babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Marriage - rights and obligations

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Marriage - rights and obligations
Catchall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14486

posted 30 August 2007 05:48 AM      Profile for Catchall        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if I might start a discussion on marriage. I have, what I believe to be, rather radical ideas about marriage and I was wondering if any of you would care to comment on them.

Here goes: I believe that any two people should be able to get married. That means same or opposite sex. But two people only. And for the purpose of being monogamous and supporting and loving each other until one dies. Idealistic? Sure. So what? Marriage should be idealistic. Here’s the rub, though. I think if any two people can get married, then, if they choose not to, they should not have access to any benefits or rights given to married couples.

Marriage is, after all, a covenant. A pledge to be there whatever happens. A pledge not only to each other – but also to society as a whole. A pledge to support and protect the other if they fall ill and cannot support themselves. A pledge to not run away and saddle society with the financial responsibility. A pledge to fulfill that responsibility yourself. And a pledge like that- signed all legal like in public - should be worth something to us all.

People in common law relationships should get no property rights, no support rights no rights to anything whatsoever when the couple breaks up, regardless of how long they’ve been together. If you want the same rights as married people, make the same damn commitment as married people. Step up. Sign on the dotted line and file the contract. And no marriages in church either. To be legally married in the eyes of the law for the purpose of accessing legal / property / support benefits, it should be the law (i.e. the state) that marries you. The church is irrelevant in this respect.

Seems to me that people want it both ways – they want the rights of married people without making the same commitment to society as married people. To me, that is simply not fair.

And in this day and age with more than half of all graduating doctors and lawyers being female and many high income females being unwilling to enter a relationship with a lesser paid man, this would alleviate some of the concern as she could simply live common law and have the right to walk away anytime with no further financial obligations.

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: Catchall ]

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: Catchall ]


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 30 August 2007 10:13 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchall:
Seems to me that people want it both ways – they want the rights of married people without making the same commitment to society as married people.

What commitment "to society" are married couples making?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 30 August 2007 10:15 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven, troll alert.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 August 2007 10:19 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
What commitment "to society" are married couples making?

No more than any other people, single or not.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14486

posted 30 August 2007 10:55 AM      Profile for Catchall        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
‘Sven, troll alert”.

Translation: Hey Sven don’t engage this guy. He doesn’t want to sit with you, groom your fur and eat your lice, like I do. He actually wants to ask you why you have lice in the first place. Yikes.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 August 2007 11:04 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wish I could write smaller than this...
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443

posted 30 August 2007 11:06 AM      Profile for 1234567     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
‘Sven, troll alert”.
Translation: Hey Sven don’t engage this guy. He doesn’t want to sit with you, groom your fur and eat your lice, like I do. He actually wants to ask you why you have lice in the first place. Yikes.


Mwwwahaaaa


From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 30 August 2007 11:43 AM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm watching this thread, very, very closely!
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443

posted 30 August 2007 12:10 PM      Profile for 1234567     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People in common law relationships should get no property rights, no support rights no rights to anything whatsoever when the couple breaks up, regardless of how long they’ve been together.

Even if there are children involved? Actually, I think that even with marriage, children of divorce get a raw deal, usually they are raised by their mothers who despite child support orders still don't get any financial help from ex partners.

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: 1234567 ]


From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 30 August 2007 12:27 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why not, just create some indepth contract between yourselves and take it down to the dentist to witness?
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 30 August 2007 01:48 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People in common law relationships should get no property rights, no support rights no rights to anything whatsoever when the couple breaks up, regardless of how long they’ve been together.

This thought is premised upon the idea that it was a mutual decision not to marry. This suggests the formal equality of two contracting parties, but does not reflect reality.

If men can avoid providing support or property rights to their partner upon break-up, they will do so. They will refuse to marry, telling their partners that "we are forever" "We don't need a piece of paper" and "I'll always take care of you." Later, they will dump their partners, and try to walk away with the money and property the couple have amassed.

Over the past fifty years, an important struggle has been won which looks beyond the formal legal status of the parties. Women would have to be insane to return to the position of the 1950s, which was, in effect, that you got nothing unless you were formally married. Informal marriages have always been more common among working and lower classes, and the women of these relationships have no interest in returning to subservience.

The welcome addition of gay marriage to our socially-recognized relationships should not be an occasion for forgetting how far we have come in making domestic relationships fairer to women.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 30 August 2007 02:07 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well said Jeff but Stargazer is likely right about the domicile of the poster being under a bridge somewhere.

Edited to add: looked at two other threads he has posted on and yup a troll.

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 30 August 2007 03:56 PM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My most deeply held belief about marriage is that only drag queens should be allowed to wear those fluffy, white wedding dresses. On anybody else, it just looks ridiculous.
When the two happy lovers take the big leap they should write their own marriage licence with crayons and colourful paper. The songbirds, the flowers, the stars, and the sky can be their witnesses. The universe can be their 'wedding chapel'.
Wow...

From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca