|
| RE: A criticism from the Derivatist side | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 03, 2005 - 16:16 | | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:36 |
|
Parent message | | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 03, 2005 - 16:16 |
| Legal marriage(#23368), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], November 03, 2005 - 16:36. Viewed 132 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #33:
James O'Neill | > What is your definition of "legal marriage"?
I do not support state recognition of any kind for private emotional and domestic arrangements. Let people have all the private or religious marriages or commitment ceremonies or whatever they want, but I don't see why the state has any business intervening, either positively or negatively.
> Why do you not believe in "legal marriage"?
Because I'm a Marxist-feminist. I can go on for hours about marriage as the historical expression of women's domestic slavery if you like. :)
Miestrâ Schivâ
Seneschál dal Repúblicâ Talossán / Prime Minister of the Republic of Talossa
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
|
|
| | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 04, 2005 - 15:08 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:36 |
| RE: Legal marriage(#23407), posted by Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu, [IP Hidden], November 04, 2005 - 15:08. Viewed 127 times. |
|
Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu
Group: citizens
(847 posts total)
(last post: March 12, 2008 - 12:13)
Citizen #33:
James O'Neill | Actually, Prime Minister, I would like to hear more about this. I have read a little bit of the site (and thank you for the reference), and I am curious to hear what your thoughts are.
Please email me.
Feel free to grab my email address from the Minister of Immigration if you do not have direct access to it.
Thanks,
Jim
|
|
| | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 03, 2005 - 21:10 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:36 |
| RE: Legal marriage(#23384), posted by Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu, [IP Hidden], November 03, 2005 - 21:10. Viewed 119 times. |
|
Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu
Group: citizens
(847 posts total)
(last post: March 12, 2008 - 12:13)
Citizen #33:
James O'Neill | I am actually stunned that you and Dieterm, well anyone, do not want to define marriage. I had never considered not having laws that define marriage. Because of this I have been doing research as to the ramifications of this possibility.
I do agree that the government has no role in determining who we can or cannot marry. I have not disputed that fact. That is really an individual choice. Marriage has been primarily a function of religion and there are those who are not religious or cannot find a suitable religion to which enbraces their relationship. Who will they turn to? I guess you argument will be purely that marriage is a choice and does not need anone to embrace or validate the union?
I believe that there will come a time where there will need to be a way officially prove that individals have taken up the mantle of marriage. It will not be enough to say "I am this person spouse." especially if they are dead. Those that have a religion that supports their union will be able to get a piece of paper that says that they are married and not just someon who wants in on their property because the deceased does not have a will written. What about those who do not have a supporting religion or if they are not religious. Who will they turn to.
Their partner may not have the right to help them if they cannot prove their relationship. Visits in prison, presiding over funeral arrangements, guardianship or what ever other legal issues that may come up. At some point there will need to be a legal document that states their relationship.
I am not suggesting that we state who you can and cannot marry. I am suggesting that we explicitly state that you can marry whoever and however many that you want. Even without a government definition, there will at somepoint need to be a contract to protect all individuals involved in the union. This is something that will form out of necessity.
I very much see the need for a contract to define the relationship as a method to prevent unnecessary hardship on the individuals (creating their own contract)in the union and to protect the union in their interests.
A law defining marriage and a basic contract for marriage as a spring board for citizens to model their own contract to protect themselves and their union is what I am suggesting.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
