(no subject)

[naath]

Yay Obama is still president!

Also yay! 4 states voted for (or against being against) same-sex marriage to be allowed!

Legal notions of family.

I am strongly in favour of allowing same sex couples to get married (also couples where one or both parties are neither male nor female). In the UK we have the campaign for equal marriage who would like to introduce this right here too. I support them (but think they have a kinda nasty website). I don't like calling it "gay marriage" because it's not really - not all same sex couples are gay (some are bisexual) for one thing.

Also I'm in favour of bringing in civil partnerships (or similarly named non-marriage marriage-like things) for all couples; because I have strong personal reasons to not want to get married myself. I'm not in favour of claiming that CPs are "just like marriage" and should be "good enough" for same-sex couples. They really aren't; it's a principle-of-the-thing even if the rights are very-nearly-identical.

I'm also also in favour of extending legal recognition of marriage (and/or CP) to groups of more than 2 people; although I understand that this is rather harder, because (for instance) if you have 3 wives who are all exactly as closely related to you in law then how does the law decide which of them gets to turn off the life support machine? Also if my wife's wife husband divorces her then does he get a share in my worldly wealth (because I agreed, by marrying her, to own all things in common with her)? It's not as simple as writing three names on the marriage cert. (Although note that it's clearly not IMPOSSIBLE; and Islamic jurisprudence presumably has a full set of rules for how one-man-many-wives works).

I'd also like the law to recognise intentional family bonds other than "spouse" (through marriage) and "parent-child" (through adoption); and also the dissolution of blood family bonds in a similar way to divorce. For instance the law recognises my brother's relationship to me if I die intestate or if I'm on life support, especially if our parents are dead; it would be nice if I could "divorce" my brother and/or "adopt" friends as my siblings-in-law (er, except that term already means something). This seems like it might be a legal minefield.

Comments

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

While I certainly agree with the desire to widen the relationships recognised by law, I feel that attempting to introduce laws that allow all manner of possible relationships seems to be a futile project, as there are so many possible variants. As far as I can see, the simplest thing to do is to simply remove all the laws that recognises, and privileges, certain range of defined relationships (other than, perhaps, the automatic one of parent/child - and already that is fairly wide, as to the classes of people who can obtain parental rights sand responsibilities.)

All else is probably best organised by personal arrangements and agreements between the involved parties. For this to work all that would be needed is clear judicial recognition, and enforcement, of such agreements. Because, frankly, family law, even with its currently limited range of relationships, is already complicated enough.

[naath.livejournal.com]

I think a system of more individual agreements would be good; better even than the set of agreements packaged as "marriage".

I do think that would require law-making though; not just a gradual shift in how people arrange their own things. It would be nice if the law would, for instance, view joining the organ donor register as a contract to provide my organs on my death between me and the NHS and not try to involve my parents/husband/siblings/children/etc... but it apparently doesn't; if such a (to me) simple notion as that can't reliably be enforced I don't have much hope...

I would also be concerned about the protections currently afforded by divorce law being removed.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

The thing with organs is the fact that (a) dead bodies can't be owned, and (b) contracts expire at death (and it's not really a contract anyway, in English law, as it's a unilateral promise) (c) instructions in a will as to what is to be done with ones body are not binding on executors. So the executors, and medics tend to ask the living to confirm. Although I gather medics are getting better at pressing the fact of the dead would-be donor's wishes.

I do understand what you mean about divorce protections, but I think a general "equitable treatment" doctrine might go a long way to achieve that for more varied relationships. (The place my thoughts run into the quicksand is when it comes to clear provision for children.) And the beauty of the common law is that we could then allow it to unfold in whatever way people wanted to take it, without having to devise and codify them all up front.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Instructions in a will as to what will be done with one's *money* seem to be fairly binding; so long as no-one manages to demonstrate the will-writer was being strong-armed into it. I'm not sure why my money is somehow more mine to dispose of than my body; my family might actually get some *use* out of the money...

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

Instructions regarding property are (to a first approximation) absolutely binding -- because most of the law, and succession in particular, is obsessed with property rights above all; personal rights and wishes are afterthoughts. Even matrimonial law is founded on property rights, although it has at least advanced beyond regarding a wife as property.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Why can't my body be defined as part of my property? This is all very odd to me.