Why I'm against legal marriage or special legal statuses.

Post Reply New Topic

Recently there was a case in my local new where a single mother was not able to get the father's name on the birth certificate as they were unmaried when.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36009377

I'm against the concept of the state defining relationships, or attributing status to private life. Nor do I think people should be discriminated due to marital status.

I have fine with the concept of cultural marriage (but not for me), however there is envitably a conflation between the two.

Ms Niemeyer, from east London, said she had to provide DNA evidence in court to have his name added to the document.

Yep, because there are definitely no married women that have children whose birth certificates name the wrong biological father.[/sarcasm]

I agree with you, OP. I thought this would be a bit of a silly article, but if it's true it's basically saying "We believe that a married woman is always having sex with the man that she's married to, and nobody else, but an unmarried woman with no reason to lie would name the wrong father when registering her child's birth".

The article is a good example, however I have had this position for a while.

There are certain thing government should be involved in. Private life, it should involve itself as little as possible.

I do understand as an issue of fairness if one demographic is allow to obtain a special status and another isn't, however it is better not to have these legal statuses at all.

They aren't fundamental rights, like expression. Cultural marriage is expression.

The marriage contract comprises a number of other contractual agreements which I think the government justly has a role in protecting. For example, if I am ill or injured, my wife may visit me in hospital, and if necessary make decisions about my care. If I die intestate, she automatically inherits my property. And so on.

Yes but this could be handled differently.

You wife could also take half your property in a divorce, and a some of future wealth.

Before gay marriage in some states, couples had to decide who was going to adopt the the other, just so they could have the rights you talk of.

However why should this contract determined by family relationship? What business is it to state. Why should the state determine what constitutes a valid relationship?

It's not necessarily. I mean, two adults with a non-sexual friendship – two lifelong bachelors with no other families, maybe – should be able to draw up similar contracts establishing each other's rights in various situations. But unless someone invents a new legal term for such a relationship ("life partnership," maybe?) it would be a number of separate contracts. Marriage encompasses everything I mentioned and more.



I don't think it should. Any two adults, of sound mind and not already married, should be able to fill out a simple form declaring their new relationship.

I think each aspect should be handles separately with choice, and some aspect should be abolished especially the social engineered social policy, or discriminatory policy.

I also think it shouldn't have a life connotation. Commitment is separate from marriage, even if marriage is symbolic it is not itself a form of commitment.

It is partnership, or just a contract or agreement.



Or better draw up their own contract.

Do you believe contracts should be legally recognized and legally enforced?

Sure, depends on the terms naturally. Not everything can be legally enforced.