You are reading a single comment by @DFP and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@DFP
Ill repeat my "I agree with N3IL" statement from the other thread.
Always thought it made no sense for people to get married through the state. Marriage is either
a personal vow/commitment to be made with another person
a religious commitment/vow to be made with this other person, their family and God. The participants may wish to involve their church in this but I know for Christianity and Islam it is totally unecessary. These people should not feel that their religious establishment holds power over them and their relationship.
And in a cynical and unpleasant angle; some kind of legal contract you put together privately.
The last version of marriage requires some goverment involvement in terms of law, but it should stop at that and should be as minimal as possible. The idea of special perks for marriage and courts having to deal with peoples martial woes is silly. Its exactly like in other "more backward" parts of the world where people are punished by state for adultery.
So you only need goverment involvement if when sorting out inheritance stuff, because of this marriage linked next of kin. The courts should not have to deal with shit like distributing assets after divorce etc - that is lunacy.
And in this regard you should be able to label a same sex person as your partner/next of kin. But the details of that relationship are nowt to do with the government.