legal<\/em> aspects to the marriage. After all, marriage is a solemn and binding legal contract.<\/p>\nJust like a last will and testament. Or purchasing a house. Or a car. Or a year’s gym membership.<\/p>\n
My point is we already have a big and elaborate legal system for dealing with legal contracts; why can’t that be used for marriage contracts too?<\/p>\n
Marriage is about a commitment to look after each other financially (even if you get divorced). Sounds like a clause in a contract.<\/p>\n
Marriage is about a commitment to look after each other in sickness and in health. Sounds like an enduring power of attorney clause in a contract.<\/p>\n
When you are married, you get certain rights to your partner’s estate? Sounds like a clause in a contract – and in a will.<\/p>\n
When you are married, you get certain rights and obligations regarding your children’s upbringing? There’s probably several clauses there.<\/p>\n
The list goes on. As an exercise, go through every right that is granted by our laws to married couples, make up a contract that specifies those rights. Tadaa! A marriage contract that doesn’t need a Marriage Act.<\/p>\n
The appropriate government department can offer a template. Each church is likely to want to produce their own, to better follow God’s word.<\/p>\n
Each clause is, of course, a negotiating point. You want to be married, but for your adult child to be responsible for medical decisions in the event you are incapable? Sure; edit the contract. You want the husband to take the wife’s surname? Sure; edit the contract.<\/p>\n
Some edits may mean that your favourite church won’t let you have your wedding there, but that’s between you and your church.<\/p>\n
Some edits may mean that your insurance company won’t pay death benefits to your partner, but that’s between you and your insurance company.<\/p>\n
Have you noticed the lack of a need for the government to appoint a special celebrant with magical powers to authorise the marriage? The lack of need for a Marriage Act at all?<\/p>\n
Government Involvement<\/h4>\n
What is the government involvement?<\/p>\n
I mentioned that they could offer a contract template. This is optional; I don’t think they do it for wills. If they don’t, some law firms will jump at the chance to earn $40 for each copy of the template.<\/p>\n
The courts will be involved in helping to enforce the breaches of contract, much in the same way as other contracts.<\/p>\n
There may be a legal requirement for witnesses for the signing, much in the same way as other important contracts.<\/p>\n
I wouldn’t argue for a cooling-off period, like with real-estate sales, but I bring it up to point out we do have special rules for some other important contracts to make sure that people don’t enter them lightly. Marriage can be added to the list.<\/p>\n
Apart from that, I don’t see the government’s involvement.<\/p>\n
Actually, that’s not true. There is one flaw in my argument that I haven’t resolved yet. The government gives special dispensation to spouses when considering immigration status. At first glance, the idea of privileging family members of existing Australians over random, more-qualified applicants smells a little of nepotism, but it sounds like it is for the greater good. I haven’t worked out how the Immigration Department could distinguish between marriage contracts that are deserving of such treatment and marriage contracts that (for immigration purposes only) are considered “sham” marriages.<\/p>\n
Implications<\/h4>\n
The immediate implication is that gay marriage has the same legal standing as heterosexual marriage – i.e. little more than a civil contract.<\/p>\n
Note: There is no implication that a church would have to host any wedding for any partnership they see as an abomination.<\/p>\n
The implications go further; polygamy becomes legal! Well, actually no. It just maintains its current status – three or more people may live together, sleep together, and have a big party to exchange rings, wearing morning suits and white dresses, just like now. They can make legal commitments to each other, just like now. <\/p>\n
Marriage to children? 18 year olds can sign the contract directly. Under-18s need to get their parents’ permission. Sex with minors is still illegal. So, much the same as now.<\/p>\n
Marriage to animals? Marriage to sex-dolls? No change; they can’t sign legal contracts. Bestiality laws are still in place to protect the animals.<\/p>\n
Summary<\/h4>\n
Perhaps that’s an odd place to end my argument, but let me wrap it up.<\/p>\n
I am not against the importance of marriage to couples and their communities. When I become President of Australia, I will maintain all of that.<\/p>\n
I am against the government having unnecessary laws, and I see the Marriage Act of 1961 to be largely disposable – starting from the way it regulates celebrants, moving past the way it restricts marriage to one man and one woman, straight to its total lack of justification for existing.<\/p>\n
Some traditionalists (by which, of course, I mean in the traditional sense of people who hold dear the traditions of their grandparents’ culture of the past few decades) fear that extending the Marriage Act to support same-sex marriages will be another step along the path towards undermining the very institution of traditional marriage. I say “What a great idea! But let’s drive there; I know a short-cut that’ll be faster.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When I say I am against<\/em> the Australian Government extending the Marriage Act<\/a> to allow for marriage between same-sex couples, it isn’t for the reasons given by the religious, trying to protect society from what they see as an abomination.<\/p>\nIt is because I want the Government to repeal the entire Marriage Act, and get their nose out of things that are none of their affair!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[29,27],"tags":[57,339,98,176],"class_list":["post-1087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-influencing-others","category-thoughts-from-the-shower","tag-australian-culture","tag-lgbt","tag-politics","tag-presidential-campaign"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1087","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1087"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1087\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1542,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1087\/revisions\/1542"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}