Freedom of Marriage Act

Any thoughts?

Based on the title I know what the proposal is trying to do, but I can't understand it from what it says.

I like the premise, but I hate the proposal. I actually don't think it's strong enough.

Why did you vote against it, Chazz?

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant


Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

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,

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

ADOPT the following resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(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.

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

(b) The protection referred to in the previous section does not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.

(c) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence.

Article 3 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

(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.



Just for all to see.

I voted against it because it defines marriage as between two people. I support its aims in expanding the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples to homosexual couples. I just think it would set a dangerous precedent. I support its aims, and know it will pass, which is why I have currently voted against it. If the vote gets closer I will withdraw my vote.

so are you saying ppl should be able to marry there dogs?
or that you can have a three way marrage?

Well... I have thought for a long time, that monogamy is too antiquated xDKidding, I vote for it.

People shouldn't marry their dogs because they can't make decisions for themselves or understand their surroundings, however, dolphins and apes can!

Polygamy should be allowed in my mind, so it's a great thought to vote against it because it defines it as between two people. However, it's great that more people want to allow homosexual individuals the same rights as heterosexuals. That makes me a bit happy!

I think I"ll just not vote on this one...

Right, I agree with the intent. I don't really have an opinion on anybody marrying anyone else...I don't feel it is the governments job to regulate what people do in their own homes. I would be happy to see this resolution pass.

" I would be happy to see this resolution pass."


then vote for it!

i say we vote for it.

whilst it may need refining it is better than nothing.

polish it later
get it working first

Well, I have withdrawn my vote, and will abstain, unless it seems that it may fail.

not voting for is a good as voting against.

So, should I always vote for the lesser of two evils? I won't vote if there is no candidate worth voting for, just as I won't vote for a law if I think it's not good enough.

Yes, I'm one of those "bad voters".

HeHe Revo makes me chuckle
I voted for, another resolution can be added later to allow people to marry what they want, but polygomy should only be allowed ifthe person marrying more than one person can prove they will treat the others equally.

At least I amuse somebody!

PASSED

so, yeah...

wooo
dances on table =D


to
rev
my country has compulsory voting.
we have good ppl in power. inflation is under control, employment all time low,
education system being revamped etc.

you have optional voting
GWB got voted in twice!!



what system works?

That's not fair!

And in Revo, we have compulsory voting, but people don't have to vote for any of the candidates. It's like writing in Mickey Mouse only making it more acceptable.

In real life, I personally vote third party every time because my electoral voting block has never gone the "wrong" way. We have an 80% voting block

fair or not its true =P
hehe
i vote for the ACP =P
they will NEVER get a seat in senate but i don't care haha

I always vote for 'The Socialist Party' in England, but thy are still rather small, so it makes little difference, I think they have like 1-3 local seats in the whole country, which means sod all But hey, Im a member of the party, and the only one in my town apparently!!
My town has over 100,000 residents!

acp
is australian commie party =P
wow
sucks were the minority ay
our day will come again