AT VOTE: Foreign Marriage Recognition [Complete] [Complete]

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Christian Democrats

Foreign Marriage Recognition:
Description: The General Assembly,

Recognizing civil marriage as a secular institution that exists in many, if not most, member states,

Realizing that people who are married often migrate or travel to different member states,

Believing that such marriages should remain valid in foreign member states and that those people should not be burdened with having to remarry after moving to different member states,

1. Requires every member state to provide every foreign marriage that meets all of the following conditions the same legal recognition as a domestic marriage:

  • The marriage was performed legally under the jurisdiction of a foreign member state, and that marriage remains legally valid in that same foreign member state;
  • The marriage does not violate World Assembly law; and
  • The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;

2. Declares that marriage, as used in this resolution, refers to civil marriages (social unions of individuals provided legal recognition by governmental authorities) as well as other sorts of civil unions or civil partnerships of similar legal effect;

3. Further declares that member state, as used in this resolution, refers to member states as well as their political subdivisions; and

4. Affirms that this resolution has absolutely no effect on religious practices and that member states are not required by this resolution to recognize marriage or similar unions.
Click to expand...
 
We have nearly two days to possibly come up with an Information For Voters sheet on this proposal.

I would like to take this moment to solicit persons for or against this resolution to submit a blurb describing the arguments for or against which is no longer than one thousand characters (counting spaces).
 
This does not go far enough. in Flemingovia people are allowed to have sex with, and even marry, bicycle tyre inner tubes (uninflated, of course. Anything else would be perverted.)

I would like to see a law that means that this marriage is valid in all states.

Against.
 
Yeah, I'm sure they'll be thrilled with the feedback that it doesn't go as far as including bicycle inner tubes so isn't any good.

I find no problems with this and would be happy to vote for it should it reach the WA floor.
 
I have a problem with 1 c.,
The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;
Click to expand...
which nullifies any valid marriage performed in a foreign state, that is not valid under the law of the domestic state.
I could support this if 1c were omitted completely. As it is, against.
 
This Resolution looks well written and I have no objections at this time.

If this resolution reaches the WA floor I will vote for it.
 
Based on these responses I will vote for it the moment it reaches the floor, increasing the influence of TNP opinion within the WA by influencing others. (This practice is known as "Stacking")
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have a problem with 1 c.,
The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;
Click to expand...
which nullifies any valid marriage performed in a foreign state, that is not valid under the law of the domestic state.
I could support this if 1c were omitted completely. As it is, against.
Click to expand...
Could you perhaps submit a blurb as I have asked for, for inclusion in an Information for Voters sheet?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have a problem with 1 c.,
The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;
Click to expand...
which nullifies any valid marriage performed in a foreign state, that is not valid under the law of the domestic state.
I could support this if 1c were omitted completely. As it is, against.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'd vote against it without that clause.

While personally agreeing with any form of marriage people want to go for (barring the bicycle tube ones), I don't feel its the WAs job to essentially force the marriage policy of the most liberal state onto every other member.
 
I'm all for it. Obviously if Ator People were forced to recognize marriages that could not have taken place within our nation, I would have to be 100% against it. Ator People has relatively strict marriage laws, and we can only recognize marriages that would be legally valid in our own kingdom.
 
Zemnaya Svoboda's vote for "Foreign Marriage Recognition" has been noted.

I guess I'll write up something myself in a bit...
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the WA.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a WA nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have a problem with 1 c.,
The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;
Click to expand...
which nullifies any valid marriage performed in a foreign state, that is not valid under the law of the domestic state.
I could support this if 1c were omitted completely. As it is, against.
Click to expand...
Against, because it's pointless with c.1c.

With some tweaking and the removal of c.1c., this resolution could have been a groundbreaking piece of human rights legislation that undermined government's ability to suppress gay marriage; as it stands now.. I have no idea why its needed other than to block said legislation and.. that sounds like something the author (Mr. Catholic himself) would want to do.
 
unibot:
Grosseschnauzer:
I have a problem with 1 c.,
The marriage would be legally valid if it had been performed domestically;
Click to expand...
which nullifies any valid marriage performed in a foreign state, that is not valid under the law of the domestic state.
I could support this if 1c were omitted completely. As it is, against.
Click to expand...
Against, because it's pointless with c.1c.

With some tweaking and the removal of c.1c., this resolution could have been a groundbreaking piece of human rights legislation that undermined government's ability to suppress gay marriage; as it stands now.. I have no idea why its needed other than to block said legislation and.. that sounds like something the author (Mr. Catholic himself) would want to do.
Click to expand...
As Unibot III is not a WA nation and I don't see a WA of yours endorsing General Hammond, I will not be counting this vote, with my apologies.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top