From: steve (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 11:05:06 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: transgender marriage
> Wow. Thanks for the info. This is one of those laws/precedents
> that needs badly to be ripped from the books and burned.
>
> - samantha
It's a bit more difficult than that (see below)SD
>
> > More on Ex. Parte Kinney (May 14, 1879) Fed cas. page 602 (case no.
7,825)
> >
<snip>
> > "Marriage, though a contract is more than a civil contract > >
This is the key part. All this reflects very old ideas, specifically that a
marriage is not a simple contract because it creates an entity (a
household/family) which is a society in minature. Marriage is therefore not
subject to the normal law of contract and you can't have things like fixed
terms, renewal options or any of that. It's a social contract and so can be
regulated by the state. There are two options here: 1. keep the existing
framework but extend the privilege of marriage to other groups or 2. have
the state get out of marriage and let it be governed by the normal law of
contract, which I favour. (Not a new idea BTW-lots of people advocating this
about 100 years ago). Either of these would mean a big change, a lot more
than just removing a precedent. Steve Davies
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST