For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Again, this is for the protection of children and wives against abandonment. Long before there was DNA testing, it was presumed that children born to a cohabiting couple were the offspring of the man involved.Dalek Prime wrote:Common law should have no legal significance, not marriage. Common law forces one into a marriage-alike, though the people involved have purposefully decided against marriage.
And if there are no children? It still entraps me, against a decision I purposely made not to marry, and the woman acknowledged. That is where the law is an ass in it's inflexibility. Not that it's happened to me, but to others, yes. And it would put a crimp on any decision of mine to ever live with someone else, but for the this law.Melchior wrote:Again, this is for the protection of children and wives against abandonment. Long before there was DNA testing, it was presumed that children born to a cohabiting couple were the offspring of the man involved.Dalek Prime wrote:Common law should have no legal significance, not marriage. Common law forces one into a marriage-alike, though the people involved have purposefully decided against marriage.
Come on Bob, you can handle this:bobevenson wrote:That is not a proper function of government, my friend.Melchior wrote:Marriage exists for the protection of children, wives, and property.
I'm sorry, I didn't sign up for your political science class and wasn't expecting a pop quiz.SpheresOfBalance wrote:What are the three branch's of the US government? Please give a brief description of what each branch is responsible for.
Then you're surely not knowledgeable enough to say what is and isn't the responsibility of the government. Simply logical!bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't sign up for your political science class and wasn't expecting a pop quiz.SpheresOfBalance wrote:What are the three branch's of the US government? Please give a brief description of what each branch is responsible for.
And so you believe this drama is over??? Far from it, I'd wager!bobevenson wrote:This just in from Yahoo.com news regarding the recent U.S. Supreme Court's decision making homosexual marriages legal in all fifty states: "Utah and Mississippi are considering doing away with state-issued marriage licenses, while county clerks in Kentucky and Alabama have already taken it upon themselves to stop granting licenses altogether." The position of the AEP is obviously far ahead of its time.
How many times do I have to tell you that the only proper function of government is social integration. Under an AEP regime, the concept of three branches of government will have run its course, and everything will be handled by a single branch of government. Of course, if the AEP fails to deliver on its promise, the electorate is free to throw it out on its butt!SpheresOfBalance wrote:Then you're surely not knowledgeable enough to say what is and isn't the responsibility of the government. Simply logical!bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't sign up for your political science class and wasn't expecting a pop quiz.SpheresOfBalance wrote:What are the three branch's of the US government? Please give a brief description of what each branch is responsible for.
Quit jabbering and say what you mean.Melchior wrote:So, what about inheritance and property? You're a moron!
The word "marriage" should not even be used by government. And there should not be any "divorce" lawyers and no division of property owned by either party, only commonly owned property. Furthermore, there should be no legal or tax advantages based on a so-called "marriage."henry quirk wrote:I'm thinkin' marriage ought to be a private affair (a kind of idiosyncratic contract) with 'government' as final arbiter of contract.
Not really seein' how it's anybody's business how Jack and Joe, Jacklyn and Josephine, or Sam and Dianne choose to bind themselves together.
As it stands now: the current ruling from the Supreme Court only means the divorce lawyers have doubled their business.
This has been the case in Australia for a very long time. However this provision merely makes property disputes on separation more complex rather than less so. When there's a hard way or an easy way to resolve a dispute you can count on the legal profession to discover the hardest possible way every time. Smart suits, flash cars, luxury homes and extravagant holidays abroad don't come cheap.bobevenson wrote: no division of property owned by either party, only commonly owned property.
Once again. In Australia being married confers no legal or tax advantages on anybody.bobevenson wrote: there should be no legal or tax advantages based on a so-called "marriage.
The idea is that marriage should be encouraged, and that marriage involves additional costs. That's why the tax breaks.Obvious Leo wrote:This has been the case in Australia for a very long time. However this provision merely makes property disputes on separation more complex rather than less so. When there's a hard way or an easy way to resolve a dispute you can count on the legal profession to discover the hardest possible way every time. Smart suits, flash cars, luxury homes and extravagant holidays abroad don't come cheap.bobevenson wrote: no division of property owned by either party, only commonly owned property.
Once again. In Australia being married confers no legal or tax advantages on anybody.bobevenson wrote: there should be no legal or tax advantages based on a so-called "marriage.