Posted on 05/08/2015 6:49:06 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
“A contract has to rest on some kind of law or precedent”
Where in the world did you get that idea?
It absolutely does not. A contract is just an agreement between two or more parties. Actually it doesn’t even have to be written, it can be verbal.
OK, I see what you're driving at now. There would have to be some evidence that would withstand legal scrutiny.
"Fault" divorce was the nationwide norm prior to 1970, so there is plenty of jurisprudence and case law to draw from in its re-establishment, although at the moment the genie appears to be out of the bottle.
I don't think it's that simple. You can't agree to sell yourself into slavery, AFAIK.
Regarding marriage, even pre-nups have dubious value, right?
What if a couple draws up a contract for a polygamous relationship? Should that be legal?
What if a man and woman want to draw up a contract to auction off their children? Should that be legal?
The bottom line is that the State has the right to regulate marriage for the good of men, women and children. Irregular arrangements are detrimental to society.
You're free to disagree. But these eternal truths were self-evident for all of recorded human history, until now. And I don't think that it's possible to separate marital law from the State, since the State, at least as a last resort, holds a monopoly on the lawful use of coercion in settling disputes.
Check out this History of Marriage from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It's not a particularly Catholic entry, since it's simply describing the history of marriage.
Taking the word natural in its full sense, we may unhesitatingly affirm that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. While promiscuity responds to certain elemental passions and temporarily satisfies certain superficial wants, it contradicts the parental instinct, the welfare of children and of the race, and the overpowering forces of jealousy and individual preference in both men and women. While polyandry satisfied in some measure the temporary and exceptional wants arising from scarcity of food or scarcity of women, it finds an insuperable barrier in male jealousy, in the male sense of proprietorship, and is directly opposed to the welfare of the wife, and fatal to the fecundity of the race. While polygamy has prevailed among so many peoples and over so long a period of history as to suggest that it is in some sense natural, and while it does seem to furnish a means of satisfying the stronger and more frequently recurring desires of the male, it conflicts with the numerical equality of the sexes, with the jealousy, sense of proprietorship, equality, dignity and general welfare of the wife, and with the best interests of the offspring.
“I don’t think it’s that simple. You can’t agree to sell yourself into slavery, AFAIK.”
Sure you can... Think student loans.
“Regarding marriage, even pre-nups have dubious value, right?”
As long as what their agreeing to is not forbidden by some other law which would make it invalid.
“What if a couple draws up a contract for a polygamous relationship? Should that be legal?”
It’s not illegal to have a polygamous relationship any more, you can just only register one spouse with the state. (ie; cival marriage)
“What if a man and woman want to draw up a contract to auction off their children? Should that be legal?”
This falls under contracting for something that is illegal under criminal law. That in a contract would not be binding...
Nobody insists that the State set up conditions for initiating or terminating relationships predicated upon sharing bonsai or bicycling or classic British films. And relationships involving property land, homes, exchange of goods and services, can be readily taken care of by private contract.
I have often said this in relation to the irrationality of "gay marriage." What for? What friends demand legally enforced "twosiness"? It calls to mind a banner I saw in a crowd shot of the big pro-traditional-marriage march in Gay Paree: a couple of flamboyant queers proclaiming "We're gayer without marriage."
So it seems marriage is primarily set up, not to secure the consortium and interests of adults, but primarily to secure the rights and interests of children.
Do children no longer have rights? Do thy no longer have interests? If there is truly "NO FAULT" in a marriage (the 5A's: no adultery, assault, abandonment, addiction, abuse) how is it in the children's interest to dissolve the marriage?
It seems to me that the State's interest --- the public interest --- in preserving marriage for the sake of the offspring, would naturally call for disincentives to divorce, and incentives to reconcile.
Not the contrary.
Children have a right to a father and a mother who are married to each other.
They still do.
Well said. The children get lost in all this.
My state adopted no-fault in 2007. Until then, many couples were separating and staying separated, never to reconcile again. They just couldn't afford the actual divorce.
IOW, no-fault divorce didn't destroy those marriages; they already were destroyed. No-fault simply made it possible to turn those separations into official divorces.
In the meantime, "fault" divorce is still an option.
BTW, even with no-fault, the plaintiff still has to give a reason - such as separation for 18 months or irreconcilable differences.
The problem isn't with no-fault. The real problem for many years has been that, even when "fault" can be shown, it has no effect on support, child custody, etc., as far as the courts are concerned.
Interesting...OBVIOUSLY the attempt here was to weaken the country by DESTROYING families. Seemed to have worked quite well, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.