|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Fair enough. Objection withdrawn.
[ 04. January 2012, 06:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Okay, back from a great holiday swimming and reading lots of books.
Before I reply to some of the posts while I was away I'd like to remind everyone that I entered this thread because I'm interested in this issue. I'm not, nor am I seeking to be, some kind of official spokesperson for 'male headship'. (I'm not even sure I know what such a position even is anyway.)
I'm quite happy to respond to questions about my personal views though.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Please link to or quote whoever has seriously suggested or considered whether it would be a better thing to have a society where men by virtue of their birth are by default supposed to submit to other men of higher birth, even in a token fashion or or to anyone who has tried complementarian arguments for men going back to the inequalities of the past, for instance variants on the classic 'those who work, those who fight and those who pray'.
Over my holiday we listened to a lot of audiobooks in the car (Australia is a BIG country). By coincidence three of them were all from the mid C19th - Crime and Punishment, Silas Marner and Jane Eyre. I was struck again by the injustice of the class system so prevalent in Europe at that time.
That said, another book - The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbons (even abridged it went on for hours) - made me reflect upon various leadership structures. In fact it is pretty hard not to plough through Gibbon's prose without thinking about it! The despotic rule of some of the Emperors is exposed but equally how exposed they often were to the whim of the people.
I don't think democracy is the panacea it is often talked up to be. I can't think of a better alternative, but I'm not blind to its faults. When I left the UK the reform of the House of Lords was being discussed. I have to confess to having mixed feelings about it at the time. I was all in favour of disestablishment and removing the privilege of the aristocracy but I fear democracy that has no counter balance to popular opinion.
I remember having to write an essay on leadership from the OT portrayal of Kingship. I was struck by an interesting ambivalence to the role of King. On the one hand the role is a disaster and seen as such - a rejection of God as King. On the other hand the role is seen as salvation - saving the people from a time 'when everyone did was they saw fit'.
So, in short, I'm not convinced that all of the inequalities of the past were all bad. To my mind those issues were well illustrated in the film The King's Speech. As I watched it I fluctuated between finding the monarchy ridiculous at some points and as a healthy distance from society at others. I know it was only a film, but for the sake of argument (assuming it was fairly accurate) the King did feel a strong sense of putting the nation first.
Even in a fully egalitarian society it would be a simple fact of life that we would still submit to men (and women) of higher birth - higher in the sense that they are given gifts of intellect etc. at birth.
The problems with dictatorship are well known (and have been well rehearsed on this thread) but the problems of democracy (e.g. popularism and short-termism) are also increasingly being felt. I don't want to lose democracy but do think egalitarianism needs checks and balances too.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Those arguments go much further than marriages. They were used until recent times to legitimise social hierarchy and men (as well as women) knowing their place by virtue of their birth. Submission to hierarchies with the Lord's anointed put in place by his/her coronation ceremony (seen in terms of a marriage ceremony- that's what the ring is for - between monarch and nation, with monarch as head and husband) was extolled as a means of social stability and keeping social order, and I daresay back when royal prerogative meant something there were fewer divorces too. And not much room for that evil individualism when you're all busy getting your Lord's harvest in, and having to neglect your own crops to do it, so he can feed his war-horses and keep up appearances at court.
Agreed. There is a trade off here - the social order was good at keeping marriages together but was open to abuse in that it could keep abusive marriages together too. There's the rub - if only there was a magic wand we could wave that kept all the good marriages together and disbanded the bad ones. Or maybe this is the wrong way to think about marriage altogether.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
That was complementarian too - labourers complemented the military class and equally-hierarchical church, everyone had their proper allotted roles and attempts by those getting the shitty end of the stick to do something about it could be met with platitudes about how they were equally valued and scolding about didn't they know how onerous it was to be one of their superiors and held accountable to God for their greater responsibility?
That wasn't complementarian. A complementarian, AFAIK, sees evereyone as equal and able to equally enjoy the results of their labour. The thing that struck me from my recent literary trip into the C19th was precisely how there were no platitudes about being equal - inferiors and betters were the terms used.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
And if individualism and egalitarianism are the problem and it is admitted that men have abused the legal powers they arrogated to themselves using notions of headship, then it's strange that female headship never gets proposed as an alternative to this. But no, despite thousands of years of documented abuses against women, some men still insist THIS time it will work.
It's much like the folk who thought the problem with slavery was not slavery per se but persuading the masters to be 'nice masters' as Gollum would put it, and coming up with schemes for reform.
When it comes to gender the Bible bases everything upon sand: the false account of men and women given in Genesis. This has led to centuries of monstrous crimes and injustice which are hard for people to admit while keeping some regard for the many good things which have come from Christianity, so there's a tendency to want to downplay this or to want to find some heavily-rationalised fig-leaf for the Bible's unjust and immoral teaching on submission.
L.
That is a fair point. And one I think LC responds to. Ultimately this does always come down to our view of the Bible. There are Egalitarians and Complementarians who read their bibles and come to different conclusions but if the teaching of the church is seen as authorative then this will always be the starting point.
Indeed, FWIW, the tradition from which I come (which has historically been very pro-Egalitarian by the way) has always seen the bible as the corrective to democracy. Leadership is accountable in a democratic way but those who vote have something external to appeal to. Something that does not change with popular opinion (even if interpretations do!?) The iterative process this sets up (i.e. the bible is authoritative but all I have is my interpretation of the bible) is a healthy way forward.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Um, we weren't arguing about whether easier divorce was caused by divorce being easier. We were arguing about whether easier divorce was caused by egalitarianism. You do see the difference, right?
Exactly.
Perhaps it would have been quicker if I had just said - it is a tautology that anything that makes divorce easier will make divorce easier.
I can't prove that by making it easier for women to divorce this encouraged others to consider divorce across the board but I don't think it is too wild an estimation to make.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I find it interesting and telling that you state your position as "a relationship" itself being intrinsically hurtful, rather than individuals hurting each other. I'm still not clear as to why you think a social structure you consider to be hurtful should be promoted over alternatives you admit to be less harmful, other than a willingness to sacrifice the happiness and wellbeing of others on the altar of your nostalgia.
I'm also not clear what your proposed solution is to the "problem" of women being able to make their own living. Legally enforced gender restrictions on certain professions?
You've picked up on something that wasn't even in what I intended to write. If it helps you then please read what I wrote as "hurt in a relationship".
I'm also unaware that I've offered any proposed solution.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Perhaps it would have been quicker if I had just said - it is a tautology that anything that makes divorce easier will make divorce easier.
Quicker, but meaningless, as I have already said.
Now that you're back maybe you can answer the questions I asked?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
A legal maxim is 'hard cases make for bad law' - i.e. that the law is always trying to balance mercy to difficult situations while not making that situation normative.
I'm not sure that mercy for battered women is a "hard case" in the sense that that maxim means it. If it is, then the maxim is demonstrably false. If it's not, then the maxim is irrelevant to this conversation.
quote:
Egalitarianism has placed an emphasis on individual rights. In so doing it has brought more protection for the individual but less for the couple (as in the relationship of the couple).
What exactly would "protection for the couple" look like, if not forcing people to stay married who do not wish to stay married? This is the real crux, and I think it's the place where your argument completely disembowels itself. The only way to "protect the couple" is to make divorce harder. Which punishes women in abusive situations.
quote:
To love someone is to become vulnerable to being hurt. If you never want to be hurt then never, ever love someone.
Not sure at all what this has to do with no-fault divorce. Just because divorce is easier now doesn't mean that people getting married are getting married thinking, "Well I can always bail if it gets tough." If that were the case, then more people would be getting married than if the escape clause were not present, because people who might think, "I'd get married but there's no way out" wouldn't get married under the old regime, but potentially would get married under the new.
But in fact the number of people getting married is declining pretty steadily.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I remember having to write an essay on leadership from the OT portrayal of Kingship. I was struck by an interesting ambivalence to the role of King. On the one hand the role is a disaster and seen as such - a rejection of God as King. On the other hand the role is seen as salvation - saving the people from a time 'when everyone did was they saw fit'.
....
Indeed, FWIW, the tradition from which I come (which has historically been very pro-Egalitarian by the way) has always seen the bible as the corrective to democracy. Leadership is accountable in a democratic way but those who vote have something external to appeal to. Something that does not change with popular opinion (even if interpretations do!?) The iterative process this sets up (i.e. the bible is authoritative but all I have is my interpretation of the bible) is a healthy way forward.
A very quick note in passing at the mo- the different biblical strands about Kings are fascinating and you might enjoy a trip to the 17th century sometime ( if you haven't already made one). I remember being absorbed by reading the OT accounts of Kingship and then watching how people used the different strands in the Civil War controversies. People sometimes picked the strand they went with through conceived prayer and prayer groups - which could have rather big effects when it was Cromwell's army prayer group doing the praying about what to do with the King...
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
Browsing through the last three pages of this thread (I started at page 1 and then did a double take when I noticed the posting dates, though I’ve also skimmed vast tracts of the thread in print view and wish I had a spare few hours to read in depth) it seems rather lop-sided in its discussion of the application of ‘headship’. Much of it has been about wives being required to submit to their husbands, and how open to abuse that is because it introduces unaccountable authority. But that is only half the story.
Despite Louise’s distaste:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
When it comes to gender the Bible bases everything upon sand: the false account of men and women given in Genesis. This has led to centuries of monstrous crimes and injustice which are hard for people to admit while keeping some regard for the many good things which have come from Christianity, so there's a tendency to want to downplay this or to want to find some heavily-rationalised fig-leaf for the Bible's unjust and immoral teaching on submission.
I still believe that the Bible is the definitive guide for those who wish to be faithful followers of Jesus Christ, (and its teaching best represented by the complimentarian view), which I will try to explain briefly by looking at the other half of the teaching in one of the relevant passages:
“For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body ... Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ... In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies...” (Eph 5:23, 25,28 ESV)
So the way that the husband should express his ‘being head of his wife’ is by self-sacrificial servant headship, being prepared to do the lowliest job in the world for her, as Christ did when he washed the feet of his disciples. In the light of this, the church teaching that resulted in the following behaviour is clearly deficient:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[I remember a mate of mine at Theological college recounting a tale from when he had just become a Christian at an enthusiastic new house church on the South Coast of the UK (in the early 80s I think). He came home one day from a sermon on 1 Corinthians 11 and told his wife that now he was a Christian she was going to have to wear a hat. "No way!" she told him. "But, but, I'm the head of this household now so you've got to wear a hat in church."
(And then there’s the story of the JW wife whose husband unilaterally decided to move house, but I can’t find it to quote from and there’s 18 pages of thread to search through...)
And then, yes, ‘Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord ... wives should submit to their husbands in everything' (vv22, 24), but there’s nothing about husbands ensuring that their wives submit to them. It’s an attitude which is entirely up to the wife’s choice to comply with, just as it is entirely up to the husband’s choice to comply with the directive to self-sacrificial love. And if either husband or wife disobeys, the other will suffer. The responsibility to comply is equally given to husband and wife, but the manner of that compliance is different for each.
The problem with 'headship' teaching comes from the chauvinistic interpretation that ‘head’ means controlling authority, or domination. This isn’t the moment to go into a detailed theological discussion of kephalē, not least because I haven’t got my head round all the relevant points, but the feminist egalitarian rejection of any submission to husbands by wives because of the consequent vulnerability to chauvinistic abuse of authority, is to go off the rails just as badly in the opposite direction. I believe that true godliness is the application of the text of the Bible as I have outlined it above. If people distort Biblical teaching to achieve their own agendas, don’t blame the Bible.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Okay, so it's about the wife's attitude.
But 'obey your husband in everything' requires the wife's attitude to be 'throw away the brain God gave you, and obey your husband even if he's being a complete idiot'.
Although I suspect some women take a different approach and use their brains to ensure that their husbands always decide exactly the 'right' thing, and also manage to make the husbands think it was all their idea.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure that mercy for battered women is a "hard case" in the sense that that maxim means it. If it is, then the maxim is demonstrably false. If it's not, then the maxim is irrelevant to this conversation.
The sad fact that husbands do sometimes batter their wives means that the law must be ready for this possibility. It does not mean that we should assume that it is likely that all husbands do when we define marriage though.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What exactly would "protection for the couple" look like, if not forcing people to stay married who do not wish to stay married? This is the real crux, and I think it's the place where your argument completely disembowels itself. The only way to "protect the couple" is to make divorce harder. Which punishes women in abusive situations.
Perhaps you did not use the phrase very deliberately but I find "who do not wish to stay married" significant here.
AFAIUI western marriage is based on the assumption that no one can get divorced just because they no longer wish to stay married. Isn't that the whole point? For better, for worse .... Society decides grounds for divorce but these are (or were?) public and objective grounds.
Much as I find it alien to my culture I'm starting to see (some of) the sense in arranged marriages. The one (only?) thing in its favour is that it totally abuses us of the notion that marriage is dependent on 'compatibility' and 'feelings'.
quote:
The only way to "protect the couple" is to make divorce harder. Which punishes women in abusive situations.
True. And it is impossible to make divorce easier without making it easier for people to divorce. No fault divorce means that it is much easier for an abused wife to leave her husband but it also means it is easier for her to leave him just because she's bored.
As you say this is a tautology. There are no easy answers to this.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not sure at all what this has to do with no-fault divorce. Just because divorce is easier now doesn't mean that people getting married are getting married thinking, "Well I can always bail if it gets tough." If that were the case, then more people would be getting married than if the escape clause were not present, because people who might think, "I'd get married but there's no way out" wouldn't get married under the old regime, but potentially would get married under the new.
But in fact the number of people getting married is declining pretty steadily.
It is only anecdotal but my experience in Christian ministry over the past two decades strongly suggests the correlation - even among regular churchgoers there is definitely an increasing understanding that "I can always bail if it gets tough."
The decline in marriage can be explained by all sorts of other factors - I'd suggest that it is because marriage has been devalued. Its not that they were waiting for an escape clause but more that they now wonder what the point is - "I can get all the legal protection I want without marriage."
Serious question - with no fault divorce why get married at all? (Why not simply make a private agreement to live together as long as you both feel like it?)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
A very quick note in passing at the mo- the different biblical strands about Kings are fascinating and you might enjoy a trip to the 17th century sometime ( if you haven't already made one). I remember being absorbed by reading the OT accounts of Kingship and then watching how people used the different strands in the Civil War controversies. People sometimes picked the strand they went with through conceived prayer and prayer groups - which could have rather big effects when it was Cromwell's army prayer group doing the praying about what to do with the King...
L.
Thanks Louise - if I get time I may well have a look back to the Puritans and the C17th in general.
Actually that is what struck me most about Gibbon's portrayal of the Roman Emperors - afterwards it was fairly easy to tell what his ideal society looked like!?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Serious question - with no fault divorce why get married at all? (Why not simply make a private agreement to live together as long as you both feel like it?)
Are you married? Was there no-fault divorce when you married? Why, then, did you marry? If this is a serious question, you must think your reasons don't apply to anybody else?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you married? Was there no-fault divorce when you married?
There wasn't when I got married and, AFAIK, there isn't any such thing as a 'no-fault divorce' in the UK now either.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Scotland has "no-fault" divorce. A couple can get a divorce based on the fact that they have lived apart for a year and both consent to the divorce, or one party can divorce the other based on the fact that they have lived apart for two years.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
It has existed in England and Wales since the 1996 Family Law Act. It can take place one year after separation by mutual consent; otherwise, it can be petitioned for by either party 2 years after separation.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you married? Was there no-fault divorce when you married?
There wasn't when I got married and, AFAIK, there isn't any such thing as a 'no-fault divorce' in the UK now either.
Your newly adopted country has had it for decades, though.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It has existed in England and Wales since the 1996 Family Law Act. It can take place one year after separation by mutual consent; otherwise, it can be petitioned for by either party 2 years after separation.
Are you sure? I thought it was 2 years and 5 years respectively? (That is what it says on the UK Govt. site anyway.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your newly adopted country has had it for decades, though.
I've just come back from Beechworth - at least 50 years ahead of the UK. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So, in short, I'm not convinced that all of the inequalities of the past were all bad.
Said the privileged Western white male who can own property and vote.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It has existed in England and Wales since the 1996 Family Law Act. It can take place one year after separation by mutual consent; otherwise, it can be petitioned for by either party 2 years after separation.
That was how I was divorced. My ex-wife claimed two years separation, I didn't contest it. We never even went to court. All done by mail. Didn't cost me a penny either cos she did it. I didn't even talk to a lawyer as far as I remember, never mind a court.
For what its worth there seems no big correlation between changed in divorce law and the number of people getting divorced in England. If I remember correctly the number of divorces a year rose pretty steadily from the mid-19th-century onwards, with two big blips for the world wars, and then leveled off quite recently even though it got easier.
The divorce rate in 1947 was about ten times what it had been in 1937. Its not laws that break up families, its wars.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
So the way that the husband should express his ‘being head of his wife’ is by self-sacrificial servant headship, being prepared to do the lowliest job in the world for her, as Christ did when he washed the feet of his disciples.
Right, that's just the same bullshit line despots and tyrants have been peddling for centuries. How it's so hard to run other people's lives and have them obey your every whim. They'll totally make the sacrifice of running your life, and all they ask in return is that you obey their every whim as if they were God incarnate. Who could turn down an attractive offer like that?
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
And then, yes, ‘Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord ... wives should submit to their husbands in everything' (vv22, 24), but there’s nothing about husbands ensuring that their wives submit to them. It’s an attitude which is entirely up to the wife’s choice to comply with, just as it is entirely up to the husband’s choice to comply with the directive to self-sacrificial love. And if either husband or wife disobeys, the other will suffer. The responsibility to comply is equally given to husband and wife, but the manner of that compliance is different for each.
So God's direct commands for how you're supposed to live you life are totally optional? Good thing Christianity doesn't contain any severe warnings about what happens to those who disobey the commands of its deity.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you married? Was there no-fault divorce when you married?
There wasn't when I got married and, AFAIK, there isn't any such thing as a 'no-fault divorce' in the UK now either.
Okay, if there HAD BEEN no-fault divorce at the time, would you have gotten married? If yes, please answer my questions substituting HAD BEEN for WAS.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It has existed in England and Wales since the 1996 Family Law Act. It can take place one year after separation by mutual consent; otherwise, it can be petitioned for by either party 2 years after separation.
Large chunks of the Family Law Act 1996 have never come into force. Basically, the legislative framework for no-fault divorce exists in the UK, but until a government formally activates that framework the old rules continue to apply. In fact, contested divorces are very rare, and as financial orders (the thing people like to argue about) almost never take conduct into account, the concept of fault is often irrelevant.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So God's direct commands for how you're supposed to live you life are totally optional? Good thing Christianity doesn't contain any severe warnings about what happens to those who disobey the commands of its deity.
FWIW, St. John Chrysostom, when preaching on marriage, held to a hierarchical model of marriage, as you'd expect. Husbands must love their wives, wives must submit to their husbands.
Interestingly, he said that the command to the husbands is absolute. The command to the wives is not. The only thing required of the wife is not to humiliate her husband in public. If she's done that, according to Chrysostom, she's fulfilled her duty to respect her husband.
But there is no limit to the husband's duty to love his wife. Chrysostom says that a man should never even say that his property is his own, but should tell his wife that it is hers. If even his body belongs to her, as St. Paul says, then his stuff is hers, too.
He says it's a good thing for a woman to choose to obey her husband, but it's shameful for a man to demand obedience from his wife.
If a woman refuses to respect or obey her husband, according to Chrysostom, there's only one thing for the husband to do: Love her more.
I've sometimes wondered how things might have been different had Christian men taken Chrysostom more seriously, and put his ideas into practice. But men didn't heed his exhortations about how to treat their wives any more than the rich heeded our Lord's exhortations about how to treat the poor.
And that's something that you need to consider any time you're thinking about relationships between those with power and those without it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Josephine, what you wrote is beautifully said.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Interestingly, he said that the command to the husbands is absolute. The command to the wives is not. The only thing required of the wife is not to humiliate her husband in public. If she's done that, according to Chrysostom, she's fulfilled her duty to respect her husband.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
This is consistent with the NT's view of human authority in general - hence my comments about Romans 13 and Acts earlier... the early church called on Christians to obey the state but consistently chose to 'obey God rather than man'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay, if there HAD BEEN no-fault divorce at the time, would you have gotten married? If yes, please answer my questions substituting HAD BEEN for WAS.
I'm not being cute, I really don't understand the question - i.e. you are asking me if I would still get married if the definition of marriage (AFAIUI) was changed. That kind of speculation is impossible - I suppose I might have got married but it wouldn't still be marriage as far as I was concerned.
All my life (and experience) marriage has consisted of two people making life long promises to each other ... no matter what, until they are parted by death. Now divorce is a sad reality due to all kind of mitigating circumstances but in my definition of marriage (which I think follows most vows for roughly the past 200 years in the UK) a no fault divorce is a contradiction in terms.
If people have made the traditional vows then a divorce means that one or both of the parties broke their vows. Again there may well be mitigating circumstances. It doesn't necessarily make them bad people, only human. Nor is this about laying blame. But 'no fault divorce' just does not compute. YMMV.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just because divorce is allowed doesn't mean two people getting married intend to use the out clause. You appear to be making some kind of category mistake here.
The purpose of "no fault" divorce is that two people can get divorced without having to drag up dirty laundry, accuse each other of abuse or abandonment or adultery (the usual 3 allowed reasons for divorce in this country before no-fault, I believe), and so on.
But really what does the existence of a legal way to end marriage have to do with Joe and Sally, who get married with every intention to stick it out? And people do stick it out, and find ways to mend their relationships, even WITH the existence of easy divorce. I see absolutely no connection between the existence of easy divorce and the intentions of any two people getting married. Can you please explain what the causal link is here that you are seeing?
It's like you're saying that because the store has a return policy, I never really meant to keep the thing I bought.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just because divorce is allowed doesn't mean two people getting married intend to use the out clause. You appear to be making some kind of category mistake here.
Rather I'm saying that a 'no fault divorce' is a category mistake. I'm not taking issue with divorce but only with no fault divorce.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The purpose of "no fault" divorce is that two people can get divorced without having to drag up dirty laundry, accuse each other of abuse or abandonment or adultery (the usual 3 allowed reasons for divorce in this country before no-fault, I believe), and so on.
But really what does the existence of a legal way to end marriage have to do with Joe and Sally, who get married with every intention to stick it out? And people do stick it out, and find ways to mend their relationships, even WITH the existence of easy divorce. I see absolutely no connection between the existence of easy divorce and the intentions of any two people getting married. Can you please explain what the causal link is here that you are seeing?
I think that in the UK the term 'grounds' is preferred to 'fault' to avoid the sense of blame.
The causal link is this - I don't see how it is possible for two people to make a promise to stay together until they die, no matter what and for that promise to be dissolved without it also being broken. There must be grounds for divorce or the vows are being cheapened.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's like you're saying that because the store has a return policy, I never really meant to keep the thing I bought.
No, it's like several stores that only return something if it is defective, or the wrong size, or whatever.
When I lived in the UK Christmas presents from Marks & Spencer's were virtually a tradition. This was because the store would accept returns with no explanation (even no receipt I seem to remember). The store's return policy then had a direct impact on shoppers - people chose to buy presents from there precisely because it was easier to return. There is a causal relationship. I remember the queues at the end of December.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If people have made the traditional vows then a divorce means that one or both of the parties broke their vows. Again there may well be mitigating circumstances. It doesn't necessarily make them bad people, only human. Nor is this about laying blame. But 'no fault divorce' just does not compute. YMMV.
I'm always amazed, but never quite surprised, at the way people's misery is seen as being somehow beneficial. Well, other people's misery.
You seem to be premising your argument on the idea that most people can't judge their own misery and require some outside authority, like the government, to decide whether their particular misery is the right kind for them to be allowed to do something about. Why do you consider forcing people to remain in miserable relationships to be a legitimate use of state power?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The causal link is this - I don't see how it is possible for two people to make a promise to stay together until they die, no matter what and for that promise to be dissolved without it also being broken. There must be grounds for divorce or the vows are being cheapened.
This simply doesn't make sense. 'No matter what' as you put it, doesn't allow for any grounds at all. As soon as you allow 'grounds' then you are saying that it's not a case of 'no matter what'. 'No matter what' does not mean, for instance, 'I will be faithful to you until I discover that you were unfaithful to me first, and then I'm entitled to break it off'.
The only thing a list of grounds does is to give an official list of what's allowed to end the marriage, rather than letting the couple themselves decide what might end the marriage in their own individual circumstances. It gives you some kind of approval: "See! I'm allowed to end it! I can tick one of the boxes!".
Whether or not such a list exists has nothing to do with the sincerity of the promises at the beginning of a marriage. It only has to do with who gets to decide that a marriage ought to be dissolved.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You seem to be confused, Johnny S, between no-fault divorce being available, and somebody actually using it to get divorced. As I said and you ignored, if two people marry and intend quite honestly and unreservedly to stick it out no matter what, how is the nature, worthiness, meaning, intention, or ANYTHING about their marriage made any different by what anybody else does, or what the law allows? Please answer that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be premising your argument on the idea that most people can't judge their own misery and require some outside authority, like the government, to decide whether their particular misery is the right kind for them to be allowed to do something about. Why do you consider forcing people to remain in miserable relationships to be a legitimate use of state power?
I'm not forcing anyone to remain in anything - that would apply if I was against divorce, but I'm not.
Marriages (in the Western world at least) are currently public covenants sanctioned by the state. Historically the whole point of making public vows was to prevent people from being able to divorce privately without involving the state. A no fault divorce involves the state but only in a purely rubber-stamping exercise.
(In the context of this thread it is interesting to note that this has mostly been for the protection of wives in the past.)
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
'No matter what' as you put it, doesn't allow for any grounds at all. As soon as you allow 'grounds' then you are saying that it's not a case of 'no matter what'. 'No matter what' does not mean, for instance, 'I will be faithful to you until I discover that you were unfaithful to me first, and then I'm entitled to break it off'.
Agreed. It is what people have promised in their wedding vows for at least 200 years though.
What is the following (fairly standard traditional religious UK vows supposed to mean?)
I, __________, in the presence of God, family and friends
take you, _______,
to be my lawful wedded wife;
to have and to hold from this day forward,
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
until we are parted by death;
and to this I give you my promise.
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
As soon as you allow 'grounds' then you are saying that it's not a case of 'no matter what'. 'No matter what' does not mean, for instance, 'I will be faithful to you until I discover that you were unfaithful to me first, and then I'm entitled to break it off'.
No, involving grounds means spelling out that the original vows have been broken. As you say there is nothing that entitles / requires you to break off, but only reasons that may make it a sad possibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
The only thing a list of grounds does is to give an official list of what's allowed to end the marriage, rather than letting the couple themselves decide what might end the marriage in their own individual circumstances. It gives you some kind of approval: "See! I'm allowed to end it! I can tick one of the boxes!".
Whether or not such a list exists has nothing to do with the sincerity of the promises at the beginning of a marriage. It only has to do with who gets to decide that a marriage ought to be dissolved.
Correct, in the sense that it involves the state - see my response above. If a marriage is state sanctioned then surely only the state can be the final arbiter if it is to be dissolved? ISTM that a 'no fault divorce' is informing the state rather than involving it. It presupposes marriages as a private agreement between two people rather than a public one.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to be confused, Johnny S, between no-fault divorce being available, and somebody actually using it to get divorced. As I said and you ignored, if two people marry and intend quite honestly and unreservedly to stick it out no matter what, how is the nature, worthiness, meaning, intention, or ANYTHING about their marriage made any different by what anybody else does, or what the law allows? Please answer that.
I genuinely am surprised that you can't see this. But I'll try again.
Let's say that most wedding vows included unconditional promises with the warning that the state could fine the couple $10,000 if they were to break their vows in the future.
Then let's assume that the state passed specific legislation saying that they would never, under any circumstances, fine anyone for getting divorced.
From then on it would be pointless including that part of the vows regardless of the couple's sincerity. That part of the vows would become meaningless.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In that weird alternate universe, yes, that part of the vow would lose any meaning.
In this universe, will you answer my question?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be premising your argument on the idea that most people can't judge their own misery and require some outside authority, like the government, to decide whether their particular misery is the right kind for them to be allowed to do something about. Why do you consider forcing people to remain in miserable relationships to be a legitimate use of state power?
I'm not forcing anyone to remain in anything - that would apply if I was against divorce, but I'm not.
Sure you are. You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Marriages (in the Western world at least) are currently public covenants sanctioned by the state. Historically the whole point of making public vows was to prevent people from being able to divorce privately without involving the state. A no fault divorce involves the state but only in a purely rubber-stamping exercise.
Rather like the way the state hands out marriage licenses in the first place, right? But I'm sure you consider that to be good "rubber-stamping".
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(In the context of this thread it is interesting to note that this has mostly been for the protection of wives in the past.)
Well, making divorce difficult has always been marketed as being for the protection of wives, but the way the spousal murder rate usually drops in jurisdictions where no-fault divorce is enacted tells a different story.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
As soon as you allow 'grounds' then you are saying that it's not a case of 'no matter what'. 'No matter what' does not mean, for instance, 'I will be faithful to you until I discover that you were unfaithful to me first, and then I'm entitled to break it off'.
No, involving grounds means spelling out that the original vows have been broken. As you say there is nothing that entitles / requires you to break off, but only reasons that may make it a sad possibility.
I think you mean "a sad impossibility". After all, if you're still not entitled to a divorce after your spouse breaks their vows there's literally no circumstance under which you would be.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Correct, in the sense that it involves the state - see my response above. If a marriage is state sanctioned then surely only the state can be the final arbiter if it is to be dissolved? ISTM that a 'no fault divorce' is informing the state rather than involving it. It presupposes marriages as a private agreement between two people rather than a public one.
An interesting theory. Following your logic of the state being the final arbiter of marriage, does the same reasoning apply in other circumstances? Specifically, if the state can compel couples to stay together can it also issue divorces that neither spouse wants? Going further, can it compel unwilling parties to wed each other? I have to say that the amount of power you're willing to invest in the government to run people's lives is truly frightening.
I take the contrary position. Governments should exist for the benefit of their citizens, not the other way around.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sure you are. You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
Where have I said anything like that? I haven't even mentioned any reasons so how can I possibly be insisting that the official list needs to be approved by me? I would have thought that the whole point of marriage being sanctioned by the state is that any 'approved list' of mine is totally irrelevant.
The rest of your post comes down to the definition of a public marriage sanctioned by the state.
You are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth that I haven't said at all without addressing the issue that started this tangent in the first place - what difference does it make that marriage is a public contract sanctioned by the state? If I sign a contract with another person that we can dissolve without giving any reason for doing so, then surely it is, by definition, a private contract?
[ 09. January 2012, 08:10: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
If I understand JonnyS correctly, his point is more that the concept of ‘no fault' divorce is a fiction, because, by definition, if neither of the two people who had promised to stay married to one another were at all at fault, they wouldn't be getting a divorce. If the law is to permit divorce (as, I think, he fully supports) it would be better to do so in a way that does not endorse the untrue assertion that no one is ever to blame. His argument is not that cruelty, adultery or desertion are the only ways of being ‘at fault' - it is the opposite of that, that even in cases were none of the big reasons are present, it is still a nonsonse to say that nobody is at all in the wrong.
The reason why no-fault divorce is the way laws tend to go in various jurisdictions is practical, though, rather than meant as a moral comment on marital breakdowns. Once a couple get to the point of wanting to split up, there is very little of practical legal importance about whose fault it was, and it is often impossible to tell: how many years of emotional abuse is required to balance out one instance of drunken adultery? Is sexual selfishness more or less blameworthy than persistent sarcasm? Even without considering that people's perceptions are usually rather skewed, even when they aren't deliberately lying (as they often are), asking a Court to decide which of two people was more of a nightmare to live with is a dubious proposition. And usually quite pointless. It doesn't make reconciliation more likely, so while it may be, in some sense, truer to say that such and such a divorce is granted because, on balance, Mrs Smith failed in her obligations slightly more seriously than Mr Smith failed in his, if it makes no practical difference why spend several days and a hundred grand on a bitterly contested trial to find that out?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Correct, in the sense that it involves the state - see my response above. If a marriage is state sanctioned then surely only the state can be the final arbiter if it is to be dissolved? ISTM that a 'no fault divorce' is informing the state rather than involving it. It presupposes marriages as a private agreement between two people rather than a public one.
As Croesos has pointed out, the state doesn't seem to actually do a great deal of checking when it comes to sanctioning marriages to begin with (apart from making sure everyone's the right gender ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ), so I'm not sure why you seem to think that it's particularly important that the state does a great deal of checking when it comes to noting the end of marriages either. All people realistically do when getting married is 'inform' the state. They ask the state to register them and the state pretty much says 'okay' so long as it's a heterosexual couple and neither of them is previously on the register. Not terribly demanding.
Marriage vows are pretty much symbolic, and have been for quite a while now. Once upon a time a marriage contract was exactly that - a contract, and it was treated as such by the law. But certainly not in my lifetime, and quite possibly not in yours.
The faint suggestion that no-one would go into a marriage if the promises weren't binding, in the sense that they didn't have consequences, tells me more about you than it does about the institution of marriage. I don't campaign for my right to get married because I want there to be official sanctions and consequences if I stuff up - do you really think gays and lesbians are eager for that 'right' when they can just shack up as de factos now?
The consequences of breaking the vows aren't state-imposed or in the law. They're in the heart and soul. They're personal and internal. Maybe not all people have the same sense of integrity, but when I stand up in front of a gathering and say I'm intending to spend the rest of my life with someone, it'll be because I honestly mean that's my intention.
And if that doesn't end up happening for some reason (the future not being readily foreseen - you should learn a little about the realities of contract law and how contracts can't cover every future eventuality) then I'll be devastated and I'll probably spend the rest of my life trying to decide how much it was my fault and what I did wrong.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
If I understand JonnyS correctly, his point is more that the concept of ‘no fault' divorce is a fiction, because, by definition, if neither of the two people who had promised to stay married to one another were at all at fault, they wouldn't be getting a divorce. If the law is to permit divorce (as, I think, he fully supports) it would be better to do so in a way that does not endorse the untrue assertion that no one is ever to blame. His argument is not that cruelty, adultery or desertion are the only ways of being ‘at fault' - it is the opposite of that, that even in cases were none of the big reasons are present, it is still a nonsonse to say that nobody is at all in the wrong.
The reason why no-fault divorce is the way laws tend to go in various jurisdictions is practical, though, rather than meant as a moral comment on marital breakdowns. Once a couple get to the point of wanting to split up, there is very little of practical legal importance about whose fault it was, and it is often impossible to tell: how many years of emotional abuse is required to balance out one instance of drunken adultery? Is sexual selfishness more or less blameworthy than persistent sarcasm? Even without considering that people's perceptions are usually rather skewed, even when they aren't deliberately lying (as they often are), asking a Court to decide which of two people was more of a nightmare to live with is a dubious proposition. And usually quite pointless. It doesn't make reconciliation more likely, so while it may be, in some sense, truer to say that such and such a divorce is granted because, on balance, Mrs Smith failed in her obligations slightly more seriously than Mr Smith failed in his, if it makes no practical difference why spend several days and a hundred grand on a bitterly contested trial to find that out?
The entire problem here, I suspect, is a confusion as to what 'no fault' means. It doesn't mean there was no fault at all. It merely means that you don't have to identify which ONE out of two people was at fault.
If anything, that system of assigning blame to one party or the other was a great deal more fictional. A 'fault' system insists on having one party file for divorce as the 'victim' of the fault, so that they can label the other party as the perpetrator of the fault.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sure you are. You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
Where have I said anything like that? I haven't even mentioned any reasons so how can I possibly be insisting that the official list needs to be approved by me? I would have thought that the whole point of marriage being sanctioned by the state is that any 'approved list' of mine is totally irrelevant.
As orfeo has pointed out, 'no-fault divorce' is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning. By claiming to be in favor of a system where divorce is only permitted on the basis of fault, you have endorsed a system where there is a specific list of faults considered grounds for divorce and such faults must be established in court, usually on a "preponderance of evidence" basis. Given that such procedings are, by definition, an adverserial process this seems like a position designed to increase the level of acrimony between any couple seeking divorce.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The rest of your post comes down to the definition of a public marriage sanctioned by the state.
You are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth that I haven't said at all without addressing the issue that started this tangent in the first place - what difference does it make that marriage is a public contract sanctioned by the state? If I sign a contract with another person that we can dissolve without giving any reason for doing so, then surely it is, by definition, a private contract?
It should be noted that "public contract" is also a legal term of art and posits that the state is one of the contracting parties in a marriage. Most jurisdictions, on the other hand, do indeed regard marriage as a private contract that's registered with the state, somewhat akin to selling a piece of real estate. Real estate transactions are registered with the state for much the same reason marriages are (taxes, preventing skullduggery, etc.).
So, if you regard the state as a contracting party within every marriage, what's the state's interest and what enforcement mechanisms do you consider legitimately at its disposal?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... When I lived in the UK Christmas presents from Marks & Spencer's were virtually a tradition. This was because the store would accept returns with no explanation (even no receipt I seem to remember). The store's return policy then had a direct impact on shoppers - people chose to buy presents from there precisely because it was easier to return. There is a causal relationship. I remember the queues at the end of December.
The problem with your example is that there are no queues -- as others have pointed out, fewer people are getting married, even with supposedly "easy" divorce. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I reflected on this further overnight, and I struggled to think of any reason why the state would have an interest on keeping a relationship 'on the books' as it were when the relationship has in practice broken down.
The only thing I could come up with was a 'for the sake of the children' type argument. But even that doesn't work. Even if the state refused a divorce (because there was no 'grounds'), it cannot compel a couple to live together. Physical separation is entirely in the hands of the couple. So why on earth would the state insist on them remaining married?
Morality? As I understand it, this is exactly what used to happen in Ireland where divorce was not possible. Men would abandon their wives anyway. And those wives would not be free to remarry if a decent man came along.
That was an absolute bar on divorce, but much the same result occurs if particular cases of divorce were to be refused by the State because the recognised 'grounds' hadn't been met.
It seems to me that the State is not in a very good position to assess a marriage and tell the participants in the marriage that it's not 'over' when the husband and wife are telling the State that yes, it is over.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If I understand JonnyS correctly...
Yes, pretty much. Thanks Eliab - your whole post sums up what I was trying to say.
My contention is that (I think I read it somewhere) technically speaking 'no fault divorce' still doesn't exist even now in the UK. As you said earlier, something to do with the legislation being there but never been used or something like that.
I don't know much about the British legal system and what I know is now out of date so I'd appreciate your comment on this.
This is significant because I think it implies a radically different definition of marriage in the UK to that described in the US and Australia.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marriage vows are pretty much symbolic, and have been for quite a while now. Once upon a time a marriage contract was exactly that - a contract, and it was treated as such by the law. But certainly not in my lifetime, and quite possibly not in yours.
That may be true in Australia but I'm not convinced that it has changed as far as that in the UK - hence my question to Eliab.
My point is that across human cultures for centuries if not millennia the sine qua non of marriage has been its public nature.
You may be correct in saying that in the western world marriage is increasingly becoming a private contract but my point is that I'm not sure the public are generally aware of the significance of this. Human beings are often self-contradictory and I can see how the law is increasingly viewing marriages as private agreements but I don't think people are generally aware of this.
Perhaps if I spoke about weddings and marriages it might make the contrast more stark. Weddings are still (in Law AFAIK) public events but marriages are private. Unless it has changed in the past 5 years weddings in the UK must be public (e.g. during daylight hours and not behind locked doors) for them to be legally binding.
Hence the question I keep asking - why continue with public weddings if a marriage is private? It is a very misleading sham. You seem to misunderstand my argument. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of where our society is at, but rather am arguing for more consistency.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I reflected on this further overnight, and I struggled to think of any reason why the state would have an interest on keeping a relationship 'on the books' as it were when the relationship has in practice broken down.
Again you misunderstand me. I'm not proposing that the state keeps any more relationships 'on the books' than it does already. You seem to think that I'm after more punitive divorce laws. I'm not. My issue is with the public nature of marriage.
If marriage is a public thing then, in some sense, it has to be dissolved publicly. (I'm not talking about airing dirty laundry here but some form of public acknowledgement.) And if marriage is no longer a public thing then our governments and state legislation needs to be clear and consistent about that - which, ISTM, would involve fundamentally changing the definition of marriage to one utterly unrecognisable to 99% of any cultures that have ever practiced any form of marriage.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
The problem with your example is that there are no queues -- as others have pointed out, fewer people are getting married, even with supposedly "easy" divorce. OliviaG
And when others pointed that out earlier I replied by saying that there may be more than one factor at work here. There always is with human beings.
Indeed that is exactly what happened with M&S. In the late 80s and early 90s (IIRC) they had a serious image problem - everybody viewed them as the shop where granny bought your Christmas jumper - and so their sales dropped dramatically. They were popular at Christmas but their overall sales were seriously hampered as their products dropped in perceived (and consequently actual) value.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that "public contract" is also a legal term of art and posits that the state is one of the contracting parties in a marriage. Most jurisdictions, on the other hand, do indeed regard marriage as a private contract that's registered with the state, somewhat akin to selling a piece of real estate. Real estate transactions are registered with the state for much the same reason marriages are (taxes, preventing skullduggery, etc.).
So, if you regard the state as a contracting party within every marriage, what's the state's interest and what enforcement mechanisms do you consider legitimately at its disposal?
See my reply to Orfeo.
Next wedding you go to please stand up at the front before the public ceremony and inform all those gathered that what is about to happen is really a legal fiction and should be regarded as such.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Perhaps if I spoke about weddings and marriages it might make the contrast more stark. Weddings are still (in Law AFAIK) public events but marriages are private. Unless it has changed in the past 5 years weddings in the UK must be public (e.g. during daylight hours and not behind locked doors) for them to be legally binding.
There is no such requirement on this side of the pond. A wedding is a private event here. There are no laws regarding where or when it happens.
Does that change anything about the point you're arguing?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
From your failure to answer my question after my last asking, despite having answered many other people since then, shall I assume that you admit you are unable to, Johnny S?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
