Comments on: A Thought About Marriage

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:33:00 +0000

I think it’s brilliant, Bob. Hard to believe that’s not the way it currently is.

By: qwerty

qwerty — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 03:47:00 +0000

when you get married, you are granting the other person power of attorney over your life And yet what that means, life support on or off, is not spelt out in the marriage contract. That is, IMHO, Crazy with a capital C.

At least it’s a C and not a K.

The way I see it, the legalities like power of attorney and inheritance are the reason marriage ought to be universal for any marriage-like relationship. If you’re worried about whether the person given the option of pulling your plug wouldn’t make the choice you’d want, why would you want to marry them in the first place?

It seems to me that if you marry them, it’s because you want them to be registered as your next of kin. If you don’t want that, you don’t marry them, right?

But what do I know? I’m single as single can be.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:46:00 +0000

The problem with marriage are serveral hundred fold, IMHO, but all stem from the problem that, in a 1st world of infinite choice and variety, in which you can order a soy, decaf, cappuccino with carob sprinkles and equal, Marriage remains a “one size fits all” mish mash of unusefulness.

Even if we remove gay marriage from the debate, no one can possibly tell me that a Muslim marriage operates the same way as an orthodox Catholic marriage, which is different again from a cross cultural marriage betwen a secular Jew and a Budist Indian.

Yet they all sign the same shite contract. Why is that?

Marriage contracts offer no way to legitimise the uniqueness of specific marriages, and fail to include the most important element of any relationship: the practical rules for how the relationship will operate.

I won’t bore people with my multi-variant rant on this, but will leave with one,. as I see it, massive problem: when you get married, you are granting the other person power of attorney over your life And yet what that means, life support on or off, is not spelt out in the marriage contract. That is, IMHO, Crazy with a capital C.

And that is just one of a brazillian issues I see with marriage.

By: qwerty

qwerty — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:57:00 +0000

But that’s where my suggestion differs. If the government no longer had the power to control when a couple got married, then the union would be a simple matter of announcing it yourself and sending a document to the government, to let them know about it.

The only control the government could have in these matters is in checking to see if either of the people forming the union are already listed as married or aren’t in a position (due to age or ability) to be married.

By: Blue Gal

Blue Gal — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:45:00 +0000

Lots of folks say civil unions for everybody. Certainly if the government looked after its own interests in terms of settled property arrangements and stable families, a civil union license would be hard to get. The wills, living wills, etc. would have to be arranged pre-nuptual by law. People would require a waiting period of say, three months to a year. Far fewer marriages would take place.