|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:24 AM June 10th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
...before marrying or even cohabitating with a woman, given that many countries are trying to abolish marriage entirely by giving spousal support and community property awards to people who cohabitate without marrying. Given the immense and prejudiced army at her disposal if the woman decides to make a false accusation, should a woman's absolute right to be believed and the highly prejudicial actions inevitably taken against the accused not be balanced out somehow? For instance, by a requirement that spouses disclose any mental illness or substance abuse to their prospective spouse/partner. Not to the public, just to the prospective partner/spouse. That's just basic underwriting information for an insurance contract, so why isn't it required for a marriage contract? It sounds like basic contract law (i.e. informed consent) to me. Since the feminist "justice" system treats marriage and sex as a transaction bound by contract, that's only fair. If we don't encode such a requirement in law, when you're planning on marrying or cohabitating with a woman, apply for some life insurance together before you finalize things. BOTH parties are required to fully disclose medical and substance abuse histories, and if she insists on doing it alone, you know she's hiding something (past abortions/pregnancies/children, substance abuse, psychiatric conditions, STDs, etc.). If she cooperates, at least you're getting all the information you need to make a decision. If it's required for an insurance application, it should damn well be required for a marriage contract.
Sounds sexist? OK, we'll word the law gender-neutral to silence the critics, and then apply it in a sexist fashion. After all, it works for every other damned law on the books when they're applied against men, and it's been demonstrated that a high index of neuroticism in a woman is an accurate predictor of violence in relationships. Ditto for substance abuse by either partner. Before the marriage, we're entitled to know before giving consent to the myriad contractual obligations imposed by feminism's pet courts. Some questions that appear on an insurance application that should also appear on the application for a marriage license or a cohabitation agreement: ever been in detox? Ever been to an AA/NA meeting? Any history of mental illness? These all sound like fair questions to a person you're planning to spend the rest of your life with. Put them right on the marriage license application, right under the question about whether you're closely related, so lying becomes a crime.
Sounds fair to me. That way, if your spouse lies, when you're arguing in divorce court you can claim the defense under contract law that you did not grant "informed consent".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomP on 03:46 PM June 10th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds good, but Family courts don't seem to treat the marriage 'contract' as any such thing.
If we redefined marriage as a contractural relationship with enforcable requirements on a par with any other contract, I suspect people would take considerably more care about getting into such a relationship. I doubt feminists would like the idea of a female spouse being taken to court for breach of contract, however.
Marriage contracts used to be important for the politically and financially powerful, in order to prevent intra-family and inter-family conflict years down the road. Seems a sensible thing to do, so I am sure it will be opposed on all sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 06:33 PM June 10th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
This paragraph 489A is quite remarkable: unlike western laws, it does not even feint gender neutrality but simply defines DV as "cruelty against housewives".
Don't you have many people of Indian descent in the US? Somebody might want to try to get in contact with these amendment seeking lawyers the article talks about and suggests they ask for the sexist wording of the law to be fixed.
This is exactly what happens when laws or ideas are imported from the US by a small "elite" without the discussion in society that follows over there. I'm observing it here too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wussies love it being beaten up by your feminazi bitches, so what's the problem?
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "In Calcutta, India: a woman physically assaults her husband, and files a DV case against him and gets him arrested! Story