Active Users:368 Time:17/06/2025 06:58:43 AM
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
Doesn't reference article 16 of the UDHR, but does articles 1 and 2, which does seem strange. Anyway if we are trying to prove that discrimination based on sexual orientation is against international law I think we just did.


Probably worth mention, the US doesn't appear to have signed that :P and for that matter many of the signatories don't allow gay marriage either, there's about 10 countries, starting with the netherlands in 2001 that allow it, and two who allow it in some places, the US is one and Mexico is the other, there's a roughly equal number where it carries the death penalty. and there are 192 nations in the UN, so we're not in much need to worry about violations ;)

Anyway the issue on 16 is "Men and Women" since everywhere else it says 'Everyone' 'all' or 'No one' and such, but regardless, the clear spirit, not too mention the standard interpretation, are that gay marriage is not banned nor granted by article 16. Of course the UDHR is so much worthless paper anyway. It tends to get pretty specific too, wasn't written on a napkin, article two has a whole laundry list of "such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status" regarding who the rights apply to. There's also the generally futility of amending it anyway, since it is a non-binding measure, and there is, in article 29. a rather nagging "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." which is regularly cited by countries who pay the UHDR lip service. To the best of my knowledge our only violation to date is actually article 16, the marriage clause, since some states kept bans on interracial marriage for a while, and argues that the clause didn't say you had to permit interracial marriage, only that you couldn't deny someone of a given race the right to marry. There's also the article 5 torture clause but that's another issue.

The problem is lots of people go around declaring what something means, so courts decide, and I don't think you have made the case that the US and 181 of 192 other countries are not in violation of article 16.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1635 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1035 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1063 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1105 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 954 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1096 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 618 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1272 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1089 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1025 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 984 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1141 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 507 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1074 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1075 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 983 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 508 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 947 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 541 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1044 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1011 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 957 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 464 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 996 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 941 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1215 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1323 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 928 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 968 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 513 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1084 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1002 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 956 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 944 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1057 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 917 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1047 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 911 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1066 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1084 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 961 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1095 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 903 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1029 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 907 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 783 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1077 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 952 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1075 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 835 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1109 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 938 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1066 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1246 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 930 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 927 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 941 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 930 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 951 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 861 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1308 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 883 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 491 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 496 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1124 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1008 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1090 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 808 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1173 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 802 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1058 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 926 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1036 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 925 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1047 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1049 Views

Reply to Message