My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Arthur C Clarke dies | Main | He is risen indeed »

Comments

googoocachoo

Really, the relevant point in all debates such as this is why on earth do we presume that the state has any business doing anything, pro or con, with the state of marriages; "common law" or otherwise. Why is a "marriage licence" needed? Does it actually matter whether a couple have their bit of paper from the vicar (pardon the expression)? And do you honestly think, Andrei, that every single development in europe that you disapprove of can be laid at the feet of an obscure Italian socialist that I, for one, never heard a word about when I was still a lefty myself? Or was that part of the conspiracy too?

Psycho.Milt

...demonstrates how the EU is imposing its norms on its newly acquired territories in Eastern Europe bit by bit.

I would phrase it more like "demonstrates how eastern European countries are finding that joining the EU gravy train involves some obligations as well as shitloads of cash."

Andrew Davies

"Why is a "marriage licence" needed"

Agreed Googoo. Why do we need the approval of politicians? The sole responsibility of the state in this area is to provide a justice system to enforce the arrangements indidviduals make with each other, whatever that arrangement might be. End of story.

Rick

For those those who are not married, gaining a marriage licence and attempting to be married in the UK involves meeting with local officials and either celebrants or Ministers who are reasonably nosey, know what a con looks like and are legally sharp. Does that surprise you? Ministers who are legally sharp and street smart? Why... liberals told me that men of god are just dumbo's with a penchant for paedophilia. How could they ever be wrong?

For instance, I could not marry someone's dog or 7 year old sister or marry more than one woman without some fairly serious scheming.

For this reason the system works well. All those who oppose marriage because it is a religious institution get my GREAT BIG YAWN OF GIVE IT THE FUCK UP and yab about somethng you actually know about.

Acid Comments

"For instance, I could not marry someone's dog or 7 year old sister or marry more than one woman without some fairly serious scheming.'

Exactly.

Without somekind of marriage licence it would be far to easy to pull a number schemes. From bigamy to polygamy, etc by some individuals. So it does allow fo some checks and balances. Rgardless if you're married by a 'Vicar' or in a registry office. etc.

peter

The marriage ceremony provided the means for Christianity to force incompatible couples to stay together.

What is wrong with deeming 3 years of co-habitation to be constructive marriage?

The comments to this entry are closed.