[GA, Passed] Marriage Equality [Complete]

[Sil Dorsett]

Marriage Equality
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Provisional State of Nevada | No Onsite Topic​

---

The World Assembly:

REGOGNIZING: That the historical and cultural significance of marriage,

REGOGNIZING: That throughout history marriage has been the cornerstone of civilization

FURTHER REGOGNIZING: That many member state prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits and legal recognition of marriage.

RESOLVED: That all member states are required allow same-sex couples to apply for and receive state-authorized marriage,

RESOLVED: That all member states are prohibited from discriminating against same-sex marriages and treating them any differently than opposite gender marriages

RESOLVED: That same-sex couples have the right to be free from discrimination in regards to their public or private affection of one another

RESOLVED: That no member of a religious organization will be required to officiate over, or required to attend a same-sex marriage contrary to their religious belief

RESOLVED: that no legal difference shall be made between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

Spoiler: Regional Vote

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2017_10_09_marriage_equality[/wavote]

Spoiler: World Vote

[wavote=world,ga]2017_10_09_marriage_equality[/wavote]

 

[Sil Dorsett]

General Assembly Resolution #313, which repealed this proposal's predecessor, the Freedom of Marriage Act, pointed out that "... subsequent to Freedom of Marriage Act's adoption, Resolution #35: The Charter of Civil Rights (COCR) was enacted, forbidding discrimination by governments and/or public-service providers based on any 'reductive categorisation,' not just sex or sexual preference." The intended effect of preserving equal marriage rights for both same-sex and different-sex couples is already in place through The Charter of Civil Rights, making this proposal redundant.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.

Allow me to clarify something... We are not against equal rights with regards to marriage or anything else. We are absolutely for it. But, these rights are already guaranteed by the Charter of Civil Rights (GA Resolution #35), making the proposal, which is poorly written and riddled with spelling errors by the way, redundant. I regognize this is a bitter pill to take though.

 

[Rocketdog]

Against, based on the simple spelling errors as well as the resolution not been needed. I do agree with the premise of the resolution, is it necessary though?

WA: Olnais currently with deployment of NPA

[border=#090,1,solid][bgcolor=#090]SD:[/bgcolor] NPA mission in The East Pacific. Vote counts.[/border]

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Aside from the lack of drafting which could have caught spelling and grammar errors, General Assembly Resolution #313, which repealed the Freedom of Marriage Act, pointed out that "... subsequent to Freedom of Marriage Act's adoption, [GA] Resolution #35: The Charter of Civil Rights (COCR) was enacted, forbidding discrimination by governments and/or public-service providers based on any 'reductive categorisation,' not just sex or sexual preference." Unless I'm missing something, this new resolution is not needed because the intended effects are already in place through The Charter of Civil Rights.

Against, but let me reiterate that it is for a technical reason. I do agree with the concept that the resolution is trying to promote.

 

[Flakey]

Against


[border=#F00,1,solid][bgcolor=#F00]SD:[/bgcolor] WA is Temmff, which is in The Pacific. Doesn't count.[/border]

 

[Yukkira]

Vote: Present - Abstain

 

[Flakey]

Against


[border=#F00,1,solid][bgcolor=#F00]SD:[/bgcolor] WA is Temmff, which is in The Pacific. Doesn't count.[/border]

fixed- Cremeden

Vote- Against

---

[border=#F00,1,solid][bgcolor=#F00]SD:[/bgcolor] Nope. See policy below. Cannot switch WA from outside the region to inside to vote. To be blunt, you are disqualified from impacting the Delegate's vote for this resolution. Keep your WA within TNP and you can have an impact on future resolutions.[/border]

3) Eligible to submit votes in a forum thread are all persons that: have a World Assembly nation either residing in The North Pacific, or deployed in an official mission of the North Pacific Army; and satisfy this condition for the entire time the forum thread is open. Votes may only be submitted through posts in the forum thread. All votes should include their WA Nation.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7194278/

 

[Deropia]

Against, because of the easy-to-catch-with-peer-review spelling errors and I believe this is already covered by CoCRs anti-discrimination clauses. The principal is good...just not the execution.

 

[Fawkes]

Aside from having several typos, it seems to be good resolution. However, I agree with Sil on the fact that it is certainly unnecessary, because the no-discrimination field has been well-covered on previous occasions. With a little adjustment will be a good extension to the current regulations, while that happens, I vote against.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Against. Does not make reference to how august the Assembly is. (this ought not be counted in the tally, my WA is elsewhere)

 

[Atlae]

Opinion since no WA:

Stomp it.

 

[Dreylus]

for

 

[Cuyan]

Reflecting upon the resolution itself, it's horribly put together. The fact that it made it through to the full assembly astounds me with it's spelling and grammar error.

As for whether it's necessary, the COCR certainly should be interpreted to provide such protections. That being said, there are those who would interpret it otherwise if not ignore it due to perceived vagueness.

I fully support the measure, but, like many of the ministers, see too many mistakes for it to vote for it.

Vote: Present, Abstain

 

[Wilkshire]

For

 

[Emyt]

For, although I see some obvious spelling errors.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

For, although I see some obvious spelling errors.

...which can't be corrected if the thing passes. It would have to be repealed and resubmitted, wasting time.

 

[Zeek]

Though not WA

Against, WA shouldn't be used to micro manage how nations enact laws and how they should treat their citizens.

 

[TlomzKrano]

Against

 

[Fawkes]

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.