Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Repeal "The Right to a Lawful Divorce"; Proposed by Railana
Topic Started: Apr 21 2015, 12:00 AM (279 Views)
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
This proposal is four hours away from the beginning of its vote.

In-game debate thread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=338289

Repeal "The Right to a Lawful Divorce"
Proposed by Railana
Recognizing that GAR #39, "The Right to a Lawful Divorce", permits a party to a marriage to terminate the marriage for any reason whatsoever,

Strongly affirming the right to divorce for cause, such as infidelity, domestic violence, or abandonment,

Nonetheless emphasizing that it has been conclusively established that most marriages result in children and that divorce often causes significant harm to the welfare of such children,

Acknowledging that World Assembly member states therefore have a legitimate interest in reducing divorce rates and in regulating divorce in order to achieve this aim,

Observing that it may be appropriate, for instance, for member states to require marriage counselling or six months' separation prior to granting a divorce in certain circumstances, and that such requirements should not be considered a significant infringement on the individual rights of the parties to the marriage,

Concerned that such policies are not permitted under the target resolution, which requires that divorce be made available "without let or hindrance",

Supportive of a resolution establishing a right to divorce in somewhat more limited circumstances,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #39, "The Right to a Lawful Divorce".

Click here to read the original resolution
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
For.

Divorce is not a "self-evident sentient right." As a contractual relationship, civil marriage can be and should be regulated by the state, which has the authority to legislate reasonable terms, including cooling-off periods and mandatory counseling prior to divorces. If you don't want to be bound by legal obligations, don't marry; don't register your union with the government.
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guy
Member Avatar
Old Admin Slave
Very qualified for.

Divorce does not need to be for cause. That is still one of the most barbaric feature in Western legal systems. Requiring a set time for separation can be good policy, though.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Auralia
Member Avatar
Poster
For.

Guy
Apr 21 2015, 02:48 AM
Very qualified for.

Divorce does not need to be for cause. That is still one of the most barbaric feature in Western legal systems. Requiring a set time for separation can be good policy, though.
As I said on the NS forums, the purpose of that second clause was to make it clear that there are legitimate grounds for divorce, and that, by repealing the target resolution, the proposal is not somehow supporting the abolition of the right to divorce.
Edited by Auralia, Apr 21 2015, 04:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guy
Member Avatar
Old Admin Slave
Any ground is legitimate for divorce, and so specifying a ground is a non-requirement.
Edited by Guy, Apr 21 2015, 04:28 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opressed Ones
Member Avatar
Dedicated
For
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
Guy, why are you voting 'for' if you think any grounds for divorce is unnecessary. My personal view is that the state does not have an interest in coercing people into sticking with a marriage arrangement that isn't working - it assumes people haven't thought about it before pursuing divorce which is just narrow-minded - a rosy-eyed Christian view that marriage is just 'hard work'. A forced legal separation seems like a legal trap to me to deprive dependents of their alimony, while psychiatrists and bureaucratic red tape deter them from exiting from toxic relationships with dead-beats and losers (who are no doubt using the required waiting period to try to butter them up and 'resolve' things for this... year).

It's a legal wall that forces people to stall and delay their own lives because other people decided for them that they need to respect the 'institution of marriage' and their 'children's well-being' over their own well-being. The state and society for that matter is basically putting the onus on them to resolve things.. it's all so veiled, patronising and smarmy. 'Allow for some time to -give it a chance-' of course assumes the person(s) who want out of the relationship are irrational and haven't already thought things through; it's such a loaded policy - bloated with a discourse that assumes the worst of people and places current popular obsession with the 'decline of marriage' above the well being and freedoms of these people who want out of a marriage.

I'm very much against. I don't see where a national policy could meet my objections and I suspect anyone implementing such policies has exactly the thing I'm worried about it mind: trapping people into abusive relations, putting up legal barriers to deter divorce, protecting the Calvinist family unit.
Edited by unibot, Apr 21 2015, 05:05 AM.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gruenberg
Dedicated
(Not voting)

Divorce isn't such a big concern in the WA, given it's passed laws on marital rape that RL countries that don't allow divorce haven't. Still opposed, though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guy
Member Avatar
Old Admin Slave
unibot
Apr 21 2015, 05:04 AM
Guy, why are you voting 'for' if you think any grounds for divorce is unnecessary. My personal view is that the state does not have an interest in coercing people into sticking with a marriage arrangement that isn't working - it assumes people haven't thought about it before pursuing divorce which is just narrow-minded - a rosy-eyed Christian view that marriage is just 'hard work'. A forced legal separation seems like a legal trap to me to deprive dependents of their alimony, while psychiatrists and bureaucratic red tape deter them from exiting from toxic relationships with dead-beats and losers (who are no doubt using the required waiting period to try to butter them up and 'resolve' things for this... year).

It's a legal wall that forces people to stall and delay their own lives because other people decided for them that they need to respect the 'institution of marriage' and their 'children's well-being' over their own well-being. The state and society for that matter is basically putting the onus on them to resolve things.. it's all so veiled, patronising and smarmy. 'Allow for some time to -give it a chance-' of course assumes the person(s) who want out of the relationship are irrational and haven't already thought things through; it's such a loaded policy - bloated with a discourse that assumes the worst of people and places current popular obsession with the 'decline of marriage' above the well being and freedoms of these people who want out of a marriage.

I'm very much against. I don't see where a national policy could meet my objections and I suspect anyone implementing such policies has exactly the thing I'm worried about it mind: trapping people into abusive relations, putting up legal barriers to deter divorce, protecting the Calvinist family unit.
People are irrational, though. :P I actually don't support very long mandated separation periods -- it's a year here in Australia, and imo that is too long -- but the idea is to discourage both hasty terminations and hasty marriages (if you can terminate it easily, why not just enter it whenever?)

I'm switching to abstain, because I don't trust the WA to come up with a satisfactory replacement. If it allows for a short and reasonable separation period, I'd prefer that.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banned: Chester Pearson
Member Avatar
Resouluton Author Extraordinaire
Against
The Right Honourable Chester B. Pearson,

Prime Minister, United Federation of Canada

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dvorak The Great
Member Avatar
Former HR Officer
Fully against.
"Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
     - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gruenberg
Dedicated
This is looking like being a very rare example of an early stack in favour failing.
Edited by Gruenberg, Apr 22 2015, 10:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Auralia
Member Avatar
Poster
Gruenberg
Apr 22 2015, 10:49 AM
This is looking like being a very rare example of an early stack in favour failing.
Indeed. Once TNP voted against it was all over. Note to self - become TNP's WA minister one day. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
Does our delegate plan to cast a vote?
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar
WASC Suicide Bomber
Sorry! Somehow this slipped my mind. For the record my vote would have been FOR. Despite the fact that it endorses the abolition of no-fault divorce, it still gets rid of a resolution that is unnecessarily micromanaging as it pertains to national family law, and no longer necessary, seeing as the WA does not endorse a right to marriage (and even when FOMA was in place, the right was only enshrined for gay couples - screw everyone else).
Edited by Kenny, Apr 27 2015, 09:40 PM.
About us
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · General Assembly · Next Topic »
Add Reply