NationStates Jolt Archive

What Do I need to Change on this Bill.

Repeal of Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act)

The reason for a repeal of resolution #15 is the disregard on nations and citizens of the World Assembly.

Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) may give rights to a minority part of some nations but disregards nations of a majority that seat on the other Side of this issue.

Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) takes rights and freedoms form religions that stand against this issue. (Article 1)

Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) takes the rights form nations to make their own laws and regulations on this issue. (Article 2)

Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) has disregard all religious and political beliefs of all persons in the WA.

Repealing Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) Dose not mean that same or different sex marriages are illegal but will give the right back to the nations government or voters to determine what the issue is.

Everything, honoured Ambassador, especially the parts about the rights of religion which are expressly protected within the statute you are trying to repeal.

However we are completely opposed to this appalling piece of prejudice and will not offer it any further assistance, we will merely oppose it and other heinous attempts to undermine equality and human freedom absolutely.

Yours,

And then there's the fact that your entire argument boils down to, "Waaa, national sovereignty."

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This draft written in toilet paper is beyond pathetic. Its place is down the drain.

What Do I need to Change on this Bill.

Now now, ambassadors, let us be charitable and explain the problems with this proposal so that the honoured drafter may learn therefrom, howsoever vigorously we may disagree with the position taken.

Repeal of Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act)

The reason for a repeal of resolution #15 is the disregard on nations and citizens of the World Assembly.

(OOC: would I be right in thinking that English isn't your first language? I'm afraid I'm having to do a bit of guessing in the following because this isn't always meaningful English, and there are several possible things you could have meant. If I'm wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me.)

If the honoured ambassador is suggesting that the WA is being disrespectful to both nations and individuals, we must respectfully demur. The WA is being highly respectful to individuals, that much is certain. If removing from nations some of their rights to oppress individuals is disrespectful, then we must say we consider the disrespect of those nations for their citizens a far greater crime in need of correction.

Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) may give rights to a minority part of some nations but disregards nations of a majority that seat on the other Side of this issue.
We are sorry, but this is arrant nonsense. The matter was put to a vote of all members of the World Assembly, and a clear majority sided with it. Making yourself out to be part of an oppressed majority is a claim that will not stand any serious examination.

Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) takes rights and freedoms form religions that stand against this issue. (Article 1)
Resolution #15 explicitly does no such thing, unless the honoured ambassador is refering to the "right" or "freedom" of a given religion to force its views on marriage on everyone else. Needless to say, we do not recognise any such right.

Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) takes the rights form nations to make their own laws and regulations on this issue. (Article 2)
Every World Assembly resolution, without exception, takes the rights from nations to make their own laws and regulations on some issue. As such this is not considered a sufficient reason on its own to repeal a resolution, and is regarded with outright distain by many.

Resolution #15 (Freedom of Marriage Act) has disregard all religious and political beliefs of all persons in the WA.
We refer the honoured ambassador back to our previous three answers, since this is essentially the same as all of them.

We trust that the honoured ambassador will see that since the only one of his objections which is in fact true is not sufficient, he will need to be a good deal more careful in his reasoning.

I have seen that this will not pass and will no longer post it. and will think about leaving the WA due to some nations and honoured ambassadors not seeing that my nation has a different look at the world or has the right to make laws about this issue of gay Marriage.

*checks an e-mail* Her Delegacy wishes me to inquire as to whether the practice of office-claiming is still in effect, or if it died out with the name change? If it's still in place, she would like to place a claim on "the easily offended one's" plants and ergonomic chair.

We must oppose this resolution as it is most unnecessary and goes against the spirit of the WA. It is indeed a fallacy to say that religious groups are being denied their rights. Look at Korintar, we have few, if any, marriage laws as we believe that marriage is a religious, not civil, institution. Thus gay marriage is permitted de jure, but not necessarily de facto as three of our dominions, 1/4 of the dominions that make up our nation, have reported gay marriage being verboten as socially conservative religious authorities of the Abrahamic tradition have much power in those regions.

"I bagsy his Office and beat the representitive from The Illustrious Renae to it. It will make a nice Addition to my current office for having meetings with other members. That is, after I bust down the wall between the two."

Mr. Gregory Anerson
Senior Ambassador to the UN

I have seen that this will not pass and will no longer post it. and will think about leaving the WA due to some nations and honoured ambassadors not seeing that my nation has a different look at the world or has the right to make laws about this issue of gay Marriage.

That is your right, honored ambassador, to leave the World Assembly.

"I bagsy his Office and beat the representitive from The Illustrious Renae to it. It will make a nice Addition to my current office for having meetings with other members. That is, after I bust down the wall between the two."

Mr. Gregory Anerson
Senior Ambassador to the UN
Oh come now, Ambassador. Surely the honorable Delegate whom I represent is still entitled to the specific items she listed in her claim? You may bagsy the Office itself all you like, but the chair and plants rightfully belong to Lady Ilera R. S. Melancon of Intellect and the Arts. Trust me, she will fight for that chair.

I have seen that this will not pass and will no longer post it. and will think about leaving the WA due to some nations and honoured ambassadors not seeing that my nation has a different look at the world or has the right to make laws about this issue of gay Marriage.

To be brutally honest, Ambassador, I simply do not understand the hatred of same-sex couples that would motivate one to deny them equality and liberty.

The People of Luxem and Leon being Moralistic but fair do not see the need, at this time, to repeal the Fair Marriage Act. Although we do not agree with same sex marriage we will abide by the resolution of this body to allow it in our borders. This Resolution needs to be dropped.

Any form of discrimination, just like Consadia and Luxem & Leon's calls ofr reapealing, shall be stepped on inmediately. No country whose office is a WA Member shall be voicing for homophobia, sexual inequality and hatred. We completely disagree with repealing the Freedom of Marriage Act.

I have seen that this will not pass and will no longer post it. and will think about leaving the WA due to some nations and honoured ambassadors not seeing that my nation has a different look at the world or has the right to make laws about this issue of gay Marriage.


So the honoured Ambassador wishes us to respect his nation's desire to inflict inequality and prejudice on its people ? That is beyond the moral patience of our delegation.

What of the respect the honoured Ambassador's government owes to the unfortunate homosexuals inflicted with the misfortune of dwelling within its jurisdiction ? Are we to offer the government of Consadia a level of respect it cannot offer to millions of its own people ?

If the honoured Ambassador were suggesting a statute which actually dealt with a social injustice or an urgent problem of international nature and had complaint of not having been given a fair hearing in this place then we might sympathise with their plight, as it is we cannot sympathise with the disgruntled petulance of a nation motivated by hate, disrespect for human dignity, and oppression.


Yours,

The Honored Ambassador of Fedoroyna misunderstands Luxem and Leon's Position. We Support the Freedom of Marriage Act. Our population is not overly enthused about Gay Marriage. Yet we abide by the Act.

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe To be brutally honest, Ambassador, I simply do not understand the hatred of same-sex couples that would motivate one to deny them equality and liberty.

I did not mean for to stop same-sex Marriage but to allow the nations of the WA to make their own laws on the Issue.

my nation have Made their mind up and Consadia will not leave the WA and will keep puting this bill up to vote untill it pass and will keep changing the bill untill then.

I thank everyone for posting and hope you keep doing so.

This bill does have some support form nations and I will them to look at this and to reply.

Mr. John Vickerson
Consadian WA Ambassador.

I did not mean for to stop same-sex Marriage but to allow the nations of the WA to make their own laws on the Issue.

Come now, let's be honest rather than disingenuous. What exactly do you want to allow nations to do that the Freedom of Marriage Act denies? Oh, yeah, the power to deny couples the right to marriage and/or to discriminate against couples on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation.* Unless and until you provide a rational reason for wanting nations to have such power, I will continue to assume your only motivation is either plain bigotry or the desire to enable such bigotry.

*In addition to the Freedom of Marriage Act, the Charter of Civil Rights forbids such discrimination, so it is doubly prohibited, IMHO.

my nation have Made their mind up and Consadia will not leave the WA and will keep puting this bill up to vote untill it pass and will keep changing the bill untill then.

I thank everyone for posting and hope you keep doing so.

This bill does have some support form nations and I will them to look at this and to reply.

Mr. John Vickerson
Consadian WA Ambassador.

Although we offer the Ambassador and your citizens our general best wishes, we fervently hope that you fail in this effort. We will oppose you at every turn.

*In addition to the Freedom of Marriage Act, the Charter of Civil Rights forbids such discrimination, so it is doubly prohibited, IMHO.



Indeed this is absolutely correct honoured Ambassador, we had hoped not to direct the honoured Ambassador for Consadia's attention in that direction just yet in case their efforts might be deflected toward repealing that statute instead.


Yours,

You need to find a fault in the resolution, or prove that it stops better resolutions on this subject being written, or show that it contradicts previous resolutions, or that its clauses are too limiting/too broad, or ... a real reason, not an "I disagree with that" reason.

It is no use saying, "repeal it because it does this", because the WA members who voted on it already knew it did that, and a majority of them wanted it to do that.

If you think you see a weakness -- as in, something the WA didn't realise was there -- then check the debate on the resolution before you go ahead. The "fault" you think you see may have been brought up and dismissed during the debate.

If you have a group called, say, Woffles, who exist only in your nation, and the resolution as it stands hurts Woffles, well, tough cheddar. An argument based on a single group in a single member nation will not succeed.

(For example, we once had a resolution forbidding necrophilia. My nation's wizards crumble to dust on the moment of death, so necrophilia isn't possible there. But I couldn't seek the repeal of the resolution on the grounds of my single nation not needing it.)

The argument "this interferes too much with my nation's government" is called the National Sovereignty argument, and we already have a ruling that amendments must be based on something more substantial than national sovereignty -- you can mention it, but it mustn't be the only argument.

I am and my nation are not the only ones that want to repeal this I got 23 Nations to Agree with me on this issue. Its sad to say that some nations don't belive in freedom for nations or its people to make the Laws for their own nations.

I am and my nation are not the only ones that want to repeal this I got 23 Nations to Agree with me on this issue. Its sad to say that some nations don't belive in freedom for nations or its people to make the Laws for their own nations.

You are not the only nation that wishes to discriminate against same-sex couples, deny people the right to marry, violate equal protection of the law, and/or impinge on individual substantive liberty. That is sad in and of itself and hardly cause for the rest of us to allow such tyranny.

Oh come now, Ambassador. Surely the honorable Delegate whom I represent is still entitled to the specific items she listed in her claim? You may bagsy the Office itself all you like, but the chair and plants rightfully belong to Lady Ilera R. S. Melancon of Intellect and the Arts. Trust me, she will fight for that chair.

"Honored representitive from The Illustrious Renae. You may have all that crap as i plan on bringing in the best interior decorators from the Shazbotdom Mainland in to refurnish the office to specifications that I feel are acceptable to me."

Mr. Gregory Anerson
Senior Ambassador to the UN

This resolution is officially dead. We in Korintar take no heed of the marriage resolutions. As stated previously we do have our fair share of homophobes and they reserve the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation rather frequently. As Freedom of Association and Expression are fundamental rights in Korintar, a community could refuse to allow full membership to an openly gay man, and he could just move elsewhere as is his right.

This resolution is officially dead. We in Korintar take no heed of the marriage resolutions. As stated previously we do have our fair share of homophobes and they reserve the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation rather frequently. As Freedom of Association and Expression are fundamental rights in Korintar, a community could refuse to allow full membership to an openly gay man, and he could just move elsewhere as is his right.


Your religions may recognise which ever marriages they wish honoured Ambassador but your state may not recognise some and not others simply because it does not have a legal institution of marriage.

The Charter of Civil Rights also demands that you deal with institutional homophobia or discrimination, either by fiat or by the processes of your courts.


Yours,

Honored ambassador, I think you may have misunderstood. According to our laws, government services cannot be denied by sexual orientation, regardless the convictions of the ones providing the service. This is also the case in our, secular, co-ops. Our dominions issue reports on the progress of GLBT rights in their jurisdictions, unfortunately this has been very slow in coming due to the power said conservative religious leaders have in daily life. Freedom Church, Liberty Alliance, and Liberals for Life, along certain, more liberal, members of the Christian Communist Coalition have all pushed for the church authorities to back down or to secularize some of the communes. This, indeed, was an issue that led to successful secession movements in Korintar as some refused to accept gay rights. So it is is not like we are not trying, for we are, just that we have not been successful yet. It is one of those things that will take alot of time, especially in the north. I am happy to say that in none of the major cities is discrimination a major problem- it is just in the suburban and rural areas where we have to combat it.

You must also understand that many of our smaller communities have two classes of membership:Full and Associate. Full members are subject to any decisions passed by the commitees, have full access to community services and can be employed in the co-ops, as well have reduced rental fees. Associate members are not bound by any ordinance, except those that they may choose to bind themselves by. They also cannot be employed in the co-ops, but they are the only ones who reserve the right to start their own businesses. They are barred from voting for most offices at the most local levels and are not allowed free access to community services; they must pay a small fee. Lastly associate members do not have reduced rental fees. So gays are allowed to reside in those communities, but as associate members. Once again this is in rural areas and suburban areas only, and we are working to fix that problem.

Gays also are generally not allowed to serve as religious leaders in those communities either, which is something the urban congregations have been critical of as at least half of them have openly homosexual leadership.

Honored ambassador, I think you may have misunderstood. According to our laws, government services cannot be denied by sexual orientation, regardless the convictions of the ones providing the service. This is also the case in our, secular, co-ops. Our dominions issue reports on the progress of GLBT rights in their jurisdictions, unfortunately this has been very slow in coming due to the power said conservative religious leaders have in daily life. Freedom Church, Liberty Alliance, and Liberals for Life, along certain, more liberal, members of the Christian Communist Coalition have all pushed for the church authorities to back down or to secularize some of the communes. This, indeed, was an issue that led to successful secession movements in Korintar as some refused to accept gay rights. So it is is not like we are not trying, for we are, just that we have not been successful yet. It is one of those things that will take alot of time, especially in the north. I am happy to say that in none of the major cities is discrimination a major problem- it is just in the suburban and rural areas where we have to combat it.

You must also understand that many of our smaller communities have two classes of membership:Full and Associate. Full members are subject to any decisions passed by the commitees, have full access to community services and can be employed in the co-ops, as well have reduced rental fees. Associate members are not bound by any ordinance, except those that they may choose to bind themselves by. They also cannot be employed in the co-ops, but they are the only ones who reserve the right to start their own businesses. They are barred from voting for most offices at the most local levels and are not allowed free access to community services; they must pay a small fee. Lastly associate members do not have reduced rental fees. So gays are allowed to reside in those communities, but as associate members. Once again this is in rural areas and suburban areas only, and we are working to fix that problem.

Gays also are generally not allowed to serve as religious leaders in those communities either, which is something the urban congregations have been critical of as at least half of them have openly homosexual leadership.



While we commend the honoured Ambassador for Korintar's government for their seemingly strong commitment to the cause of anti-discrimination it seems that it remains unfamiliar with the actual text which they are committed to by international law.

Citizenship, associate or otherwise is not the qualification required for full access to equal rights. Indeed all that is required is that one be an inhabitant of your state for this equality of rights to be available.

The whole concept you describe of associated and full member status of a community is in fact illegal under the CoCR.

We imagine this will be a matter of some consternation within Korintar but we recommend that your government reassess its current legal arrangements in this matter and bring itself into full compliance not only in word but in practice.


Yours sincerely,

Do not worry, it will be done in practice, even if it requires using the army and militias to maintain control. Messing with such things is very difficult, and we realize that the legality of certain practices are questionable at best. We will be pushing for full legal rights of associate membership, so that it will only be a nominal, rather than actual distinction. Currently associate membership, under national law, has all the rights and duties of citizenship at the provincial, dominion, and federal levels of government, as well as communal in most places. Gays, in fact, serve on our Supreme Economic Council and there is nothing that said religious leaders can do about that. If your nation is willing to send observers into the farming co-ops, we can begin the process of reconfiguration. It is only economic freedoms that are a problem at this point in time concerning GLBT rights, and there is nothing in the Korintari constitution that says anybody has the legal right to run their own business nor to work in the co-ops, but it does say that all peoples, regardless of condition, do have the right to suitable employment and does allow the churches to run some of the co-ops, but not those that are partly owned by the state. I have heard some gay rights leaders actually say they have no issue with the associate membership thing as it gives them greater freedom in terms of how they live their lives, but those are just members of Liberty Alliance and Freedom Church. Those who are Egalitarian Nationalist are more likely to oppose it. As for Christian Communists, there is a party split, some agree with ENC stance and others oppose it. Needless to say this is often swept under the rug as it only affects a handful of people, and many of those individuals have mixed views concerning the matter. But we will look into this further and take the appropriate actions.

The argument for the repeal is rather specious and a concern to civil and political rights.

However, we believe that the resolution should be supplemented by a divorce resolution, which is in the works by the community.

Do not worry, it will be done in practice, even if it requires using the army and militias to maintain control. Messing with such things is very difficult, and we realize that the legality of certain practices are questionable at best. We will be pushing for full legal rights of associate membership, so that it will only be a nominal, rather than actual distinction. Currently associate membership, under national law, has all the rights and duties of citizenship at the provincial, dominion, and federal levels of government, as well as communal in most places. Gays, in fact, serve on our Supreme Economic Council and there is nothing that said religious leaders can do about that. If your nation is willing to send observers into the farming co-ops, we can begin the process of reconfiguration. It is only economic freedoms that are a problem at this point in time concerning GLBT rights, and there is nothing in the Korintari constitution that says anybody has the legal right to run their own business nor to work in the co-ops, but it does say that all peoples, regardless of condition, do have the right to suitable employment and does allow the churches to run some of the co-ops, but not those that are partly owned by the state. I have heard some gay rights leaders actually say they have no issue with the associate membership thing as it gives them greater freedom in terms of how they live their lives, but those are just members of Liberty Alliance and Freedom Church. Those who are Egalitarian Nationalist are more likely to oppose it. As for Christian Communists, there is a party split, some agree with ENC stance and others oppose it. Needless to say this is often swept under the rug as it only affects a handful of people, and many of those individuals have mixed views concerning the matter. But we will look into this further and take the appropriate actions.



This does sound like a complicated situation, but the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench would be very happy to send observers and legal consultants to Korintar to assist its government in implementing the provisions of the CoCR.

If your government wishes to it may contact the Imperial Government here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=572611 with any queries regarding this matter.


Yours sincerely,

Consadia Follows the Freedom of Marriage Act or UnFree Nations Act what ever you like to call it. This resolution is un-fair to my citizens on the base that 90% of Consadia is conservative. My nation has the Right to take or give freedoms to its citizens as long it does not hurt the majority or the Lutheran Charuch of Consadia.

Some nations belive that you must think their way. But Consadia says do what ever you want because only that nation can take care of its owen citizens.

On the FMA or UNA I will try to Repeal it based on that it is out of Date and the The Charter of Civil Rights (RESOLUTION #35) offers greater protection.

This should be done this week.

On the FMA or UNA I will try to Repeal it based on that it is out of Date and the The Charter of Civil Rights (RESOLUTION #35) offers greater protection.

This should be done this week.



By all means try to repeal whatever you wish honoured Ambassador. It seems pointless to do so if you admit that the CoCR would still require you to recognise same sex marriages though don't you think ?


Yours,

Consadia Follows the Freedom of Marriage Act or UnFree Nations Act what ever you like to call it. This resolution is un-fair to my citizens on the base that 90% of Consadia is conservative. My nation has the Right to take or give freedoms to its citizens as long it does not hurt the majority or the Lutheran Charuch of Consadia.

And yet a substantial majority of the members of this organisation voted for the FoMA, would you ignore their expressed democratic will ?

Some nations belive that you must think their way. But Consadia says do what ever you want because only that nation can take care of its owen citizens.

This is an argument for why your nation should not be a member of this organisation since every single one of its laws interferes with a nation's ability to rule itself as it wishes.

And why in this case is it only the FoMA your nation objects to so much ? Could it be that you are using national sovereignty arguments to cloak your national prejudices against homosexuals ?


Yours,

Just to warn you those legal consultants had better be well versed in the torah and the Pauline epistles, along with socialist law, for they will need that knowledge to work with our courts. Better yet, you might also want to send over some professional theologians of the Abrahamic tradition (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim).

Just to warn you those legal consultants had better be well versed in the torah and the Pauline epistles, along with socialist law, for they will need that knowledge to work with our courts. Better yet, you might also want to send over some professional theologians of the Abrahamic tradition (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim).

Expert Doctors of every branch of theological law in the abrahamic family are available to be sent from Urgench to Korintar at your governments convenience honoured Ambasador.


Yours,

One last thing. I've done some checking and it turns out that it will be good if we can convince the religious leaders to permit gays to go on the path towards full membership, if they choose to do so. It should also be understood that by getting rid of associate membership, Korintar will lose the majority of its white collar work force, as most will be employed as blue collar laborers under such a plan. Remember that only associate members, who do not have voting rights at the local level nor the rights to free use of municipal facilities, have the right to work in a freely competitive market in Korintari communities. Also, imagine what the orientation is of most of the lawyers in those religious communes? Up to 80% are gay or lesbian in the religious communes, and it is lawyers that go on to be judges. Those judges happen to serve on the People's Court of the Inquisition, our nation's supreme court. An exceptionally strong case will have to be made as those judges will be prone to laugh the suit right out, saying that is none of their concern due to the principle of what some may call "states' rights" or popular sovereingty, as well as free exercise of religion. They will also say that Korintari law is based upon the Torah, which in fact allows the execution of gays, so those communities are actually merciful. Thus you also need to convince the gay community that it is actually being discriminated against by the difference in treatment by the local communes.
OoC: I can't spell today:(

Korintar, Urgench, if you're going to RP in detail, now would be a good time to start a new thread in NS or II, or sort out judicial arrangements over a brew in the Strangers' Bar..

O.O.C I did recommend Korintar take this up with the Sublime Porte but no such overtures where made. :(

The Charter of Civil Rights says that all nations must respect everyone and can't discriminate against anyone but when I read this it didn't say anything about giving the right to get married to Gays and If it does I wish someone to tell me.

The Charter of Civil Rights says that all nations must respect everyone and can't discriminate against anyone but when I read this it didn't say anything about giving the right to get married to Gays and If it does I wish someone to tell me.

FWIW ...

1. Denying persons the right to get married on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation IS DISCRIMINATION!!

2. "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection ...." Equal status & equal protection of the law = equal access to marriage.

The Charter of Civil Rights says that all nations must respect everyone and can't discriminate against anyone but when I read this it didn't say anything about giving the right to get married to Gays and If it does I wish someone to tell me.


It requires absolute equality under the law, this means that if you allow recognition of some of your citizen's marriages you must allow recognition of all of them. Alternatively you must disallow all recognition of all marriages.

The statute goes on to forbid member states from discriminating in any way against a list of persons which member states may add to if they wish, but the list clearly includes homosexuals. Thus your nation's laws can in no way discriminate against such persons.

Yours

FWIW ...

1. Denying persons the right to get married on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation IS DISCRIMINATION!!

2. "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection ...." Equal status & equal protection of the law = equal access to marriage.

Or at least equal denial of marriage.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

No it does not it just means that you can't discrimnate on jobs. It does not say any thing about marriage but if you can't give me an article from the bill I guess you can't read Laws.

No it does not it just means that you can't discrimnate on jobs. It does not say any thing about marriage but if you can't give me an article from the bill I guess you can't read Laws.

*sigh*

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

As I said, this provision guarantees equal status in law, equal treatment, and equal protection. Equal status & equal protection of the law = equal access to marriage. QED

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

The rights to which all inhabitants of member states are entitled would include the right to marry.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

No discrimination of any kind on grounds including sex, sexual orientation, or sexual identity. Denying the right to marry on these grounds is therefore prohibited.

EDIT/NOTE: All of this is academic anyway as freedom of marriage is still protected by the Freedom of Marriage Act.

No it does not it just means that you can't discrimnate on jobs. It does not say any thing about marriage but if you can't give me an article from the bill I guess you can't read Laws.

This is so mild a flame I doubt The Cat Tribe even noticed it. Nevertheless, Consadia, cut it out.

"Flaming" is when you insult the person behind the post. You're not in-character, so it's not your ambassador saying that. It's you, the player, talking to another player, and you're not allowed to insult others when you do.

Argue against the post, not the poster.

You can find more details about flaming and other forbidden actions in the One-Stop Rule Shop (link in my sig).

(EDIT: To make it clearer, when you say, "I guess you can't read Laws", you're implying he's stupid.

And no, I wouldn't bother pointing this out to a more experienced player. This is just a heads-up so you learn early on how the rules work.)

Ardchoille I am sorry about that I did not mean it that why. But will see that I will not do that again. Thank You.

I thank you Cat Tribe for that but in that the Example is in Article 1 C. It talks about Jobs not marriage so and in article 1 A. it talks about that all person is the WA will have equal rights under any WA Law or national Law it does not say any thing about allowing gay marriage.

Pardon me, Consadia, but is marriage a legal institution in your nation? If not, then by all means feel free to continue your pointless yet personally valid argument. If however, as in the vast majority of nations, it is in fact a ritual with legal ramifications, then please allow me the joy of presenting this card which I have so recently discovered.

*ahem*

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/values.jpg

OOC/Off-Topic: Sorry... It's been so long... I just had to use a card. It won't happen often, or at all if there are major objections. The temptation was too great to resist.

Ardchoille I am sorry about that I did not mean it that why. But will see that I will not do that again. Thank You.

I thank you Cat Tribe for that but in that the Example is in Article 1 C. It talks about Jobs not marriage so and in article 1 A. it talks about that all person is the WA will have equal rights under any WA Law or national Law it does not say any thing about allowing gay marriage.

The CoCR does not need to specifically state that gay marriages must be recognised honoured Ambassador.

If your government recognises in law the marriages of its heterosexuals and allows the legal status of "married" to have special legal conditions to pertain to it then it must, according to the CoCR offer this recognition to all of its citizens regardless of whether they are homosexual or not.

The only exception allowed is in regards to the age of those seeking to obtain a marriage. Naturally this is to prevent the possibility of adult persons marrying persons under their nation's age of consent. Age not being one of the conditions which the CoCR makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of.

Complete equality of status under the law ( not just employment law ) and under ( all ) actions of the law means that all your citizens must have equal rights to enjoy a multitude of legal protections which they might hitherto not have had enjoyment of.


Continued objections otherwise are foolish and contrary to reality honoured Ambassador and they do not reflect well on the perspicacity of your delegation.


Yours,

The CoCR does not need to specifically state that gay marriages must be recognised honoured Ambassador.

If your government recognises in law the marriages of its heterosexuals and allows the legal status of "married" to have special legal conditions to pertain to it then it must, according to the CoCR offer this recognition to all of its citizens regardless of whether they are homosexual or not.

OOC: That's true. However, if a nation legally requires a marriage of heterosexuals to involve one man and one woman then (under CoCR) it could do exactly the same for a marriage of homosexuals... Same treatment, therefore not discriminatory... ;)

(This was not anybody from the Bears' WA mission talking...)

OOC: That's true. However, if a nation legally requires a marriage of heterosexuals to involve one man and one woman then (under CoCR) it could do exactly the same for a marriage of homosexuals... Same treatment, therefore not discriminatory... ;)

(This was not anybody from the Bears' WA mission talking...)


O.O.C yes but then they would have to have a separate, though legally equal, institution of homosexual marriage which would require the parties to be of the same sex. And both kinds of marriage would have to enjoy the same privileges...

The Korintari delegation is happy to announce that said religious leaders relented in their activities and extended full membership as an option to homosexuals in the communes. 33% of the GLBT community has now opted for it in those places. As for the remaining 67%? A quarter are considering it upon retirement, and the rest prefer to remain associate members viewing that as permitting greater degree of freedom, despite the percieved inequity.

O.O.C yes but then they would have to have a separate, though legally equal, institution of homosexual marriage which would require the parties to be of the same sex. And both kinds of marriage would have to enjoy the same privileges...OOC: I disagree: That might be how you'd want it to happen, and how your own nation's courts would interpret it, but a strict interpretation of CoCR's wording says nothing of the kind just that one can't discriminate... and having a single set of rules about marriage, rather than different rules for differing groups, clearly isn't discriminatory.
If the COCR did say what you're suggesting then, in fact, it would be illegal for contradicting the 'Freedom of Marriage' resolution... because that says that nations can (and, if necessary, must) establish a system of 'civil contracts' for anybody whom their religions' laws don't allow to get married. However the nations would have to allow homosexual partnerships in that context, of course, and that's why my previous post referred specifically to CoCR rather than (more generally) to "existing WA legislation".
That raises an interesting point, though... As those 'civil contracts' are legally an alternative to marriages, and the latest resolution to be passed defines 'Divorce' specifically as the dissolution of a marriage, that latter resolution would actually be inapplicable in the case of anybody who was only bound by one of those contracts rather than by a (more traditional) marriage ceremony...

You're partly right.

The would-be Divorce Act does contain a definion of divorce, but not a definition of marriage, because that would be redundant. The W.A. already defines for W.A. purposes any union of two persons, no matter what the State wants to call it.

And I have already discussed and replied to what you are saying.

Here is the link, in case you missed it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14534506&postcount=53)

Yours truly,

You're partly right.

The would-be Divorce Act does contain a definion of divorce, but not a definition of marriage, because that would be redundant. The W.A. already defines for W.A. purposes any union of two persons, no matter what the State wants to call it.

And I have already discussed and replied to what you are saying.

Here is the link, in case you missed it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14534506&postcount=53)

Yours truly,
OOC; Oops! So you did... I must still have been thinking of an earlier draft, rather than the final version... Either that or I need more sleep...

O.O.C.



OOC: I disagree: That might be how you'd want it to happen, and how your own nation's courts would interpret it, but a strict interpretation of CoCR's wording says nothing of the kind just that one can't discriminate... and having a single set of rules about marriage, rather than different rules for differing groups, clearly isn't discriminatory.

It would remain discriminatory to legally define " married " as only between a man and a woman, and marriage would have to be a status available to all or none at all.

Racially segregated schools are the best example, even if these schools are indentical practically speaking, the mere fact of segregation has an effect and is applied for a reason, that reason is discrimination.

If the COCR did say what you're suggesting then, in fact, it would be illegal for contradicting the 'Freedom of Marriage' resolution... because that says that nations can (and, if necessary, must) establish a system of 'civil contracts' for anybody whom their religions' laws don't allow to get married. However the nations would have to allow homosexual partnerships in that context, of course, and that's why my previous post referred specifically to CoCR rather than (more generally) to "existing WA legislation".


Anybody being the operative word in this context. The FoMa sepcifically allows religions to continue to recognise what ever they wish but demands that the state treat all as equal, the purpose of creating a civil union in a theocracy is to make this requirement possible.