Jacobish, Cackranack, The Blackend Sun, Anti Neo Nazis, Jimmy Hart)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 50 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jan 11 2009

EMPHASIZING that Resolution #15 allows citizens may choose to marry whomever, or whatever, they want, including, but not limited to, people of the same gender, inanimate objects, and animals;

Resolution 15 clearly states: "(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." "Two persons" are two persons as identified by the nation; and I suppose if the nation is recognizing inanimate objects or animals as persons, then they could in theory be married under this resolution. Do you know of any nations that recognize inanimate objects as persons?

So the highly unpleasant logic of this resolution is that Homosexuals are equivalent to criminals and paedophiles.


We are appalled and disgusted.



Yours e.t.c. ,

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution 15 contains many undefined terms and inconsistencies;

Please elaborate on some of these undefined terms and inconsistencies. You mentioned "minorities;" what other terms? And what inconsistencies are present?

In your dreams mate.

The Aundotutunagirian People support this repeal.

Resolution 15 clearly states: "(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." "Two persons" are two persons as identified by the nation; and I suppose if the nation is recognizing inanimate objects or animals as persons, then they could in theory be married under this resolution. Do you know of any nations that recognize inanimate objects as persons?

That is true, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about this, directly above your quote of Res #15.

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

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

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

Now, minorities can mean anything, murderers, etc. There was more than one part to Resolution #15.

Resolution 15 clearly states: "(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." "Two persons" are two persons as identified by the nation; and I suppose if the nation is recognizing inanimate objects or animals as persons, then they could in theory be married under this resolution. Do you know of any nations that recognize inanimate objects as persons?

Please elaborate on some of these undefined terms and inconsistencies. You mentioned "minorities;" what other terms? And what inconsistencies are present?

Okay, as for the terms.

1. "Minority" is a term.
2. There were many of "minorities" in the resolution.
3. "Minority" was undefined.
4. Therefore, there were many undefined terms.

As for the inconsistencies...


First, the resolution stated this...

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

And then this...

"(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."

Now, allowing religious communities to "recognize these unions" would be imposing restrictions against minorities.

That is an inconsistency.

If you have any other questions, feel free...

RMV

Now, minorities can mean anything, murderers, etc. There was more than one part to Resolution #15.
We recognise that the honoured ambassador may have had a somewhat trying day, but this is willful ignoring of context and as such is unlikely to gain the honoured ambassador reknown for his reasoning skills.

By the way, this never specifically says, "gay marriage". It says "union between minorities". Look under the so-called "protection of marriage" section.

We recognise that the honoured ambassador may have had a somewhat trying day, but this is willful ignoring of context and as such is unlikely to gain the honoured ambassador reknown for his reasoning skills.

Well, I had a great day. I got up, went to breakfast, played my trombone, went to school, saw "Yes, man" at the movies, and ate a veggie burger (yes, I'm a conservative vegan). Also, can you type in a language we can understand? What in the context am I ignoring?

RMV

Well, I had a great day. I got up, went to breakfast, played my trombone, went to school, saw "Yes, man" at the movies, and ate a veggie burger (yes, I'm a conservative vegan). Also, can you type in a language we can understand? What in the context am I ignoring?

RMV


Why does your nation insult the dignity of this organisation by sending a school child to represent itself ?

And why have you willfully conflated homosexuality with paedophilia and criminality in your repeal ?

Is it so dreadful that this statute recognised the right of religion to hold to its ancient prejudices so long as states did not discriminate on the basis of them ?


And we should point out that the sections containing the word "minority" or "minorities" which the honoured Ambassador has so much trouble understanding are in any case non-operative.

The operative sections of the statute make it abundantly clear what is in object and how it is to be dealt with.


Yours,

That is true, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about this, directly above your quote of Res #15.

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

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

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

Now, minorities can mean anything, murderers, etc. There was more than one part to Resolution #15.

Upon examining this, my original argument still stands. You point to the ambiguity of the term "minority" as a danger in the preamble to this resolution. It is true that ambiguity can be bad, especially in a resolution. What is not true is that "minorities can mean anything, murderers, etc." What dictionary are you using? I challenge you to find any dictionary definition of "minority" in the known universe that would allow murderers, inanimate objects, and/or animals to be considered minorities. I challenge you to find any legal ruling on any level in any judicial system that places these (a group of convicted felons, non-living things, and non-sentient creatures) in any such grouping.

Okay, as for the terms.

1. "Minority" is a term.
2. There were many of "minorities" in the resolution.
3. "Minority" was undefined.
4. Therefore, there were many undefined terms.

Well...I hate to pick apart points, but "minority" is one term, no matter how many times it is used (3 times). It seems that at this point "minority" is the only sticking term, and that is in the preamble. I am not convinced that this is sufficient reason to abolish Resolution 15, as these terms' "ambiguity" has no effect on the effects of the resolution.

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

And then this...

"(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."

Now, allowing religious communities to "recognize these unions" would be imposing restrictions against minorities.

Wait...what? You completely lost me there. What restriction is being placed on a minority by religious groups being allowed to recognize their unions?

The Trilateral Federation will strenuously oppose any reactionary attempt to roll back the gains achieved by this resolution, particularly when they come packaged in such half-truths, blatant misrepresentation and willful misreading of the original resolution as this piece of unchewable tripe.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

No. No. A thousand times no.

The entirety of the Eternal Sacred Procession of Subistratica is wholly opposed to this repeal.

Wait...what? You completely lost me there. What restriction is being placed on a minority by religious groups being allowed to recognize their unions?

It says is free to recognize or NOT. That means it is a restriction. For example, the Catholic Church may recognize straight marriage and not gay marriage. That's a restriction! Gays won't get married in a Catholic Church (or most of them). It's just like telling a restaurant they are able to not give service to blacks (or whites, Mexicans. Or in NS terms, Bigtopians, etc.)

[QUOTE=Harmonious Treefolk;14382767]What dictionary are you using? I challenge you to find any dictionary definition of "minority" in the known universe that would allow murderers, inanimate objects, and/or animals to be considered minorities. I challenge you to find any legal ruling on any level in any judicial system that places these (a group of convicted felons, non-living things, and non-sentient creatures) in any such grouping.

Merriam-Webster :)

1 a: the period before attainment of majority b: the state of being a legal minor2: the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole ; specifically : a group having less than the number of votes necessary for control3 a: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment b: a member of a minority group <an effort to hire more minorities>


In a category of law-abiding citizens vs. Criminals, law-abiding wins. In a category of living voters vs. Non-living voters, living wins. In a category of registered humans vs. registered animals (hopefully in most countries) humans win.

I am not trying to be rude, I'm just having a debate, as I assume you are. I am happy that most people posting in this forum were respectful and that is a huge achievement in an NS thread ;)

[QUOTE=RMV;14385065
I am not trying to be rude, I'm just having a debate, as I assume you are. I am happy that most people posting in this forum were respectful and that is a huge achievement in an NS thread ;)[/QUOTE]



You are not trying to be rude honoured Ambassador and yet you are conflating billions of law abiding citizens with murderers, child molesters and other felons.

You have also repeatedly refused to address us. We have offered you no disrespect despite the blatant prejudices you have paraded before this organisation.


Please do us the courtesy of addressing our contributions or you will make a liar of yourself honoured Ambassador.


Yours e.t.c ,


O.O.C. By the way you seem to be out of character in most of your posts. It's not against the rules but it is considered polite to indicate whether your statement are in character or not.

You should probably also know that this is a roleplay forum and many players are doing just that ( including me ). Some of the characters around here are nice and some are decidedly not. Urgench's Ambassador to the w.a. , Mongkha, khan of Kashgar, is sometimes nice but is always grumpy and irascible.

I'm telling you this so you don't think this is that pit of Flaimbaiters which is General and don't get confused that my or any other players contributions are necessarily personal in nature or directed at you personally.

Oh and I hate writing O.O.C. stuff in the w.a. so this will be all from me your likely to hear for a good while.


Ciao

What dictionary are you using? I challenge you to find any dictionary definition of "minority" in the known universe that would allow murderers, inanimate objects, and/or animals to be considered minorities. I challenge you to find any legal ruling on any level in any judicial system that places these (a group of convicted felons, non-living things, and non-sentient creatures) in any such grouping.

Merriam-Webster :)

1 a: the period before attainment of majority b: the state of being a legal minor2: the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole ; specifically : a group having less than the number of votes necessary for control3 a: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment b: a member of a minority group <an effort to hire more minorities>


In a category of law-abiding citizens vs. Criminals, law-abiding wins. In a category of living voters vs. Non-living voters, living wins. In a category of registered humans vs. registered animals (hopefully in most countries) humans win.

Fair enough. I did conflate that particular point--there are possible definitions for "minority" that could include anything. It should be obvious to anyone reading the resolution that the sociologically accepted term, e.g. definition 3a: "a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment;" The term "minority" has been used by sociologists for centuries to indicate any group that's members have fewer rights or less power than other groups in the same society. Yes, that wording can be twisted around to mean that any segment of the population could be a minority; the point is that this has never happened with any success.

We can continue to argue that point, but you still have not answered the other issue: the term ("minority") with the potential ambiguity is in the preamble, not in the effective articles. That is, no matter what the preamble actually says it is the effective articles that influence law and restrict the actions of nations. And the effective articles state that a marriage is protected between two persons in a civil union.

It says is free to recognize or NOT. That means it is a restriction. For example, the Catholic Church may recognize straight marriage and not gay marriage. That's a restriction! Gays won't get married in a Catholic Church (or most of them). It's just like telling a restaurant they are able to not give service to blacks (or whites, Mexicans. Or in NS terms, Bigtopians, etc.)

The distinction is written into the resolution: religious communities need not recognize any union that they do not wish; States must recognize the unions as outlined in the resolution. In Nations where the State government is not a religion, this distinction is easy and uncomplicated. It is only in Nations where the government is a religion that this issue becomes complicated.

So for now let us only discuss nations that are both 1)Run by a Religious Government; and 2)that Religion would not recognize unions as outlined in Resolution 15.

It is our Nation's opinion (and this is a nation that is run by a religion), that religious nations who are a part of any large organization, including the World Assembly, wear two hats: the 1st hat is as a religious organization, the 2nd hat is as a W.A. Nation. Unfortunately all members of the W.A. must sometimes act as a W.A. Nation in such a way that some portion of the religious organization must make a compromise. This sounds harsh and unreasonable, as well as threatening to our rights; but consider this example: a religion-run nation in which children are sacrificed to a deity would not be considered exempt from legislation forbidding the murder of children. Sometimes the rights of the people trump the rights of the religion.

That last statement contains a lot of opinion, but I stand by it. I appreciate debate as well, and it is my aim to either help make your repeal better or have it removed from the W.A. But please answer all of our points or the debate will go nowhere.

It says is free to recognize or NOT. That means it is a restriction. For example, the Catholic Church may recognize straight marriage and not gay marriage. That's a restriction! Gays won't get married in a Catholic Church (or most of them). It's just like telling a restaurant they are able to not give service to blacks (or whites, Mexicans. Or in NS terms, Bigtopians, etc.)

You are confused about the meaning of the phrase, and the word "restriction." Your example is also disingenuous, as it conflates ethnic discrimination with religious sovereignty.

In this instance, the clause is an exemption to allow religious communities the latitude to recognize the efficacy of certain marriages performed by the state. In Snefaldia, there is no gender specification for marriages, a man and a man may marry each other in my country. However, the Snefaldian Catholic Church is unlikely to recognize the marriage for religious purposes- however, they are not punished for doing so.

Similarly, the Church may choose to recognize the unions for religious purposes- this is entirely within their right. The clause gives religious communities the freedom of choice in regards to marriages conducted outside the traditional manner of their faith.

Nemo Taranton
etc.

Well, I had a great day. I got up, went to breakfast, played my trombone, went to school, saw "Yes, man" at the movies, and ate a veggie burger (yes, I'm a conservative vegan). Also, can you type in a language we can understand? What in the context am I ignoring?
We regret that we have not been schooled in the honoured ambassador's native language, and must thus use the common compromise of this assembly. Unless by chance the ambassador is fluent in Gobbannaeg?

We believe Ambassador Goostren has eludicated a majority of the points your question covers, but for the removal of ambiguity we would repeat that the context in which the clauses that you accuse of gross ambiguity are in the preamble to the resolution, which lays out in brief the aims and justification of the following legislation. These clauses do not translate into national law directly, as subsequent clauses do. Complaining (incorrectly, we note) of ambiguity in such clauses is about as meaningful and effective as shouting at the wind.

Looking at this from the opposite point of view, we would be intrigued to know if the honoured ambassador has a convincing reason why murderers should not be permitted to marry.

The honoured ambassadors to Charlotte Ryberg will oppose this because the resolution does not specify where the shortcomings were.