Author Topic: Nobody's fault but the law: Tini Owens boosts case to legalise no-fault divorce  (Read 515 times)

Richard Hakluyt

  • Can I Be: Ottoman Empire
  • ***********
  • Posts: 5601
Marriage is a type of contract which gives many rights and responsibilities; which is a good reason for the state to take an interest, just as it does with other types of contract.

With multiculturalism and increased secularism in western countries perhaps a variety of civil contracts should be offered to the populace? The religious aspects could easily be left to the non-state sector.

Admiral Yi

  • Neil
  • ***************
  • Posts: 37209
If the government were to truly exit the marriage arena then those contracts would be provided by the private sector.

Pre-nups for everyone.
I'm up $25 on DGuller.

garbon

  • Neil
  • ***************
  • Posts: 49403
  • let's play bullets and bracelets
Marriage is a type of contract which gives many rights and responsibilities; which is a good reason for the state to take an interest, just as it does with other types of contract.

With multiculturalism and increased secularism in western countries perhaps a variety of civil contracts should be offered to the populace? The religious aspects could easily be left to the non-state sector.


I did see there is a lawsuit happening about straight couples who want access to civil partnerships in the UK.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Richard Hakluyt

  • Can I Be: Ottoman Empire
  • ***********
  • Posts: 5601
Marriage is a type of contract which gives many rights and responsibilities; which is a good reason for the state to take an interest, just as it does with other types of contract.

With multiculturalism and increased secularism in western countries perhaps a variety of civil contracts should be offered to the populace? The religious aspects could easily be left to the non-state sector.


I did see there is a lawsuit happening about straight couples who want access to civil partnerships in the UK.

Yes.

There is also a problem with Muslim marriages that has led to injustices occurring :

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/20/women-uk-islamic-wedding-legal-rights-civil-ceremony-marriage

There have been piecemeal reforms to marriage and civil union law here, but what is needed is a thorough overhaul.

celedhring

  • Incan Torpedo Boat Commander
  • ************
  • Posts: 8623
  • Not capturing Amiens.
Civil partnerships have been very successful in Spain (15% of total couples which have a formalized relationship), but the legal framework is indeed quite a mess. They were built ad hoc to give homosexual couples an out before we had gay marriage, so it was never contemplated as a coherent part of a whole picture (unmarried/civil partnership/marriage) Yet it fills in that niche for many couples, homosexual and heterosexual.

We also have a very small version of common law marriage, meaning that there's certain contracted obligations and rights for couples that have lived together for some time, despite them not formalizing their relationship.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 04:52:00 am by celedhring »

Berkut

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • **************
  • Posts: 17932
  • Getting ready to post on Languish
Yeah, marriage is an institution that reflects more than just a cultural construct - there is actual biology there as well.

As such, society has an interest in managing it in some reasonable manner in so far as there are significant legal and ethical implications to how marriage is defined and practiced.

That being said, the current legal status of marriage is *heavily* influenced, even primarily so, by historical religious influences and rather antiquated concepts of morality that simply do not make any sense. This is Beebs insistence that he has every right to decide who should and should not be married, because he knows what is best for them.

I have no problem with the State creating laws around marriage, as long as those laws are motivated by societies compelling interests. You want to keep people from marrying children? All for it. You want to define what obligations at a base level two married people have to one another legally? Go for it. You want to have laws setting out basic responsibilities that must be met around the dissolution of marriage? Knock yourself out - as long as it is all driven by managing societies interest in the marriage, rather than a bunch of Moral Majority busybodies concerns about what Jesus wants in marriage, and how people really should be made to conform to their particular views on what marriage should be....
“If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven’t been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Camerus

  • Strawman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1502
Another argument is that society and children likely benefit from stable marriage on average, hence a mild roadblock for the dissolution of the marriage contract in the form of eg a one year waiting period.

garbon

  • Neil
  • ***************
  • Posts: 49403
  • let's play bullets and bracelets
Another argument is that society and children likely benefit from stable marriage on average, hence a mild roadblock for the dissolution of the marriage contract in the form of eg a one year waiting period.

Ah yes, because nothing so good for children as being raised by parents stuck together who don't want to be.

Also, what happens with economic matters? Surely the longer the marriage is forced to remain in place could lead to one partner deciding to strangle them both in debt?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Berkut

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • **************
  • Posts: 17932
  • Getting ready to post on Languish
Another argument is that society and children likely benefit from stable marriage on average, hence a mild roadblock for the dissolution of the marriage contract in the form of eg a one year waiting period.

So your definition of a "stable marriage" is one where the participants are forced to be in the marriage via the State, rather than because they want to be together?

That is so incredibly ridiculous I can't believe anyone actually believes that.

Given that if the desire is to promote the fiction of stability to children, then you are arguing that some woman, as an example, ought to be forced to remain in the house and bed with a man who abuses her, all because you know better than her what is in her and her child's interests. For, say, a year.

I mean, sure, that is just a "mild impediment" after all - being abused for a year because you know what is best for her and her children...
“If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven’t been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Valmy

  • Neil
  • ***************
  • Posts: 41591
  • Franglophile
There have been piecemeal reforms to marriage and civil union law here, but what is needed is a thorough overhaul.

Inertia is a powerful force in politics...especially British politics. Inertia is really the only reason to not have no-fault divorce in this day and age.
If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!

Valmy is practically french. :frog:

Honorary gay award from Martinus

alfred russel

  • Octogon Champion
  • *************
  • Posts: 12238
Another argument is that society and children likely benefit from stable marriage on average, hence a mild roadblock for the dissolution of the marriage contract in the form of eg a one year waiting period.

So your definition of a "stable marriage" is one where the participants are forced to be in the marriage via the State, rather than because they want to be together?

That is so incredibly ridiculous I can't believe anyone actually believes that.

Given that if the desire is to promote the fiction of stability to children, then you are arguing that some woman, as an example, ought to be forced to remain in the house and bed with a man who abuses her, all because you know better than her what is in her and her child's interests. For, say, a year.

I mean, sure, that is just a "mild impediment" after all - being abused for a year because you know what is best for her and her children...

The better argument isn't that it is best to force incompatible married couples to stay married for a year, but rather that it is against societies interests to allow marriages to be painlessly exited as it will encourage people to enter them more frivolously.
There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Grey Fox

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • **************
  • Posts: 17961
  • Ed Anger's tormentor
I think for Canada it was 1986 that no faults divorces were introduced.

In Québec, you can invoke 3 reasons to file for divorce. One is to be separated for atleast 1 year, with that reason you can file divorce by agreement.
Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

Berkut

  • Blessed by Valmy
  • **************
  • Posts: 17932
  • Getting ready to post on Languish
Another argument is that society and children likely benefit from stable marriage on average, hence a mild roadblock for the dissolution of the marriage contract in the form of eg a one year waiting period.

So your definition of a "stable marriage" is one where the participants are forced to be in the marriage via the State, rather than because they want to be together?

That is so incredibly ridiculous I can't believe anyone actually believes that.

Given that if the desire is to promote the fiction of stability to children, then you are arguing that some woman, as an example, ought to be forced to remain in the house and bed with a man who abuses her, all because you know better than her what is in her and her child's interests. For, say, a year.

I mean, sure, that is just a "mild impediment" after all - being abused for a year because you know what is best for her and her children...

The better argument isn't that it is best to force incompatible married couples to stay married for a year, but rather that it is against societies interests to allow marriages to be painlessly exited as it will encourage people to enter them more frivolously.
Except that we know that argument is bullshit as well, since there is no data that suggests that people enter marriage frivolously because they think they can get out of it too easily.

People are either

1) Fully aware that no matter how hard it might be to divorce legally, it is MUCH harder for reasons that have nothing to do with the legal matters, or
2) Are clueless and dont think about the commitment they are making much at all, in which case they aren't thinking about the legal difficulty of divorce OR the emotional/financial/economic issues.

And the basic idea that we should force people to be married in order to make people thing long and hard about getting married is just...well, idiotic, even if it did work that way. If people should give careful consideration to getting married because as a society we want them to be thoughtful about that for good reasons (whatever they might be), then we should be educating them on those good reasons to be thoughtful, not create artificial reasons and then tell them they should be thoughtful about marriage for the fake reasons.
“If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven’t been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Camerus

  • Strawman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1502
Another argument is that society and children likely benefit from stable marriage on average, hence a mild roadblock for the dissolution of the marriage contract in the form of eg a one year waiting period.

So your definition of a "stable marriage" is one where the participants are forced to be in the marriage via the State, rather than because they want to be together?

That is so incredibly ridiculous I can't believe anyone actually believes that.

Given that if the desire is to promote the fiction of stability to children, then you are arguing that some woman, as an example, ought to be forced to remain in the house and bed with a man who abuses her, all because you know better than her what is in her and her child's interests. For, say, a year.

I mean, sure, that is just a "mild impediment" after all - being abused for a year because you know what is best for her and her children...

 :lol:
Stawman? Check.
Smug and thunderous moralizing on the basis of the same?  Check.
Must be Berkut.

PDH

  • Incan Torpedo Boat Commander
  • ************
  • Posts: 7546
  • Consul for the year 2767
Languish is alive again!
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
-Umberto Eco

-------
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
-Anatole France