3 ms·
All I get from this is a bunch of hand-waving that the problem is too complex to consider, and libertarians are the only group that want marriage privatized. N
by r0s 14y ago
All I get from this is a bunch of hand-waving that the problem is too complex to consider, and libertarians are the only group that want marriage privatized. Never mind the fairness of the law. I think this issue spans the US as well, so I'll respond in that context.
Point for point:
1."the presumption against intention to create legal relations when the parties are in an intimate relationship.
...
That presumption would need to be statutorily reversed, with, of course, unknown consequences."
Marriage is already the exception, it doesn't follow that a revision of marriage law would reverse that convention universally.
2. Non-libertarians (or even, non-strawman libertarians) also want marriage decoupled from the state.
3. "Even without duress, the ordinary law of contract would take a good long look at some of the family structures tolerated in Sharia and may well find find undue influence (England and Rome), facility and circumvention (Rome) and unconscionable dealing (England and the Commonwealth)."
Marriage laws preventing abuse are redundant and can be cut.. what's the problem?
4. "a mass of new law will have to be enacted, worked through and litigated; it will cost a fortune and clog the courts for years."
That's a salient point. I think we'll have to decide if equality is worth it.
5. Interesting points to consider for a revision of current law.
6. Irrelevant to the merits of state sponsored marriage.
Interesting perspective all around! I'd like to know more about ancient Roman law.
- jacques_chester 14y ago> Marriage is already the exception, it doesn't follow that a revision of marriage law would reverse that convention universally. You'd have to legislate to abolish the presumption, otherwise it will continue to be applied. That's how the common law works. And having abolished the presumption, all the law that flows from it is now thrown out and you start from scratch. Actually, worse: some will get thrown out and you will need to make two decisions in all the early cases -- what still applies, and if it doesn't, what is the new rule? > Marriage laws preventing abuse are redundant and can be cut.. what's the problem? Her point here is addressed to religious libertarians, who want the state out of marriage so they can impose more onerous terms. She says that they wouldn't get what they want anyhow; if you make it into a contract, then contract laws will come along and void a bunch of religious practices. The complexity is always going to be there. Moving it from the "family law" heading to the "contract law" doesn't make the complexity go away. It will just jam up the courts while everything is rehashed from scratch. She often discusses contrasts between Roman and Common law, if that interests you.