h a l f b a k e r yTip your server.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
For a while, i thought a solution to the gay marriage issue would be to abolish the institution of marriage entirely and make it entirely ceremonial, so that anyone who wants to can go through a ceremony which their community deems to make them married, or just the two of them if they like. The problem
with that, of course, is that next of kin and probate issues would still exist or change to a rather unsatisfactorily nebulous form.
The people who object to gay marriage are often also against divorce. This can be used to the advantage of resolving the debate.
Instead of abolishing marriage entirely as a legal entity or placing gay and heterosexual marriage on an equal footing, which would apparently annoy some people, change the law so that in a given jurisdiction, and i was thinking Scotland, once one reaches adulthood one is deemed to be married to everyone else in the country who is more distantly related to one than cousinhood.
Those who oppose gay marriage would then have to get divorced in order not to be gay married themselves, and since they oppose divorce too, they are unlikely to do that. Also, they should approve of the move as it promotes the institution of marriage and makes adultery much harder to commit. Also, it means any random person is next of kin, that after death, a person's estate becomes the property of the community. Children also become custody of everyone. I think these three issues might be considered problematic. Could you lot iron them out for me please?
Marriage as IPO
[hippo, Feb 05 2013]
[link]
|
| |
An elegant solution. Why Scotland, though? |
|
| |
//...which would apparently annoy some people...// |
|
| |
I will never support any idea that doesn't annoy
someone, somewhere. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, many of the "people who object to gay marriage" would also be alienated by this no-close-kin clause. |
|
| |
I've started this anno three times now and each time I've started I've almost immediately thought of some objection to the thing I was going to write. So I'm going to go away and think about this one a bit more. |
|
| |
Take your time [DrBob], we're all family now. Christmas is
at your place this year. |
|
| |
Perhaps it would help if we start by explaining what a
marriage contract really is, boys and girls... |
|
| |
It's a contract between two people to share their
property equally and to split it equally, in the event of
dissolution of the contract, regardless of the
percentage contribution made by each party to the
communal "pot". |
|
| |
Divorce courts are really only Equity courts, whose role
is to determine the split of assets after the contract is
to be annulled. That includes custody of children. |
|
| |
The "sacred" nature of marriage is a bit of mumbo-
jumbo added to the process in hopes of slowing down
the headlong rush to divorce once a couple realise they
don't like each other much; as is the ceremony. (Both
are "In the eyes of the Lord", which used to mean
something to a lot more people than it does today). |
|
| |
A marriage means nothing without the contract being
signed, though that bit has a significance which has
been downplayed by the clergy and romanticists over
the years, in favour of emphasising the "holy" nature
of marriage, rather than the witnessing of the
contract. This is where it has become confused. |
|
| |
Marriage used to be quite uncommon, with contractual
marriages only performed to recognise alliances
between the royals or commercial arrangements
between two families of the moneyed elites. |
|
| |
Everyone else made do with "common
law" marriages, where a group of your friends
witnessed you and your spouse jumping over a
broomstick before you all went and got sozzled to
celebrate. |
|
| |
With that in mind, it might be time to start a
campaign for equality in marriage on the old,
economic basis, so people can understand it's a
business agreement more than anything else. |
|
| |
//it's a business agreement more than anything else// - everyone voted against that idea (see link)... |
|
| |
Cunning! I didn't know that. |
|
| |
so, where does the word "license" come in ? |
|
| |
Do existing civil partnerships confer the same rights
and responsibilities as marriage? What I mean is, are
opponents objecting to equality of rights, or merely
to the use of a word? |
|
| |
You'll find this funny then; in Canada if a man shacks-up with a woman for six months the government legally declares the two of them to be Common-law married and all of the tax and estate laws surrounding that institution apply. |
|
| |
Yes yes, but what about legal rights? What rights do
civil partners not have that married couples do, that
the church (or anyone else) could object to? |
|
| |
I was wondering that myself, [MB]. |
|
| |
[calum], Scotland because the conversation which led to me having this idea was about gay marriage in Scotland. |
|
| |
[UB], surprisingly, i agree, although i think it probably depends on what people make of it. I am surprisingly relaxed about the drastically different approaches [grayure] and i take to finance, but then we only shared the erstwhile HB account and not the bank one. |
|
| |
//gay marriage in Scotland// trying to figure out who wears the kilt in the relationship. |
|
| |
I still don't understand what the difference is
between 'marriage' and 'civil partnership' in terms
of rights. |
|
| |
If there's no difference, then in effect one side is
saying 'you're not allowed to use our word', and
the other side is saying 'we insist on being allowed
to use that word', which reduces the whole
argument to something out of Life of Brian. |
|
| |
If there is a difference (in legal rights) conferred
by the term 'marriage', then it ought to be
blindingly obvious that same-sex couples should
have the same entitlements as opposite-sex
couples. What's so hard? |
|
| |
I still don't understand what the difference is
between 'marriage' and 'civil partnership' in terms
of rights. |
|
| |
If there's no difference, then in effect one side is
saying 'you're not allowed to use our word', and
the other side is saying 'we insist on being allowed
to use that word', which reduces the whole
argument to something out of Life of Brian. I
might just take to calling myself 'pope' for a week. |
|
| |
If there is a difference (in legal rights) conferred
by the term 'marriage', then it ought to be
blindingly obvious that same-sex couples should
have the same entitlements as opposite-sex
couples. What's so hard? |
|
| |
The problems occur, largely, at two points, [MB]... |
|
| |
At death, where the law of succession applies to the
estate of any individual who dies intestate. In those
cases there is a formula for distribution of the estate,
which (depending upon the geographic jurisdiction)
doesn't include partners outside the current definition
of marital & civil relationships. |
|
| |
The other applies, at least in this country, to the right
to income streams from pensions and annuities,
government or private, and who may be entitled to
them in the event of total and permanent
incapacitation or death. |
|
| |
Given the similarity of the legal systems of the UK and
Australia, I imagine there would be some parity in the
approach to the issue, in both countries. |
|
| |
The US situation is substantially different, as the
recognition of prenuptial arrangements and the case
law surrounding certain constitutional amendments
skew the legal environment in favour of traditional
marriage and allow the wealthier partner to dictate
terms as to equity settlements in the event of
marriage breakdown. |
|
| |