Obviously, I am opposed to this law. I want exactly the opposite. The state should acknowledge only partnerships, even between straight couples. Or triads. Or siblings. Marriage is implicitly or explicitly about erotic property rights. Its historical roots makes it unacceptable as a device for a modern secular society.
Right now in the latest issue of The Economist, there is a story about a French court annulling a marriage because the bride was not a virgin, as she had pretended to be. This is just one of the things that will inevitably pop up as long as the term "marriage" is used in legislation. Giving or taking money based on people's supposed sexual relationship with each other is dubious enough on your spare time, though I suppose it cannot be avoided. For a government, it should be absolutely taboo, regardless of the gender of all involved.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-11 06:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-11 07:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-11 08:20 pm (UTC)Right now in the latest issue of The Economist, there is a story about a French court annulling a marriage because the bride was not a virgin, as she had pretended to be. This is just one of the things that will inevitably pop up as long as the term "marriage" is used in legislation. Giving or taking money based on people's supposed sexual relationship with each other is dubious enough on your spare time, though I suppose it cannot be avoided. For a government, it should be absolutely taboo, regardless of the gender of all involved.