|
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
quote [ They want to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage and vow to fight the decision. ]
In the UK marriage has been on the decline for a number of years, with more people opting to become "partners".
|
Spyike said @ 6:34pm GMT on 21st February
I see your possibly talking out of your ass, and raise you thus:
I've done done no research on this, but would assume it's a symbolic thing more than a legal thing. Historically marriage isn't about "two people who love each other very much", it's about land and property ownership. A dowry is close to a payment by the family of the female to the male, in exchange for marrying the female. This of course being back in the days when women of rich families didn't inherit, even if they're older than their male siblings. Women seen as property to be married off with a dowry or a bride price.
Similarly, in religious terms, "marriage" is tied to Christianity, and is between a man and a woman.
Civil partnerships which, iirc, were allowed in the UK before gay marriage, were a compromise for gay couples. It allowed them to have the same rights, but without insulting those who saw "marriage" as a primarily religious service. Except of course, that few childrens books talk about beautiful civil partnerships, so gay people still wanted to get married.
So now we have a couple, almost certainly atheists and probably feminists (or similar), wanting to have all the legal rights given by marriage, whilst taking a symbolic step away from things they don't want to implicitly endorse. But they aren't same sex, so they can't have a civil partnership. Enter: legal battle.
There's caveats I've glossed over, but in general I think that's it.
Spyike said @ 6:34pm GMT on 21st February
I see your possibly talking out of your ass, and raise you thus:
I've done no research on this, but would assume it's a symbolic thing more than a legal thing. Historically marriage isn't about "two people who love each other very much", it's about land and property ownership. A dowry is close to a payment by the family of the female to the male, in exchange for marrying the female. This of course being back in the days when women of rich families didn't inherit, even if they're older than their male siblings. Women seen as property to be married off with a dowry or a bride price.
Similarly, in religious terms, "marriage" is tied to Christianity, and is between a man and a woman.
Civil partnerships which, iirc, were allowed in the UK before gay marriage, were a compromise for gay couples. It allowed them to have the same rights, but without insulting those who saw "marriage" as a primarily religious service. Except of course, that few childrens books talk about beautiful civil partnerships, so gay people still wanted to get married.
So now we have a couple, almost certainly atheists and probably feminists (or similar), wanting to have all the legal rights given by marriage, whilst taking a symbolic step away from things they don't want to implicitly endorse. But they aren't same sex, so they can't have a civil partnership. Enter: legal battle.
There's caveats I've glossed over, but in general I think that's it.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Spyike said @ 6:34pm GMT on 21st February
I see your possibly talking out of your ass, and raise you thus:
I've done no research on this, but would assume it's a symbolic thing more than a legal thing. Historically marriage isn't about "two people who love each other very much", it's about land and property ownership. A dowry is close to a payment by the family of the female to the male, in exchange for marrying the female. This of course being back in the days when women of rich families didn't inherit, even if they're older than their male siblings. Women seen as property to be married off with a dowry or a bride price.
Similarly, in religious terms, "marriage" is tied to Christianity, and is between a man and a woman.
Civil partnerships which, iirc, were allowed in the UK before gay marriage, were a compromise for gay couples. It allowed them to have the same rights, but without insulting those who saw "marriage" as a primarily religious service. Except of course, that few childrens books talk about beautiful civil partnerships, so gay people still wanted to get married.
So now we have a couple, almost certainly atheists and probably feminists (or similar), wanting to have all the legal rights given by marriage, whilst taking a symbolic step away from things they don't want to implicitly endorse. But they aren't same sex, so they can't have a civil partnership. Enter: legal battle.
There's caveats I've glossed over, but in general I think that's it.
