tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post1362040190140927525..comments2024-03-29T08:49:11.122+00:00Comments on Featherweight Musings: MarriageUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post-37564649820722984932014-04-07T09:08:11.563+01:002014-04-07T09:08:11.563+01:00@Lorenzo, I'm afraid we will have to agree to ...@Lorenzo, I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree - I think the family/clan-centric culture you describe is terrible. It is fine when you are part of it, but what happens when powerful people in the family decide you don't belong? It is a system of power which keeps it in the hands of the powerful. I think it is bad for individuals, and bad for society as a whole. I much prefer the rule of law to survival of the fittest, even if that is the fittest family, not the fittest individual.<br /><br />BTW, I am not American, I am also (northern) European, I have spent very little time in California.Nick Cameron.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04760749052780174977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post-41919767989099693722014-04-07T09:03:11.327+01:002014-04-07T09:03:11.327+01:00@glandium, heh, I am glad I live here. It is a sma...@glandium, heh, I am glad I live here. It is a small country and fairly liberal, and in many ways a shockingly sensible one. It does have immigration issues - in part _because_ it is small, immigration has a large relative effect.<br /><br />I don't really know about other countries, this is the only I've immigrated into, but I believe, sadly, you are right. In the UK, marriage is privileged, but not trusted - even if you are married you still have to prove it is legitimate, so they are halfway there.Nick Cameron.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04760749052780174977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post-61955919502957810512014-04-07T07:58:08.907+01:002014-04-07T07:58:08.907+01:00@Nick Cameron: I'm glad your country is as ope...@Nick Cameron: I'm glad your country is as open on immigration of non-married partners. OTOH, it's a small country with a small population, and I guess few immigration issues. How many other countries are as open? At least none of the major economies I know are.glandiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00111150844502160018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post-15912941995406976492014-04-07T00:55:58.726+01:002014-04-07T00:55:58.726+01:00@Glandium in NZ at least marriage is not relevant ...@Glandium in NZ at least marriage is not relevant for immigration status. If you are not married, being in a 'de-facto' relationship is just as good as being married. If you are married, you must still provide evidence that the marriage is genuine.<br /><br />So, I am hopeful that this particular marriage benefit can be erased sooner than some others (at least in some places) and certainly sooner than free migration (which I also support).Nick Cameron.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04760749052780174977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post-4117506957453861472014-04-07T00:37:50.330+01:002014-04-07T00:37:50.330+01:00You cannot, in the same post, mention immigration ...You cannot, in the same post, mention immigration status as a marriage benefit and then say there should be no marriage benefit. Freedom of migration is not going to happen any sooner than the lift of marriage benefits.glandiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00111150844502160018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post-26477776349426785802014-04-06T23:56:50.504+01:002014-04-06T23:56:50.504+01:00@Robert - agreed. The problem is execution (there ...@Robert - agreed. The problem is execution (there has been some debate about this recently in the UK). If the state gives any financial or social benefit to "strong families", that is a strongly regressive benefit. Because it is usually people in 'unstable' families who need the most help, but who would be getting less.Nick Cameron.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04760749052780174977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post-6746875494838526152014-04-06T23:51:36.071+01:002014-04-06T23:51:36.071+01:00@Lorenzo - Yes! Legal privileging of family/clan/t...@Lorenzo - Yes! Legal privileging of family/clan/tribe over individuals is a really bad thing, IMO. It seems the antithesis to the ideas of human rights and the best parts of western democracy.<br /><br />Marriage is problematic in this context, because other than birth it is usually the only way to join a family/clan/tribe and thus get the protection and privileges that brings. So this is another reason I wish marriage were not the way it is. But more so, I agree with you that laws that benefit family/clan/tribe over individuals are generally bad.Nick Cameron.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04760749052780174977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36017112.post-56404406581695146832014-04-06T23:29:14.840+01:002014-04-06T23:29:14.840+01:00Expanding on what Lorenzo said, state-given marria...Expanding on what Lorenzo said, state-given marriage benefits were, at least in part, a proxy for family benefits. I think it's reasonable for the state to encourage the creation and raising of children in stable families; there's an obvious common-good interest there.<br /><br />I haven't thought about it very much, but eliminating marriage benefits and targeting them more explicitly at couples who raise children in stable families could be a good thing.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01801341049800948737noreply@blogger.com