Comments on: Deconstructing Marital Dogma.

By: lenko

lenko — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:40:15 +0000

Thanks Gloria… have added that to my list of dirty limericks! Hadn’t heard it before.

By: Gloria Smudd

Gloria Smudd — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:09:51 +0000

Two ugly young ladies from Fordham
Went out for a walk ’til it bored ‘em
And on the way back
A sex-maniac
Jumped out from a hedge and ignored ‘em.

By: lenko

lenko — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:25:00 +0000

Demetrius is right… that old element of simplicity has been removed, and now we are in la-la land, where hairs can be split and re-split into finer and finer filaments.

There was a young man from Khartoum,
Took a lesbian up to his room.
They argued all night
Over who had the right
To do what, and with what, and to whom.

I’ve never cared a flying f*ck about who f*cks whom, but all this agitation over who has rights… this way lies madness.

Er… this legislation… nothing in there about goats, was there?

Just asking.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:03:01 +0000

Demetrius, Richard,
Excellent points. Marriage/civil partnerships also enable inheritance tax to be avoided. Compare that perk with the situation of, say, two spinsters who have shared a home, possibly for longer than most marriages. On the death of one sister the survivor may be liable for 40% inheritance tax of the other’s estate requiring the home to be sold. Deciding what happens to a house on the basis of what happens in the bedroom is not logical. It does not treat people equally and is wrong.

By: Richard Baron

Richard Baron — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:40:53 +0000

I think that would be a very good idea. The state should ignore , and should take no part in the formation of, expressions of personal commitment. If a partnership breaks up, the important issues – the welfare of any children, and the division of property – are the same whether or not there has been a formal expression of commitment. (Thus if a married couple have always kept their finances separate, and there are no children, there should be no more need for a divorce settlement than there is when boyfriends and girlfriends (in any combination) who have not pooled their resources split up.)

Social security benefits could still take account of the pooling of resources, as they do now. You could identify couples who were living together as spouses/civil partners and adjust benefit levels accordingly. The important thing would be the facts of the arrangement, not the presence or absence of a piece of paper.

By: Demetrius

Demetrius — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:37:34 +0000

Literally, an unholy mess. Marriage has always had its complications, but limiting it to adult men and women joining on a lifetime basis gave it an element of simplicity, notably in matters related to child rearing and probate. Nobody has yet seen the ultimate consequence of this shambles and that is to ignore all forms of partnership and make all benefits, rights etc. purely individual. So as far as the State is concerned all forms of marriage/partnership are purely civil contract arrangements. If there are some who see personal unions in the context of a religion then that is just another option.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:41:19 +0000

And let us have a little think about what this might do to the ‘no such thing as common law marriages’ meme?

By: chrisM

chrisM — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:19:34 +0000

where will it end?