Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever
Or young women are able to get married as soon as they enter menses, which
some girls do as early as 10-12. Since the primary reason for wedding in
many cultures is to bear children, "age of consent" laws are often developed
around a young woman's menarche.
And yet, I'm apparently *way* behind the times. Doing more research around
it I can see that the times, they are a changin'! I can recall when, in my
birth state (TN), age of consent, based on the "statuatory rape" laws I grew
up with was lower than the current age, which is now 18 for both males and
females, and it's apparent from the age of consent charts available across
the internet that this is becoming the norm. Statuatory rape laws seem to
have been normalized for both genders. How interesting!
And there's an interesting article here on how things have been changing in
England and the US: http://www.slate.com/id/2174841/ A very interesting
point in this article is the research that's been done around tests created
to compare the age of physical maturity to the age of cognetive maturity and
the age of emotional maturity. Perhaps one day this is how we'll decide
"adulthood" and "age of consent" for individuals. :)
And, personally, I believe that the laws *should* allow for
individualization, rather than being arbitrary. But then I'm an idealist.
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 Roza
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:38 PM
To: UU Poly
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever
in many states, women can consent to sex legally before men can, as young as
14 in south carolina, while men have to wait until they are 16. however,
the age at which people can get married is different, and sometimes very
odd, such as in MA, where with parental consent girls can get married at 12,
but they can't have sex until they are 16 (references below). one point, in
reference to cat's argument: usually, if there is a difference in age of
consent to marriage, women can marry younger. perhaps this is so that the
presumed man has more time to become gainfully employed, so he can support
his young wife? at least, that may have been the original idea.
roza
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage
http://www.livestrong.com/article/12483-age-consensual-sex/
Disclaimer: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a
significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.
> From: catdeville@cox.net
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:46:00 -0800
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever
>
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_access_
112008
_______________________________________________
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.