jbar
journeyman
Reged: 12/26/06
Posts: 74
|
|
I recently came across a site and realized that these people have the answer to all modern divorce problems.
[censored]://[censored].lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality
Just think: With no "marriage" there would be NO DIVORCES! No divorce lawyers, no divorce courts, no divorce judges and no self-promoting politicians relentlessly trying to make a name for themselves by constantly "reforming" divorce law. Best of all, the Long Night of legalized theft of assets and children, for the endless benefit of gold diggers and greedy lawyers at the expense of the most productive members of society, would at last be over.
Children would be protected in the same manner in which they presently are in the case of parents who are NOT married. All other domestic relationships would be covered by existing criminal or "implied partnership" law unless a real, binding contract, written by qualified attornies had been entered into by the parties.
Nirvana!
--------------------
"There is no force so powerful as an idea whose time has come."
...Everett Dirksen
|
jbar
journeyman
Reged: 12/26/06
Posts: 74
|
|
The following was moved here by jbar from another thread in this forum in the interest of appropriateness to this thread:
(quoted from Maury): [i]"What is ironic is that you (jbar) seem to propose to keep the government out of marriage, and then propose to include them in that institution by creating additional cause of action. That is inconsistent to say the least. I understand wanting to exact revenge, but the points are polar opposites which, if nothing else, creates a greater mess than the one you rail against." [/i]
Jbar's reply:
[i]"I don't want to create an "additional cause of action", I want everyone treated as if they were NOT MARRIED so that, in the case of the car accident, having a Civil Union on file would have no bearing on insurance, liability, tortious liability of a spouse or any other ridiculous complications brought into the lives of people by virtue of having been made to think that they had to be "married" to rightly live together and raise a family.
Any agreement to have joint liability, joint debt, community property or anything at all of this nature, which is now forced upon them in "marriage" unless they have a prenup excluding it---and which is likely to be ignored in case of a divorce--would have to be specifically chosen by them in their selection of a Domestic Contract written by qualified, experienced contract attornies. This removal of all recognition in law of all purely religious marriages---and any "vows" made in the process---should take place as soon as possible and be automatically replaced by Civil Unions providing only for: (1) the parties to continue possessing all legal rights formerly bestowed by law upon "married" persons unless necessarily descending from specific obligations; (2)removal of all obligations formerly bestowed by law upon "married" persons unless necessarily descending from specific rights; (3)intestate rules of inheritance applying to themselves and their children unless controlled by a will, trust or other such document; (3) the pro-forma status of "married" granted them purely for purposes of immigration, travel visas, etc.;(3) equal mutual obligations to their children and equal rights of custody of same, while the parties' Civil Union remains in force or after it may be cancelled by one or both principals, unless overwhelming facts are proven justifying any alteration of equal custody."[/i]
Maury's reply:
[i]"Well, I suppose doing away with marriage is a thought. Not much of one, but that seems to be what your program entails.
By the way, I am not sure I understand what you mena by having Civil Unions for "(3) the pro-forma status of "married" granted them purely for purposes of immigration, travel visas, etc.;" Are you proposing that it would be fine to enter into a civil union for that puspose only? I am not sure I get that at all. I do not disagree with equal obligations and equal custody as a presumption, however."[/i]
-----------
"There is no force so powerful as an idea whose time has come."
...Everett Dirksen
Edited by jbar (03/26/10 10:18 PM)
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
Other than moving this to take center stage, I am not sure how it answers the questions I posed.
|
jbar
journeyman
Reged: 12/26/06
Posts: 74
|
|
[i]"I am not sure I understand what you mena by having Civil Unions for (3) the pro-forma status of "married" granted them purely for purposes of immigration, travel visas, etc.;" Are you proposing that it would be fine to enter into a civil union for that puspose only? I am not sure I get that at all."[/i]
Hopefully this change will be implemented by an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, at last equalizing and unifying Civil Unions as the law of the land for basic domestic relationships. Until this occurs, however, there may be a period in which some states have adopted this as state law and others have not. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the entire world will become enlightened in this way anytime soon, although I believe a few countries have.
For the above reasons it will be necessary that Civil Unions be statutorily deemed the equivalent of "marriage" to facilitate coordination with laws of other states (or even Federal laws) which may still provide any particular considerations to couples who are "married", as well as with immigration laws of foreign countries so as to permit the issuance of family visas, etc., to Americans traveling or working in such countries.
"Marriages of convenience", to facilitate immigration to the U.S. of foreign nationals still happen today, although the INS has done a lot to make this much more difficult, in ways I won't go into here. Suffice it to say that although this might still be possible with "marriage" replaced exclusively by Civil Unions and optional, ancillary Domestic Contracts, there is no reason to think that this kind of fraud would be any easier. The same waiting periods, for example, before registering another Civil Union after cancelling an existing one could be emplaced as now exist for remarriage after a divorce, as well as a lifetime limit on the number of foreign nationals with whom one may register a Civil Union followed by sponsorship of immigration to the U.S.
--------------------
"There is no force so powerful as an idea whose time has come."
...Everett Dirksen
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
