The Forum > Article Comments > Marriage past, present and future? > Comments
Marriage past, present and future? : Comments
By Ellen Goodman, published 29/3/2011If Jim and John marry, and Jane and Josie marry then neither of those marriages has any affect whatsoever on the marriage between Frederick and Francine.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
>>Pericles Marriage is by definition an act of faith, namely, undertaking to be bound by the marriage vows, so good luck with trying to winnow out the spiritual aspects from the practical.<<
That is precisely why I believe that the spiritual part - the "faith" part, if you like - should be of no interest to the government. Or, quite frankly, to anyone else apart from the protagonists themselves.
The practical part, which I use as a close analogue of legal in this context, is where the situation between two people guides taxation, individual financial responsibilities, duty of care and so on. The government need only decide, say, that it will only "recognize" one partner at a time, and then lays down sensible rules that govern responsibilities for children, it has reached the limit of its mandate. Problems mostly arise when the various religions, pseudo-religions and sects claim a favoured status, based upon that religion's, pseudo-religion's or sect's personal preferences.
By the way, be very careful what you wish for.
>>And I want multiple wives!<<
But I guess, so long as you simultaneously acquire the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of a saint, the stamina of an ox and the riches of Croesus, you should be ok.
Mostly.