Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

Desmond said: 
<<Cat, we're in sync on this.>>

Yeah, it feels a little weird, don' it ;-) 

<<Now if we could just find a way to implement it...>>

Personally, I think that implementing it is a lot less difficult than folks
want to believe.  Contract law allows for *lots* of ways to customize
contracts.  The hard part isn't implementing it, so much as managing to get
folks to change their rigid thinking about it.  Just some ideas: 
	Tax laws which benefit "couples" should be reworded to benefit
"families" or "children", depending on the intention of the law. 
	Tax laws which allow combining of finances and treating a married
couple as a single "entity" can be redesigned to match business tax laws,
which treat partnerships and corporations as separate business "entities". 

Most of the things that would need to be done has already been modeled in
either corporate/business law or has been implemented in some way shape or
form with 'blended' families.  Most of the groundwork is actually there if
we just wanted to be creative.

<<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.>>

Contracts are never assumed to be "in perpetuity", there's no reason that a
marital contract should be assumed to be either.  Certainly there would be
"templates" for traditional, "'til death do us part... " contracts, but
there should also be the possibility for partnerships to be for stated
periods of time, with or without "option for renewal..."  Heinlein did a
good job of modeling these things in his novels, and as you say, there have
been cultural precedents already set for that... although, to be fair, most
of the cultural precedents were set to ensure that the female concieved
before considering the marriage "final", but since assuming that marriage is
only for the purpose of bearing and rearing children ("heirs") is both
sexist and counter to the way that modern American society's cultural
viewpoint (women are no longer seen primarily or essentially as 'brood
mares') and inheritance laws (it is not a natural assumption that wealth can
only be passed to the eldest son)... So we need to move past these archaic
ideas and move forward to acknowledge the many reasons why families actually
form and the various and diverse configurations that they can take. 

Never Thirst, 
Cat