[Embolalia]

I was looking through the repealed resolutions, and I came across Right to Divorce. I though I'd run up a new one, using the suggestions from the repeal.

This is what I have so far:

Quote: Right to Divorce

DEFINING a marriage, for the purpose of this resolution, as a legal bond between two or more people.

RECOGNISING the positive affects of marriage, especially for the children of the married.

NOTING WITH REGRET that some marriages are not happy.

SHOCKED that some people beat their spouses.

APPALLED that in some nations, divorce is not a legal right of the spouse.

MANDATING that divorce be an option for spouses who local law enforcement can determine are being abused mentally or physically by his or her spouse.

This resolution DOES NOT give nor take away the right of a person to marry whomever he or she wishes, nor the right of the person to decide what number of people to marry.
It also does not force nations to recognize marriages of any kind.[/quote]

What do y'all think?

[Eisophca]

I'm not sure. It doesn't really do anything: local law enforcement doesn't have to investigate. And it's kind of a specific issue, and if marriage is a right of nations to decide, then it seems that the termination of marriage perhaps ought to be a national thing too. But then again, the right to escape from an abusive relationship sounds kind of like a basic human right to me.

I'm going to mull this over.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Keep in mind that in some jurisdictions, there is a process known as dissolution of marriage rather than divorce.

[Bears Armed]

The definition's inadequate.
Quote: DEFINING a marriage, for the purpose of this resolution, as a legal bond between two or more people.[/quote] would cover all legal contracts that were between people rather than organisations...

[Embolalia]

Bears ArmedOct 18 2006, 08:41 AMThe definition's inadequate.
Quote: DEFINING a marriage, for the purpose of this resolution, as a legal bond between two or more people.[/quote] would cover all legal contracts that were between people rather than organisations...[/quote]
Yeah, I realised that. (My DSL died right after I posted, so I couldn't edit it to ask for a better one) I couldn't come up with a good one that wouldn't accidentaly ban polygamy or gay marriage.

Please do give ideas for a different deffinition.

[Bears Armed]

KedalfaxOct 20 2006, 12:58 AM Bears ArmedOct 18 2006, 08:41 AMThe definition's inadequate.
Quote: DEFINING a marriage, for the purpose of this resolution, as a legal bond between two or more people.[/quote] would cover all legal contracts that were between people rather than organisations...[/quote]
Yeah, I realised that. (My DSL died right after I posted, so I couldn't edit it to ask for a better one) I couldn't come up with a good one that wouldn't accidentaly ban polygamy or gay marriage.

Please do give ideas for a different deffinition. [/quote]
H'mm. Not really a topic that I've thought about much, more a case of "I know it when I see it"... One could possibly mention an intention for cohabitation, a sexual relationship and/or the production & raising of offspring, but then there are types of marriage for which it isn't all three of those that apply and there might even be types for which none of them do.
To be honest, a proposal along these lines would be fairly low on my list of priorities as I tend to favour more of a NatSov-friendly approach in most matters. Would you be interested in working on shifting to work on one about the much more important idea (in my opinion, anyway) of giving people the right to leave the control of abusive governments instead? I've seen some previous attempts at drafting proposals along those lines, and one of them (produced by an IDU member?) might have reached the General Assembly but then been voted down, but there's still room for such a resolution on the books...

[Stolidia]

OOC:

Not to be too much of a wet blanket, but excuse me for pouring water on the bedclothes. I think there are three major stumbling-blocks in the way of this proposal. First, there's the difficulty that you already recognize in defining marriage.

Second, you'll run across those who believe the NSUN has no business interfering in that most domestic of all institutions. The 77.6% vote in favor of "Protection of Marriage" would seem to show this would be a problem.

Finally, there's "Protection of Marriage" itself. In my view--and I would so argue--submission of this proposal would violate the Contradiction rule as long as that resolution is in effect. To me, a UN resolution requiring the availability of divorce would be a clear contradiction of the first operative clause of that resolution, infringing upon the right it guarantees to nations to "regulate" marriage within their own borders.

I think maybe Bears Armed's suggestion is the best best. He's right.... There was a pretty good proposal drafted some time back on freedom of emigration. I'd suggest some research on what that was all about and what the for/against arguments were would be worth while.