[GA - Passed] Defending The Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

Status
Not open for further replies.
bowloftoast

bowloftoast

Not Just For Breakfast
Discord
bowloftoast

ga.jpg

Defending The Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Maowi | Onsite Topic​
HOLDING that the sexuality or gender of an individual does not make them inferior or superior to another individual of a differing sexuality or gender,

REASONING that individuals of all sexualities and genders should be granted the same civil and political rights, and

NOTING the lack of General Assembly legislation which specifically clarifies the civil and political rights of sexual and gender minorities,

The World Assembly:

A) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.

B) FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.

Hereby,

    1. REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.

    2. ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.

    3. COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.

    4. REQUIRES all member nations to apply legislation of the same scope and effect for the termination of civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders.
  2. MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

  3. ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion).

  4. MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender.

  5. CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Against

WA is on deployment in TSP for the NPA.
 
Last edited:
Seems fairly redundant. Also disappointed in pandering to the religious states. Welp.

Due to the presence of existing legislation, specificaly CoCR and aCoG, the topics of discrimination, gender, and even potentially marriage (which is what we agreed upon last time)areal alresdy covered. Basically the only part left is the specifics of the marriage part.

The marriage part was deemed to have been left up to each individual member with CoCR in placeplace time it was addressed. And I don't see anything so nuanced to change that.

This also appears to ban affirmative action and any real way to discriminate in a manner to provide assistance to specific groups.

Against
 
Last edited:
EDIT:After reading the arguments for, I've changed my vote to PRESENT.

WA is still Sanjurika.
 
Last edited:
Against
GAR#035 CoCR already addresses discrimination based on gender or sexuality, and this proposal covers much of the same ground. The author's rationale here is to 'specifically clarify' these rights in an attempt to address any loopholes in GAR#035 that may be exploited by a lack of specificity. The vast majority of those nations that would be exploiting those loopholes around these issues, would be doing so under some perceived religious exemption or ideological hierarchy of rights that asserts that religion trumps civil rights. That this proposal backs away from taking that problem on directly is not only disappointing, but it also renders this proposal pointless.

WA Nation: THX1138
 
I disagree with...I guess all of you. Sure, at first blush I felt this resolution was treading ground that was already won in prior legislation, and spent a lot of time effectively guaranteeing a right to gay marriage, but we have had to re-examine legislation before that had loopholes or unintended consequences. It seems to me this is less a case of either of those, and more a matter of design. The same design, in fact, that this resolution has in avoiding the question of religious rights, which, let's face it, could sink this resolution by themselves. I believe that we tolerated some level of opportunity for people to weasel out of actually enforcing the right of gay marriage, for the sake of successfully making it a reality writ large, and this resolution narrows that ground considerably. Gen Sec has deemed this resolution to be sufficiently different that duplication is not a concern.

The bit in Tlomz's argument about banning affirmative action is rich coming from him, and I'm not entirely sold on that, despite the author's acknowledgement that this is an aspect of the resolution. I don't actually believe that this resolution does what the author says it does, at least as it relates to affirmative action, and I consider that a distraction from the true purpose of the resolution.

I can appreciate why Toast is disappointed that this resolution did not go farther, but that is a fight we can have another day. This resolution furthers the cause that you seem to believe is a worthy one, and it is certainly not pointless.

For
 
Like Ghost I find the concern over affirmative action to perhaps not be coming from a sincere place.

As for BoT’s specific concern? The nations that exploit loopholes in #035 on religious grounds do so by equating religious authority with state authority. Regardless of whether or not they are officially theocracies? They take the position of religious tradition superceeding civil rights.

This proposal stops them from doing that. The bit exempting religious institutions does so in regards to religion as a separated entity from the state.
If we look to the real world for an example? Same-sex marriage is legal in the US. That being said? No church is forced to perform it. Religious groups are still free to deny their sacrament of marriage to any and all they decide to deny it to. That’s all this last bit refers to. It clarifies that while governments cannot deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples? Religious groups, as entities separate from government, will still be allowed to practice their faith in ways they deem appropriate.

To the general argument that #035 already covers this...
Sorry that’s a weak argument if I’m being honest. The WA has never had an issue with the idea of legislation that addressed loose ends in previously passed legislation. This isn’t breaking any new ground conceptually, so I don’t see why #035 is being held up as this thing that we dare not change.
#035 does a lot of good. It’s also a bit too vague for many people’s taste. This resolution addresses those vague areas.

To Tlmoz’s point that #035 left the issue of marriage up to individual member states...probably. And that’s not good enough. This fixes that shortcoming.

For.

Prydania
 
TlomzKrano:
This also appears to ban affirmative action and any real way to discriminate in a manner to provide assistance to specific groups.
Click to expand...

It actually doesn't. Read Clause 3 more closely. It doesn't ban affirmative action. It just makes it so penalties for discrimination, where they already exist based on other protected categories, are now also applied for discrimination based on sexuality or gender. Statements like "does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, disability" now also have to include "sex, sexual orientation, gender identity" if they didn't before.

However, while the resolution exempts religious organizations from its mandates, it fails to recognize the existence of religious nations. This wouldn't fly in RL places like Vatican City or Saudi Arabia. While I'm not opposed to enlightenment, and hell most people here know it needs to happen, I prefer such changes to happen over time so that citizens of such nations gradually acclimate to a new way of thinking. This is taking a jackhammer to the whole social structure of such nations, whereas I'd rather carve it out with sculpting tools. If the owners of such nations were following the WA from a purely RP perspective and not a GP perspective, you'd see mass resignations from this.

I guess the matter here is whether one accepts the existence of religious states.

Present
 
I seem to disagree with all who have posted above, including Ghost. I'd like to start by saying that since I am not a GA regular, I am not intimately aware or concerned with previous legislation, so I shall not take that factor into account. I personally think that such a resolution that clarifies the stance of the WA with regard to the civil marriage of all genders and sexualities is needed, and is helpful. In contrast to what others have pointed out that it is a mistake that the proposal clearly allows exemptions for religious groups, I think this is what prevents the proposal from going too far. Additionally, while I do think that Tlomz' comment on the lack of any allowance for affirmative discrimination is out of character for him, I am personally in support of such ban on unequal treatment, even if it means providing resources and support for minority groups. Taken as a whole, I feel that the resolution takes a clear position without going too far.

For.
 
It is worth mentioning that not all nations view that the state and the church are separate entities because there are moral guidelines that guide the governance of those nations. This is forcing a philosophical position on WA nations that seems to be an aim of the left leaning majority on the issue of civil marriage to force their understanding of this issue on all. I understand the argument of civil marriage as a fundamental right, but there are still nations that I believe validly hold that such an allowance would violate a universal reality. I personally would accept anti-discrimination proposals, but forcing an institutionalization is too far a possibly disruptive mandate to society.

Against
 
Prydania:
snip
Click to expand...
Law is law, and you can't pass a law that arbitrarily exempts some groups because they happen to believe in an invisible sky wizard. That discriminates against everyone else, and violates existing legislation relating to equal rights for all....like GAR#035.
Not only that, but it collapses in on itself:
2. MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals...
How, exactly, is providing an exemption to religious groups or organizations meeting that mandate?

It's just a badly crafted proposal.
 
FOR

WA: QUEEN YUNO


I AM PROOOOOOOOO GAY RIGHTS (also I support new authors such as this new writer from South Pacific)
 
Against as writen

The Nation of Dreadton fully supports the rights of LGBT persons. However, as we have learned about the human mind, we also recognized that paraphilias may include sexual orientations that are deviant due to the lack of consent from the other parties involved. ( OOC: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5/dsm-5-and-paraphilias-what-psychiatrists-need-know) This legislation would require that these deviant orientations are valid. As such we can not support the legislation as written. Should this legislation pass, We would be forced to hold a referendum within our nation to see if it is still fitting for our nation to remain in this body.
 
Last edited:
For.

Clause 5, while clearly exempting religious organizations, opens the door for future legislation to put them in their place once and for all without the need for a repeal of the current proposal.

Edit:

Almost forgot:

WA: New Bremerton
 
Last edited:
Against. At first I was for it because it states all genders are equal but they state that they are allow to change their gender. What...? Sure, you can change your identification, but you're born as either Male or Female. I don't understand why you would want to switch your gender. In fact you should be proud of it. Not to mention this should be done by national choice, similar to Right To Self Defense.

Why is it that appearently thanks to this, people can have more than one partner. I have always been a fan of two-partner marriage. I'm not a fan of polygamy.

On NPA Deployment. AFTER DOING ANOTHER OOPSIES DINO
 
Against

this is due to the fact that this is just the left attempting to put their foot in the door and gradually change the flavor of the game to political correctness. AND I SAY NO; TO EACH THEIR OWN
 
Sil Dorsett:
It actually doesn't. Read Clause 3 more closely. It doesn't ban affirmative action. It just makes it so penalties for discrimination, where they already exist based on other protected categories, are now also applied for discrimination based on sexuality or gender. Statements like "does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, disability" now also have to include "sex, sexual orientation, gender identity" if they didn't before.
Click to expand...

The resolution says

"MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexuality and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned."

This would de facto eliminate affirmative action by way of forcing admission standards to 'have exactly the same qualification conditions'.

I also don't see what stops this provision from being taken to the absurd and axing concepts such a maternity leave. If the proposal had restricted itself to the domain of marriage, my concerns would be minimal. But the fact that the proposal far, far, far surpasses its intended scope by effectively making the law gender-blind, it opens the gatehouse for plenty of negative unintended consequences, potentially suppressing any good-natured attempts to address the problems of a certain gender.

Against.
 
Well-said, Stosk. Therefore it could be said that this law is not only objectionable to conservatives but also to progressives.
 
bowloftoast:
I'm just waiting for the next proposal that furthers the rights of people of colour, but gives bigots an option to continue to discriminate for ideological reasons. Maybe a proposal that advances indigenous rights, but leaves a giant loophole for nations to ignore those rights if they've already colonized.

There is no such thing as human rights with asterisks, or human rights on a situational scale, or Schrodinger's human rights that only apply if you agree with them. Once a right is granted through law, it must be acknowledged and respected as law by everyone, whether it fits in with your world view or not.

If you can't reconcile that with this proposal, then you should be voting against it.
Click to expand...

While there are some flaws in this logic, as were pointed out by Stoskavanya. But overall, I do generally tend to believe in the statement you have made. Which is interesting, because not only have you swayed my NS position on the issue, you have swayed my IRL stance on the issue. While it may sometimes seem otherwise, I do have an open mind, and I always question my beliefs. This is one of my longest held beliefs - that religious exemptions for these reasons make sense. I have now, however, been faced with evidence sufficiently to the contrary that I have changed my mind.

Changing my vote from For to Against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top