vanna
That's right. The government spends billions on child protection bureaucracies while actively discriminating against marriage and subsidising single parenthood and step-parenthood, which are two of the biggest correlates with risk of harm and disadvantage to children.

'n the UK, it is estimated that 50% of children born outside of marriage will only have 1 parent by the time they reach the age of 5'

How does the other parent die?

Chris H

You're right that I don't work in IP.

But as I understand it, trademarks protect logos and the like, patents protect inventions, and copyright protects copy (and I really mean just the text).

In the case of copyright, there is a fundamental distinction in law that copyright protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. And our High Court has said as much.

Of course, all of these things derive from ideas. But there is nothing in the law that protects just an idea. There are only a few categories of protection for particular expressions of ideas.

To the author:
You say three times that you do not need to be married. You have what you want so what is the purpose of your article? Who are you trying to convince?

You say you don’t need the approval of those who believe in marriage or the approval of the state or society. Why do we need to know this?

There must be someone’s approval you are looking for. There is no need to deny it otherwise.

These posts pick up some interesting points – marriage is indeed a social construct, a contract more than a legal status. As society’s attitudes to marriage have changed, so has our practice of marriage. Divorce is no longer socially stigmatised. Many committed couples choose never to marry, and their “de facto” relationships are gaining the same legal status and benefits as formal marriages. As community prejudices and hostility to homosexuality wane, I hope and expect that the same status and protections afforded to heterosexual couples will extend to gay ones, under whatever label that relationship might go.

Precisely because it has mainly social significance, however, I believe some form of ceremony or other formal mark of community recognition will remain an important part of our culture. It’s fine if the author chooses not to seek that. But many people feel otherwise, which is why the denial of the recognition of marriage to those gay couples who want that is so cruel and so sad.

I agree with the author, why would your commitment be invalid if it is not pronounced in front of some patriarch of an establishment.

Nowadays a lot of weddings are just graduation ceremonies for the parents. They can invite all their friends and boast about what a good job they have done.

Traditionally I suspect that marriages just had to do with the propagation of property rights.

It ensured that a man's properties would pass on to his kids ( and not someone else's). Ironically it has something quite Darwinian about it.

In Islam for example it is possible to get divorced and during the wedding ceremony the Imam can read out the conditions for divorce. The woman can divorce the man if he is gone for more than 3 years. The man can divorce the woman if she is gone for a few months. I forgot the exact number but it is less than 9.

In Holland a wedding is a legal procedure. A public servant reads out the marriage act and then asks the lucky couple if they promise to adhere to the act. (Yes, yes are the usual responses)