This comes up on the boards every so often. Rebooting marriage is fine, and clarifying the difference between legal registration of a relationship and religious solemnization of one is badly needed. Eliminating legal registration entirely? Complicated and unnecessary.
To a certain extent you’re right. But it still needs to be done, probably it needs to be done at both the high school and college-level. At the college level people should be taught about how to live in and work with people in your community.
Traditionally, these type of classes weren’t necessary because community standards were understood. But now we live in a much more international and diverse community, so these type of classes need to be taught.
The gays are not the issue. People who can’t/won’t accept the fact that gay couples should have the same rights and privileges in all aspects of life are the issue. I don’t see how abolishing the institution of marriage is going to resolve this issue or the alleged 25% divorce case load clogging the courts.
I’m all for educating the ignorance and bias out of the conservative groups but we all know how long that takes. And they’ll be the first to scream bloody murder if you try to take marriage out of their cold dead relationships.
What sort of instruction to you have in mind? Basic morality and virtues are going to come from one’s family and closest friends, I don’t think schools can or should be in the business of teaching those subjects.
Right now is arguably the most moral time in our nation’s history. What community standards do you think we’ve lost?
I’m no fan of marriage and (depending on how it was worded and likely interpretations thereof) might support the legal derecognition of marriage as a special protected contractual arrangement, especially if more open-ended and less constrained legal arrangements were allowed to replace it for those who want the various legal protections and mergers and affiliations and all that that are embedded in the legal institution of marriage.
But abolish it? As in, “it’s not legal to get married”? Ban the practice? Uh uh. Let people marry if they’re into it.
Easy solution to that - charge enough fees so that divorce cases make a profit for the state. Why should the lawyers get all the money?
Yeah, but you would no doubt still have major contract disputes when long term couples break up a relationship. It would probably be even messier without the laws regulating marriage and divorce.
So, what rights does a partner have in this area after 10 years of non-married living together? 5 years? 1 week? Clearly you want some signal that the relationship is serious enough so that partners have medical decision rights. Now, you can go down and draw up a contract and customize it and get it signed - but why not have a default contract when you are ready called marriage? If you don’t like this for some reason, no one is forcing you to sign up for it anymore.
5 year renewable contracts for marriage might work out better. If nothing else, it may force people to be nicer to each other after marriage. In other words, if your not nice then the contract won’t be renewed.
Why do you think this is true? Hopefully, it’s not because we have Obama as Prez. The U.S. is still throwing their weight around internationally. And in Europe and other countries people still hate American tourists. Also, didn’t we just have the mortgage melt-down in the U.S.? We’re still recovering from that. Don’t we still have high unemployment and a government that puts special interests ahead of balancing the budget?
He said “moral,” not “economically viable” or “politically respected.”
This has almost nothing to do with morals, as virtually everyone defines the term.
This has almost nothing to do with morals, as virtually everyone defines the term.
This has nothing to do with morals, as virtually everyone defines the term.
This has nothing to do with morals, as virtually everyone defines the term.
This has nothing to do with morals, as virtually everyone defines the term.
How do you define morals?
If you’re not nice at any point in a marriage, or for any other reason, either spouse can file for divorce. You can look at them as daily renewable contracts if you wish, given this freedom to file.
I think it’s true because we are the closest we’ve ever been to full legal and social equality for all citizens, because crime is very low relative to decades past, and because violence is less a part of politics and less accepted in general than ever before.
If you got rid of marriage, you would no longer have the pre-defined rights and responsibilities that marriage provides, and so even more domestic disputes would wind up in court. It would make the problem worse, not better.
Look at Marvin v. Marvin the seminal law on common law marriages. In CA the rule of thumb is after 7 years there’s a common law marriage. It may be different in your state.
It’s different in California too, counselor, because California abolished common law marriage. If you were common law married in one of the few states that recognize common law marriage, California will still recognize your marriage. But you aren’t married in California merely by living together for seven years and holding yourself out as married.
Maybe you should check with the California Bar Association and see if your law-talking-guy certificate has expired, yours doesn’t seem to be working very well.
pchaos, I think you should stop giving legal advice outside your area of expertise (and maybe you should be careful about doing even that). A quick Google search told me that California hasn’t recognized common law marriages since the late 19th century, and it’s well known that most other states don’t recognize those marriages either. That’s been the case for a long time.
Sorry, for the bad advice. It’s hard to stay current with the law. My feeling has always been, attorneys shouldn’t have to go to other attorneys for advice. Once law becomes that complicated the society is going downhill.
…and I think we have a Dopery situation here.
I can’t speak for Human Action, but right off the top of my head here’s a list of current moral standards upheld in the US and most other developed democracies that arguably represent significant progress over not just our own nation’s past situation but (many) earlier eras of human history in general:
-
No slavery or legal ownership of another person.
-
No official difference in the status of individuals before the law and their rights as members of society based on circumstances of their birth, including their race or gender.
-
No tolerance for the abuse or exploitation of children. (Childhood slavery, including various forms of sexual slavery, was endemic among the poorer members of many premodern societies, and of course among enslaved blacks in the US.)
-
No legal imposition of the tenets of a particular religious belief on civil society as a whole, including restrictions on private sexual behavior of consenting adults.
I could suggest many more items, but that’ll give you the idea. I personally think it would be immoral to recede from any of these moral standards, and I think they do support a claim that our society has advanced in morality from its past standards, at least in some respects.
:rolleyes:
Son, just admit that you aren’t an attorney. A real attorney who specialized in other fields than family law would have been careful not to offer an opinion on family law that can be easily disproved by a few seconds of googling. As for “it’s hard to stay current”, a few seconds of googling reveals that California abolished common law marriage in 1895. That’s, lets see, math is hard, 118 years ago.