Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever
Cat, we're in sync on this. Now if we could just find a way to implement it...
I'd also add that a marital contract could also allow for temporary or so-called "trial" marriages, where they specify a limited time period, with the option to renew or make permanent. Scottish custom and law recognized such marriages for generations.
Desmond Ravenstone
********************
http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Catherine Deville <catdeville@cox.net> wrote:
> From: Catherine Deville <catdeville@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 12:46 PM
> This is what a lot of people mean when they say that they
> want the
> government "out of marriage".
>
> The civil aspects of a marriage have the force of a
> contract between the
> parties. If marital unions are divided into the religious
> aspect, and the
> civil aspect, then individuals will have the option of
> being married within
> their faith (the religious dimension) and then choosing
> whether or not to
> also file a civil contract with the appropriate legal
> entity to give that
> marriage the benefits, privileges and responsibilities that
> come with the
> force of law. This has the added advantage that the civil
> contract would be
> customizable to the needs of the individuals involved.
> It's quite probable
> that the civil authorities would have (as they do with
> "partnerships")
> several standard 'templates' which individuals not
> desiring customization
> could just sign and go or which folks could then amend to
> their liking, but
> individuals would not be restricted to specifics which did
> not suit their
> relationship. This would also allow the marriage (or civil
> union) contract
> to better protect the individuals involved legal, which is
> one of the main
> reasons for getting a marriage "license" rather
> than just getting married
> within one's church, as it would cover the aspects most
> likely to impact the
> individuals involved.
>
> And as for minors getting married... As a legally
> enforceable contract,
> minors would not be able to enter into such a contract
> unless they had
> parental permission. I know that in some cultures parents
> would give
> permission for marriage where we would look askance at it,
> but parents also
> sign entertainment and sports contracts for very young
> children sometimes to
> their detriment, but we permit that. The age of sexual
> consent/marital
> consent is a very arbitrary thing set by cultural
> expectations... Which is
> why different states have such different and sometimes
> illogical laws about
> it (often boys can marry younger than girls, because boys
> are seen as being
> more sexually active at a younger age, even though young
> women mature faster
> biologically and emotionally, for example.) Perhaps the
> best way to deal
> with that is to establish the age of consent at 18 as it is
> for all other
> legal contracts, and then, since this contract involves
> exposing a minor to
> sex, require not just parental consent to allow minors to
> enter into the
> contract, but to also require that an objective guardian ad
> litum or
> advocate for the minor(s) be required by the state, and
> that the minor(s) be
> required to undergo an evaluation by social services to
> insure that they are
> indeed entering into the union of their own volition, and
> that they seem
> mature enough to make such a decision.
>
> And marital contracts do actually have precedent in other
> societies. Both
> Jewish and Islamic cultures (just off the top of my head)
> draft marriage
> contracts (in traditional cases, between the families, not
> just the bride
> and groom) before the marriage is "legal". So
> it's not like this is a new
> thing.
>
> The issue, for some of us at least, is that this is the
> only type of
> contract in which the government interferes to the extent
> of telling you
> with whom and how many you may be involved in partnership.
> As a civil
> contract, individuals should be able to enter into any type
> of marital union
> with anyone that they wish, and any number that they wish,
> under any terms
> that they wish, and the government should not interfere
> with that. As with
> other civil contracts, the governments role should be
> simply to file the
> contract, and to see to the breach of contract and
> dissolution of the
> contract if there is a need to do so.
>
> NT,
> Cat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org
> [mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org] On
> Behalf Of Desmond
> Ravenstone
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:31 AM
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever
>
> My own take ... replace government-issued marriage licenses
> with marital
> contracts drafted by the couple and filed with the
> appropriate government
> department.
>
> Instead of the government refusing licensure based on
> legislative fiat (ie,
> no same-sex couples, no epileptics [that was the law, and
> applied to my
> father for some years]) the government would have to
> provide compelling
> interest to void the contract (ie, one or more parties not
> able to give full
> consent).
>
> Desmond Ravenstone
>
> ********************
>
> http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Fantine <fantine@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Fantine <fantine@sonic.net>
> > Subject: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever
> > To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 11:19 PM Why do
> people say they don't
> > want government involved in marriage? Marriage/Civil
> Union/whatever
> > is a collection of LEGAL agreements, the stuff
> government is made of,
> > as legislatures make law and courts enforce them.
> >
> > Personally, I think we should give the word
> "marriage"
> > to churches etc. (with whatever sticky wicket rules
> each group wants
> > to play by) and have a different term for the legal
> arrangement, such
> > as "civil union"
> > or
> > "domestic partnership" for EVERYBODY gay or
> straight.
> > You would have to have a "civil union" filed
> to get a "marriage
> > license", in order to be "married" by a
> spiritual leader.
> >
> > Have fun with this thought,
> > Francesca
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: uupoly-l-bounces+fantine=sonic.net@uupa.org
> > [mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+fantine=sonic.net@uupa.org]
> On Behalf Of
> > Anita Wagner
> > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 1:24 AM
> > To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> > Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 50, Issue
> > 19
> >
> > It's true that poly marriage is not a high
> priority for poly people in
> > general. Personally I'd much rather see
> government get out of the
> > marriage business altogether.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> > Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to
> reveal about
> > yourself.
> > UUPoly-L mailing list
> > UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> > http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal
> about yourself.
> UUPoly-L mailing list
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal
> about yourself.
> UUPoly-L mailing list
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc.