The Updating A.12 Act

[Ian Plätschisch]

WHEREAS Lex.A.12 currently states that the USA does not allow gay marriage, and

WHEREAS Whether you support it or not, Obergefell v. Hodges made gay marriage legal in the USA, and

WHEREAS Our laws should be up to date

THEREFORE, Lex.A.12, which currently reads;

12. Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all citizens of proper age. It is a contractual agreement between parties, signed onto by their own consent, and is a guaranteed right regardless of sex or sexual orientation. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom of Talossa recognizes any and all marriages that fall under this definition, hereby re-asserting the rights given to us by the Organic Law of Talossa. In addition, we would also like to provide Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those citizens of our Giant Friendly Neighbour who themselves are seeking to have the laws of that country reflect the far more progressive laws of the Kingdom of Talossa.

is amended to read;

12. Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all form of marriage or legal union between two persons that fall under this definition, hereby re-asserting the rights given to its citzens by the Organic Law; and provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa.

Uréu q'estadra så;

Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT)

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I never liked this clause in the first place. Marriage is not simply a contractual agreement between two consenting adults, but it is an agreement between two adults and the government--not strictly a personal issue. That being said, I support anyone's right to marry whomever they want to, and I would point out that despite the SCOTUS ruling being the law of the land in the US, individual states may still have unenforceable laws on their books banning marriage, and others may have laws that make it difficult to get married.

Rather than remove the clause outright, couldn't it be amended to read "citizens of any country who themselves..."?

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

I prefer Talossan Law, as the Kingdom cannot marry anyone, to be "agnostic" on the judicial nature of marriages. In those countries that adheres to the german theory of negotia iuridica, marriage is not a contractual agreement between two parties: contract is a negotium, marriage is not.
Moreover, it's not an agreement between two adults and the State.

«Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all citizens of proper age. It is an agreement between parties recognised by the State, signed onto [...]»

[Munditenens Tresplet]

May 8, 2016 23:45:24 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

I prefer Talossan Law, as the Kingdom cannot marry anyone, to be "agnostic" on the judicial nature of marriages. In those countries that adheres to the german theory of negotia iuridica, marriage is not a contractual agreement between two parties: contract is a negotium, marriage is not.
Moreover, it's not an agreement between two adults and the State.

«Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all citizens of proper age. It is an agreement between parties recognised by the State, signed onto [...]»

In America, marriage is an agreement between two adults and the State. That being said, I would prefer that the State take itself out of marriages, relegating itself to enforcement of agreements between consenting parties. I could support this proposed language.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Marriage makes no sense if it is not recognised by society, the State being the placeholder of every individual in said society. I could just as well adopt something else to show my “eternal”, or “undying” love for someone without marrying.

Putting aside benefits and the emotional side of things, I would marry in order to belong to “another societal group”. The whole thing is very abstract, but taking the State out of the equation makes... little to no sense, or maybe my view is too limited. In that case, I would love for someone to set me straight (not sexually, just argu-mentally)

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

So, proposal.

From this:

12. Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all citizens of proper age. It is a contractual agreement between parties, signed onto by their own consent, and is a guaranteed right regardless of sex or sexual orientation. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom of Talossa recognizes any and all marriages that fall under this definition, hereby re-asserting the rights given to us by the Organic Law of Talossa. In addition, we would also like to provide Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those citizens of our Giant Friendly Neighbour who themselves are seeking to have the laws of that country reflect the far more progressive laws of the Kingdom of Talossa.

To this (A):

12. Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all citizens of proper age. It is an agreement between parties. recognised by a State, signed onto by their own consent regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all marriages that fall under this definition, hereby re-asserting the rights given to its citzens by the Organic Law; and provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of the Talossa.

Or even better (in my view) this (B):

12. Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all form of marriage or legal union between two persons that fall under this definition, hereby re-asserting the rights given to its citzens by the Organic Law; and provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

May 9, 2016 5:34:08 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

12. Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all form of marriage or legal union between two persons that fall under this definition, hereby re-asserting the rights given to its citzens by the Organic Law; and provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa.

I like this one.

May 9, 2016 5:26:06 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Marriage makes no sense if it is not recognised by society, the State being the placeholder of every individual in said society. I could just as well adopt something else to show my “eternal”, or “undying” love for someone without marrying.

Putting aside benefits and the emotional side of things, I would marry in order to belong to “another societal group”. The whole thing is very abstract, but taking the State out of the equation makes... little to no sense, or maybe my view is too limited. In that case, I would love for someone to set me straight (not sexually, just argu-mentally)

I would simply say that marriages do not have to be recognized by the State to be recognized by society. Those who are religious would probably reject the idea that the State is responsible for setting the criteria for what constitutes "eternal" or "undying" love, instead saying that God is responsible for recognizing marriages.

I understand your position completely, and it does make logical sense, since the State has been in the equation for a long period of time. I just think that if two individuals wanted to go into their backyard and say vows in front of a preacher without a marriage certificate then call themselves married, they should do so. I recognize the legal consequences of doing so, such as entitlement to marital property if they ever decide to part ways, but it's not my place to pass judgement on them. If they say they are married, then they are married.

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 9, 2016 5:34:08 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

12. Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all form of marriage or legal union between two persons that fall under this definition, hereby re-asserting the rights given to its citzens by the Organic Law; and provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa.

I replaced my draft with this.