--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal > > marriage > > isn't going to be a wildly popular idea.... > > Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate the > legal and religious portions.
How does that differ from the current situation? >Make the legal agreement that allows > for joint ownership, automatic powers-of-attorney, visiting rights, > protection of children just that - a legal contract. You can sign it > at the end of a church wedding, or in a hall, or in a lawyer's > office. Just a contract. Civil unions for any two people who wish to > organise their affairs that way. Of course, one wonders why only two? In any case I don't see how this proposal is different from creating civil unions for same-sex couples >If you want a wedding you can have > it, but it won't automatically confer the legal rights. That way, any > religious ceremony or none at all can be held, which has meaning to > the couple. Again, I don't see how this differs from the current state of affairs. In the US, atheists have no difficulty in getting married in the secular ceremony of their choice. Do weddings automatically confer legal rights in the UK? Are religious ceremonies required in the UK? > Churches can protect their marriage in the eyes of the > Lord by offering weddings to heterosexual couples and not anyone else > if they choose. Marriage will mean exactly what it always has, which > is exactly what the two married people think it means to them and no > more. > > Australia has gone part of the way - marriage no longer automatically > confers a name change for a female partner. Not far enough though. All of this also seems true in the US as well..... JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
