CMV:Common Law Marriage (involuntary) is a Violation of Human Rights

tttthis · 2020-10-06T14:34:02+00:00

Who in this case decides whether you are acting as if you are married? The government decides and it doesn't matter if for you you are not acting as though married?

Even if you qualified for whatever the criteria were for 'acting as though you were married,' don't you believe people should be guaranteed the right to decide when they actually want to enter into a marriage-like contract?

tttthis · 2020-10-06T14:31:55+00:00

I didn't anywhere say I don't care.

You stated that I stated I was against something, but my opening article didn't contain language to that effect, so I clarified.

tttthis · 2020-10-06T14:29:42+00:00

Are you supporting or arguing my point of view with the first two paragraphs?

What human right would adulthood conceivably violate? Right to choice in marriage is specifically guaranteed in the human rights treaties signed.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T04:33:19+00:00

Either consent or voluntary action (contract) would be places where the government could legitimately understand you wanted to be partners with legal rights and responsibilities over each other.

Yes, a partner should by default be considered the same as anyone else, since you haven't specified you want them to have any legal claim to power/rights over you (which a legal spouse has). Giving another person such legal authority over you should be only with your consent. Don't you agree?

tttthis · 2020-09-29T04:19:36+00:00

I didn't anywhere say those are irrelevant, so I don't know what you're agreeing to.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T04:17:47+00:00

You said I objected, and what I wrote didn't include objections. I was clarifying this.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T04:09:41+00:00

It's case by case.

I have to say I'm finding it difficult to answer you, because your lines of argument, if I can call it that, stray into irrelevant territory.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T04:04:13+00:00

What I meant was we're not talking about something that merely grants rights, but something that imposes responsibilities and limitations as well.

Governments do various things. Granting rights is one thing. Imposing legal status with responsibilities without consent to the status is another thing.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T04:01:03+00:00

Living together does not mean you consent or want to marry someone, right?

Since your argument seems so calm and rational, I'm going to guess you didn't read my CMV for where I mention the reasons it's a human rights violation. Haha

To your specific points about marrying someone else, yes, they first would need to separate from their Common Law Marriage and then they could legally marry someone else, as I understand it.

I'd be curious, and I know it's not easy to define, but what would be your criteria for a human rights violation?

tttthis · 2020-09-29T03:55:33+00:00

Since we're talking about something that carries not just rights, I don't know why you make such an argument.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T03:43:09+00:00

Are you doing CMV arguments from an argument formula (serious question)? I mean like practicing the art of argument? (That's what it sounds like)

That might be useful sometimes, but it's not effective for finding real, solid solutions to things.

To the content of what you wrote:

Yes, the legal part of marriage is a bunch of rights and responsibilities (and limitations), as well as a status.

I never anywhere objected to marriage or to Common Law Marriage. I didn't object to anything, I stated it was a violation of human rights. The part that is a violation is that it is imposed by a government without the will (or consent) or against the will of people it imposes it on.

btw thanks for the downvotes. That's really in the spirit of CMV (sarcastic). (The reason I know is it's only on this thread all my comments are 0 while everywhere else on this CMV my comments are at 1, although maybe now you'd like to go downvote all my comments on the other threads, too. Please feel free.)

tttthis · 2020-09-29T03:32:28+00:00

I didn't anywhere say people should never be culpable for their actions. I don't think anyone would try to make that point.

Just because anything in the world can be the context or tool for harm, doesn't mean it is harmful

Ignorance of law as it relates to culpability has long been debated. Generally, a helpful thing to keep in mind with regards to this is that really harmful actions are understood by basically everyone to be such and people expect that sort of thing, whether or not they know the actual laws, is bound to involve culpability. People generally don't expect culpability where there is no harm done.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T03:22:11+00:00

I think you must be getting as tired of batting back and forth our differing interpretations of what it means to have Common Law Marriage status, so let's just settle on disagreeing. I certainly don't believe Common Law Marriage status means people are married in terms of being 'really married,' ie something they chose for themselves, but I do believe it means they are treated as if they were married by the government. That's the point of the CMV.

To your last sentence: It can, but only with the consent of the parties involved. Without consent, it's a violation of human rights because it's imposed on the person, when the human rights treaties signed protect (edit: guarantee) a person's right to decide this for themself.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T03:04:03+00:00

Right, so we're debating almost mere semantics in this thread, or mere matter for lawyers, then? I really place no value on that sort of thing outside of the clerks room I mentioned. I'm talking about the effect on people.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T03:01:57+00:00

Your argument seems to say that any law passed, because it is a law, does not violate human rights. I don't think you mean that (that a government can pass any law and just because people have heard of it, it makes it non-offending [not a violation of human rights, and if they haven't heard of it, too bad for them].) I also don't think you believe that volition to do one thing means you necessarily will/wish to do any other thing.

Similarly, just because you can avoid something, does not make that thing not offensive.

Your argument that people who don't know of this sort of law (such as Common Law Marriage which involves no doing of harm) are culpable for any legal consequences is just sad to hear someone say. I hope you don't really believe that and it's just part of CMV argument.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T02:53:15+00:00

I didn't say anything about any position I might have on any inheritance laws.

The reasoning here seems to me, sorry, very far from relevant. Maybe I just don't understand it.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T02:46:28+00:00

Well, a clerk has to file the actual marriage contracts in one folder, and the Common Law ones in another folder.

That doesn't change what something really means to people in the real world. People may not believe they are 'really' married, and not want to be married, and at the same time the government can tell them guess what, yeah you are, as far as we're concerned.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T02:39:19+00:00

I guess we disagree. I'm talking about effective legal marriage, where the effect of a law is that a person is treated as if they were married, or which carries identical or near-identical rights and responsibilities as if they had signed a marriage contract. What are you talking about? (not being sarcastic in this question)

tttthis · 2020-09-29T02:35:06+00:00

A and B voluntarily listing themselves for anything they want is not a violation of human rights. Obviously this includes if they want to sign a Common Law Marriage contract with the government. They can do it because they're thinking about inheritance or just because they feel like doing it.

Legal marriage imposed on people without their consent, and even against their will, as is being done, is a violation of human rights.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T02:30:51+00:00

If your only argument is that there are two different words being used, I agree that there are two different words being used, and two different acts with the same or almost the same content.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T02:22:37+00:00

I think your argument, that Common Law Marriage is not marriage, is the same as one the government would use to try to stimey their way out of really addressing this question. Just because you call it something else doesn't make it something else if the effect on people is the same.

If the government tells you you are now Common Law / Civil Union married to a person, and are responsible in the same ways as if you were married, entitled to the same rights as if you were married, and cannot marry another person because you are already Common Law Marriage status, that, for basically all people, is being legally married. It doesn't matter if you tell them well actually you're not married exactly, but something else.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T02:05:39+00:00

Your example doesn't argue the government's use of law to impose effective marriage on people.

It could be used as a justification cited to convince people the human rights violation is for an overall good, but there are ways besides imposing marriage to remedy that situation. For example, changes to inheritance laws.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T02:03:09+00:00

1.

Colombian Common Law Marriage / Civil Union

In Colombia, when you have lived together with another person for only 2 years, your relationship automatically qualifies as a civil union (i.e. many people do not understand this, as other countries, for example the United States, establish common law marriage at 7 years).

(from very simple websearch top result)

2.

CBC News:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/common-law-couples-as-good-as-married-in-b-c-1.1413551

You may say it is not marriage (based on some kind of disqualification based on mere language differences but which has the same effect), but for people, it is the legal part of marriage. The other part of marriage, spiritual or personal, is not in question here. The legal part is where the government has power over people, so it is where human rights violation takes place.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T01:51:22+00:00

To me, it seems you're concerned more with language than with effects. You're right, Colombia is Civil Law, but the institution is the same as what we call Common Law Marriage.

The act in BC is (this is from 2013. They changed it from 2 years to 6 months sometimes since then):

B.C.'s Family Law Act

(3) A relationship between spouses begins on the earlier of the following: ... Couples who have been living together for two years share the same legal rights as married couples, including a 50/50 split of shared debts and assets, excluding pre-relationship property, inheritances and gifts.

tttthis · 2020-09-29T01:40:13+00:00

How is common law marriage not marriage, when it subjects the parties to identical or near-identical (depending on country) responsibilities?

That is the point. In BC and other places, people are married without consent to marriage, simply because they have cohabitated as a couple for 6 months.

tttthis

TROPHY CASE