Such ceremonies are unusual but not unheard of in France, where the law allows posthumous marriages in cases where a fiance dies before the wedding. The law states that such weddings can only be approved by the French president "in grave circumstances".Should the law permit someone to marry a dead person?
"I've already had it done twice, for policemen's girlfriends," [lawyer Gilbert] Collard said. "It's a really moving ceremony, with an empty chair representing the dead spouse."
Collard said the official request was being sent out on Saturday but he'd already received approval from the French president's office.
२४ मार्च, २०१२
A man murdered by the Toulouse gunman will be able to marry his fiancée.
The paratrooper Abel Chennouf had planned to marry his the pregnant girlfriend, 21-year-old Caroline Monet, and, despite his death, there will be a legally recognized wedding ceremony:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८२ टिप्पण्या:
Do you, Mort, take this woman...
I don't see why the law should play any part in a religious ceremony.
I thought this was supposed to be one of the weird things about Mormonism, according to some.
It's OK here because it's a couple of cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
Or just that it's secular?
Should there have been a law to stop Mormons from posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims? Good old fashioned peer pressure seemed to work just fine.
Why do you think this is about religion?
The dead man had a military job, and he died in the line of service. Presumably she would get some kind of pension.
Somebody at NRO (I think) commented, "Finally, a Frenchman who wouldn't surrender."
Perhaps military honors are in order.
Are there legal benefits to being a widow? Something like life insurance or pensions or something? If so, that would make sense to allow the designation of marriage to be applied.
That the fiance is pregnant adds another dimension, for the sake of the future child.
What the hell. If you can get an anullment after ten years of marriage, why not let dead people marry too?
How exactly is he going to say "I do." Maybe his executor can do it?
PS This certainly looks to be about his bene's - and so, why not?
Daryl said...
Why do you think this is about religion?
The dead man had a military job, and he died in the line of service. Presumably she would get some kind of pension.
Well, most weddings are presided over by clergy...
The welfare state angle just makes it odder.
Kind of like same sex marriage.
from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until ... well, let's say until you change your mind.
It's a wonderfully medieval idea, harking back to mystical marriages, but done for the not entirely modern concern for legitimizing the child and mother.
Vive la France.
Ed, marriage in France is a civil contract. Religious marriage has no legal force.
I love the comments from internet tough guys about cheese-eating surrender monkeys and Frenchmen who won't surrender. This was a man who died in the line of duty fighting a homicidal terrorist. I bet he was a better man by far than anyone snarking about him. And if the reason for this is for the fiancee to capture survivorship benefits, so what? That's the law of the land in the country he was serving and had they been married one day before Chennouf's death, there wouldn't be any doubt about the propriety of this.
"Why do you think this is about religion?"
Because, marriage is a religious institution. It has been co-opted as a convenient means to convey various legal rights, but it's becoming more and more clear that it is ill-suited to the purpose. Whatever convenience exists has been surpassed by the weighty issues surrounding government involvement in religious affairs.
"The dead man had a military job, and he died in the line of service. Presumably she would get some kind of pension."
Then let the law cover that how it may, but don't tie it to a farcical religious ceremony.
No, he was gunned down waiting at an ATM, like this creep's other victims, including a little girl.
Some phony folksy takes his snark without knowing the facts.
Then let the law cover that how it may, but don't tie it to a farcical religious ceremony.
The law is covering it how it may. This is an rare situation that the law allows for via this method. And as mentioned above, this is more than likely a civil ceremony, so there probably isn't anything religious about the ceremony. And if there will be a religious ceremony, that too would be the business of the religion in question, wouldn't it?
Think of it as a civil union, from the state's point of view.
There is nothing to prevent religious marriage (so long as whatever church approves) , however (in addition to or otherwise). It just hasn't anything to do with state sanction.
No, he was gunned down waiting at an ATM, like this creep's other victims, including a little girl. Some phony folksy takes his snark without knowing the facts.
Point taken, so he wasn't a paratrooper killed in a raid. He was a paratrooper shot by a terrorist in another context. My mistake. Wow, that makes all the difference. He still was a paratrooper, which is to say, he's someone who didn't just talk tough on the internet. And as far as snark goes, you're the moron who started in with the cheese eating surrender monkeys comment.
In any case, this was a paratrooper who was killed by a terrorist and the country he was serving is doing what it needs to in order to take care of the family he planned on having. Good for France.
Clarification: What I mean is, there is nothing in general to prevent a religious marriage *in general* should the relevant church permit. In *this case*, I suspect it's, well, irrelevant, since the man is dead.
I don't think France's policy is a bad one, actually, if the state is to be involved in marriage at all.
Just think: A couple could choose to marry within a church as a matter of religious belief and choose to leave the state out of it altogether. This does not shock me as it might other people, and in fact might have some merit.
It's OK here because it's a couple of cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
Oh, edutcher made a funny! o_O
Don't get bogged down in the minutiae differentiating French 'marriage' from US 'marriage'. The question Althouse asked was, "Should the law permit someone to marry a dead person?"
My first premise is that marriage is a religious concept.
You can say that the laws in certain countries define "marriage" to be a civil act, but history doesn't reflect that. The use of the word implies a religious connection. If it's a "civil union," then call it that. Words mean things.
My second premise is that the state should not be in the business of recognizing, rejecting or authorizing religious institutions or ceremonies.
Now, this might not apply to this particular case, as this "marriage" is actually a "civil union," but look beyond the facts of this one instance to Althouse's larger question. The government should handle contracts, wills, laws, not religious ceremonies. It shouldn't recognize or reject any "marriage".
I looked up marriage in France in order to provide a citation (I already knew because I have some friends who have married in France, French couples and also a mixed couple, French + American, I know people like citations). "Ceremony" doesn't just apply to religious practices, after all. Ceremonies can be civil and/or secular as well.
Here's a citation, for example.
Oh, how Downton Abbey! Reminds me of when Daisy married William on his deathbed and then was accused of doing it just to access his bennies.
This makes sense to me, however. The posthumous marriage provides the fiancee and, more importantly, the child with the father's benefits. It appears there is a pretty strict vetting process in place to weed out potential fraud.
The next time in the SSM debate when someone says that if there can be SSM, then we must necessarily recognize this or that, don't anyone dare to say, "oh, that would be absurd, that would never happen."
Should the law permit someone to marry a dead person?
Should the law permit someone to engage in the delusion that what is impossible to do is possible?
Sure, why the hell not? "Law" has long become a completely malleable farce.
Also, please don't think that because I don't think the law should recognize religion that I think religion is above the law. Obviously the law still applies to those who believe themselves to be exercising their "religious freedom." I'm in no way advocating that the government should turn a blind eye to anything that the participants claim involves religion if the acts involve law breaking.
KLDAVIS, I see your point, but I think it's you who are going off into the weeds with regard to words and definitions. Governments everywhere recognize or sanction marriage in some form or fashion, either by simply legitimating what a religious congregation does, by having separate civil ceremonies or some combination thereof. And with regard to whether or not the government should recognize or reject any marriage, that's a good libertarian perspective, but it isn't the way it's worked in the history of the US or any other nation I'm aware of. Governments everywhere in the West (if only for the issues of inheritorship and child legitimacy) get into issues related to marriage and have done so for a very long time. (The term common-law marriage isn't a new one, for example.) The idea that marriage is a word that only relates to religious ceremonies is not an indefensible one, but neither is the contrary and I suspect the latter is the more common view.
Near as I can figure, this is about getting the survivor's benefits. So, how about the case of the woman who was inseminated with her dead husband's sperm and is now trying to collect Social Security survivor's benefits for the child? The difference here is that, due to the circumstances, in the French case, the government is effectively granting survivor's benefits to an unmarried partner, and in the American case, the woman is twisting the intent of the law to try to take these benefits.
Don't get bogged down in the minutiae differentiating French 'marriage' from US 'marriage'. The question Althouse asked was, "Should the law permit someone to marry a dead person?"
Oh, OK. Because Althouse *never* presents topics with different layers of facts and context which may allow, if not encourage, discussion from different angles.
Do carry on. I shan't interrupt the wave.
Like our case of the woman who wants SSI benefits based on her dead husbands SS contributions for her in-vitro kiddies born after his death, this case shows up the unfair treatment accorded the singles and childfree in our culture.
Why should my SS benefits go to the breeders kids?
A single and childfree young man who serves in our military earns less and has reduced benefits including death benefits than does his married and breeding counterpart.
Why such a man would fight to maintain such a discriminatory system is a mystery to me. He is like the Black slave fighting to maintain the Confederacy.
KLDAVIS said...
I don't see why the law should play any part in a religious ceremony.
I expect France, like Germany, requires a civil ceremony for the laws to kick in and the Church Wedding is just the frosting on the cake. Frankly, I like the idea that everyone goes before the local City Clerk to get a contract agreed and then those with a religious bent go to their minister to witness their Marriage to each other. We were "married" in Las Vegas and then later we Married each other in a chapel at MacDill AFB.
Render unto...
Regards — Cliff
I would really have loved to hear what Rodney Dangerfield would have made of this.
The basis for marriage benefits in France and Belgium is a civil ceremony at the Town Hall. Sometimes followed by a religious ceremony.
I was struck by this section on the "Lone wolf's" bro:
Police found explosives in the car of Abdelkader, who is also believed to have had links with French jihadist groups
So the lone wolf meme lasts 48 hours, till we find connections to home grown Jihadists
"Marriage" has been about who inherits what from whom since the concet of personal property was first recognized, which may well have been before homo sapiens sapiens arrived on the scene.
In my opinion, yes, in unusual circumstances, if/because of the legal benefits to the person who had made the commitment, and had already changed life plans to be with the future spouse.
This happened (without the wedding) where I work. One of our staff was engaged to be married, pregnant, had put in her notice to leave, was starting to move her belongings...
When her future husband died during a diving accident.
She had already basically uprooted her life, and had a baby on the way and no idea how to support, or where.
jimbino
Why should we have social security at all, for that matter?
We've paid tens of thousands of dollars more into SS than the overwhelming majority of Americans, and we have also provided for our own retirement to the point we don't need social security. Why should our money go to some slacker loser who never made much of himself and never paid all that much into the system, spent his money on beer, ciggies and lottery tickets and never saved a dime?
People, you're overthinking this. This is a story that affirms the decency and humanity of everyone involved. The grittiness of the tragedy minimizes the slipperiness of the slope....Beyond this, there is no evidence that flesh eating zombies want to get married and settle down.
Should the law permit someone to marry a dead person?
I guess it should in France. It probably shouldn't here with our different history, culture and tradition of law.
Yes, if they had contracted to become married. This way the pregnant wife will have been in a community property regime with the deceased and take his 1/2 share of the community property in usufruct for the child or as the naked owner (don't know the exact French law). She'll get her half of the community property as well.
There probably isn't much of a value to the community property regime, but it will be something for her and the child.
Is this Asshole Day at Althouse comments?
"I'm not a real asshole, but I comment like one on the Althouse blog."
Ease up, people.
The paratrooper was engaged to the woman, she was his fiance. The presumption is that they already had decided to commit to each other in marriage. The man was murdered before he had the chance to marry the woman. But it was his intention to marry her and but for his murder he would have so it isn't a far stretch for both emotional closure reasons (and for the child's future emotional reasons) to allow this marriage and for the purposes of legitimizing his child and providing his child and widow benefits that they would be entitled to had he been killed after the marriage ceremony.
It pains me to say it but somefeller is right on this.
My first premise is that marriage is a religious concept.
Well, your first premise is wrong. Marriage is and always has been both a civil and religious concept, and through most of its history the civil aspect was much more important. Marriage has been used throughout history to define property rights, fuse alliances and for other civil purposes.
To say it is a religious premise is just wrong. Even officially atheist states (e.g. the USSR and China) didn't eliminate marriage.
Also, marriage in a civil law state is vital for things like inheritance rights (in most Civil Law jurisdictions children and spouses are guaranteed a portion of the state regardless of the decedent's wishes.
All states recognize marriage, including Pagan Greece and Rome and Atheist societies like Stalinist Russia and Castro's Cuba.
To say its only a "Religious matter" is wrong. Sounds like something an old Hippie would say. "Like, its only a piece of paper man.."
How about... should the law allow the completion of a contract that was agreed to prior to the death of one of the parties to that contract? (To make in entirely generic.)
And I think, why not? (Can we inherit debt? Or is all debt canceled at death?)
The important question would be determining if the person who died had a binding pre-contract contract with the other party.
I wonder what the law would do in the case of, oh, a purchase of real property if the person selling dies the morning that it was going to "close" and the person buying could show all the signed agreements and had already paid fees and the intent was clear, to perhaps, give the buyer a particularly good deal... and then what?
I suppose that the law could reasonably be written to go either way, "Too bad, so sad, but the seller's estate now wants market price, or the inheritors of the estate were always opposed to the sale (grandpa was born in that bed!), so it's just bad luck but the dead person is dead and what they wanted no longer matters."
(If the purchaser dies before the sale is complete (30 year mortgage), does the purchaser's estate inherit the contract? Or does the seller say "contract void, get out of the house!")
An engagement is a widely recognized contract of intent, even if we're less formal about it these days. Historically, breaking an engagement could involve suits and settlements. Either party in a broken engagement could sue for the wealth they had an expectation to receive when they got married, and expect to win.
In this case the fellow had (presumably) an actual engagement and recognized intent to marry the woman and legitimize his child and support them. He died, and now family survivor benefits and life insurance are an issue.
If you go back to my real estate example... suppose his mother always hated the bitch...
Who's desires should prevail?
A single and childfree young man who serves in our military earns less and has reduced benefits including death benefits than does his married and breeding counterpart.
That used to be the case but it isn't now. Yes a married soldier gets a larger housing allowance if he lives off base, but that is not considered part of his or her pay--and there is a maximum housing allowance that kicks in regardless of how many children you have.
Can we inherit debt? Or is all debt canceled at death?
Not in this country, you can't (although debts do get preferentially paid out of the estate). In some countries, especially poorer ones, debts can bind the heirs, leading to "debt slavery."
Thanks Freder.
Paying debt out of the estate seems like a middle-ground. The dead person's debt still exists and creditors can still collect on the debt. So the contracts of the dead person persist after death. The difference is that the debt can't be transferred to the dead person's heirs.
If the desire is that the girlfriend (or boyfriend in a same-sex relationship) is that she have certain benefits, then the law can provide for her having those benefits without having to completely distort marriage into unrecognizable shapes.
The essence of any marriage contract is consent of the parties. If one of the parties is dead, he cannot give consent. Moreover, any marriage ends, by definition, upon the death of either party. His prior expressed intention to later give consent does not suffice. An engaged person may very well change his mind, as many people do on their way to the courthouse/church. And, of course, if something ends before it even begins, it cannot begin.
If the surviving party wants certain benefits, then give her the benefits. If she wants her name changed or financial benefits or inheritance rights, those can be accomplished directly without the farce and legal fiction of pretending that one can marry the dead (and concurrently become a widow).
The engagement has traditionally been the entry of two into the marriage covenant between them and their families as betrothed.
One part of that Covenant made at engagement is to set a day to ceremonially celebrate the existing relationship after which a sexual consummation may be added
To break up the couples engagement is seen as serious of an adultery offense as to do so would be after the ceremonial day.
So this is common sense.
The only issue would be proof of the engagement having taken place at a time both were unmarried.
The ending to this tragedy was a perfect "marriage" between the rights of the living and the dead partner.
It is the lawful consummation of a verbal contract between 2 people when both were alive. If the wishes of the deceased are clearly known and in agreement, it becomes a matter of honoring him. I compare it to carrying out the wishes of a dying person in this country when they cannot speak for themselves and there is no written legal document.
Plus, this appeals to the "romantic" in me and, I suspect the same of Althouse.
The parallel would be viewing the fiance and unborn child as creditors (with a pre-existing contract) who collect out of the dead person's estate (his life insurance and benefits.)
Which is a completely anti-romantic way of describing what is due a "wife".
But it makes sense to me. Emotionally, absolutely, you want to honor the people who are grieving and who will grieve (as soon as the child is old enough to understand what happened to daddy), but feeling bad and being all emotional isn't a good enough reason to break the rules (like picking the sick kid's name out of what was supposed to be a raffle.)
But the emotional aspect doesn't prove that it's not a sound principle to give someone a posthumous legal voice.
I compare it to carrying out the wishes of a dying person in this country when they cannot speak for themselves and there is no written legal document
But the guy isn't "dying," he's dead. D.E.A.D. Dead.
If he were to speak at the wedding, what would this dead guy say? "I promise to have and to hold until death do us part."
Death has already parted them.
And what are we to say of consummating this marriage? Without consummation, it is still inchoate, still capable of annulment ab initio.
Bender, I think that the idea that a marriage doesn't happen until it happens is a thoroughly modern one. So is the idea that both people have to consent... or even be present.
I'd go the other way with it, anyhow. More violence is done to the concept of marriage by accepting the mushy non-engagement engagement, than by treating the engagement as binding.
"And what are we to say of consummating this marriage? Without consummation,.."
She's PREGNANT.
I think it's safe to say that the marriage was *consummated*.
I'm guessing that French law reflects an understanding of engagement that is somewhat foreign to us. We no longer have strict expectations about what it means to be engaged. (Dr. Laura: If you don't have a ring and a date, you're not really engaged.)
Historically, engagement (aka betrothal) was taken quite seriously and had a cultural (and perhaps legal) standing that it doesn't have in the United States today.
I'm guessing that even if such understandings aren't currently part of French culture, they remain a part of French law, as reflected by this provision.
Catholics consider marriage a sacrament. Most everyone else doesn't. Binding, yes. Involving God as a third party to the transaction, yes. But my concept of sacrament doesn't depend on the action of the people. It's not a magic spell with certain components and then God is compelled to do the bidding of the people who did all the parts exactly the right way. Or which doesn't count if all the parts are not done in exactly the right way? What's up with that? The concept of annulment blows my mind.
I think that God is entirely capable of marrying a couple after one of them dies. (And the "til death do us part" thing is just the condition at which a surviving spouse is free to marry again... so she starts out free to marry again, so?)
In any case, on the religious side of it, it's up to the religious side to deal with.
They are called ghost marriages. Wiki even has a page on it. A few years ago two cop shows had episodes addressing it the same season. How weird is that?
I see no reason for the state not to sanction it under these circumstances.
"Breach of promise" was indeed an actionable tort at one time. But the remedy was an award of monetary damages, not an imposition of the marital state upon the breaching party.
And inheritance law has NOT historically permitted a dead man's children-out-of-wedlock to inherit.
So, no, the law has NOT given mere engagement such a serious standing as to equate it with the marriage itself.
If, instead of being killed, Chennouf had broken up with his girlfriend, should she be able to sue him for alimony (spousal support) in addition to the child support he would be obligated to pay? After all, isn't the breaking of an engagement the equivilent of a divorce?
Or, if one can marry a dead person, can the dead person thereafter seek an annulment? Or can the dead person get a divorce?
If a super-wealthy married person has determined to end the marriage, but dies before filing for divorce, can his estate posthumously divorce the survivor, so as to disinherit her, such that the kids get more $$$?
She could sue for "palimony", at least here in the U.S. It's not automatic, but her engagement and her pregnancy could serve to establish a contract to support herself and the child.
She's PREGNANT.
I think it's safe to say that the marriage was *consummated*.
It might not be his child. You know how French women are.
Remember in Gone With the Wind, when everyone got married before they went into the army? Scarlett did manage to get pregnant by Melanie's brother (whose name escapes me) in the book and became a widow before the child was born.
I think it's safe to say that the marriage was *consummated*.
It might not be his child. You know how French women are.
Not to mention it gets the order of things backward. One cannot complete a thing that does not yet exist. You cannot put on the frosting and then bake the cake.
Can the estate of a wealthy man post-humously divorce a spouse even though he hasn't filed papers? No.
If he had filed papers? Maybe.
It's not a good analogy. The man and woman were already engaged -- which would be the equivalent of filing for divorce, but not yet having finalized the divorce.
Anyone can sue for anything, however, and God only knows that they do, especially when there's a ton of money at stake.
Interesting that the 3 soldiers shot (1 still alive) were also North African. Guess the murderer considered them especially traitorous for fighting in muslim countries. What they were fighting for was apparently unimportant.
The public act of getting the marriage license MIGHT be the equivalent of the public act of filing for divorce, but not a mere engagement.
A mere engagement is the equivalent of the married spouse telling the other, "I want a divorce," and then going to the lawyer.
Legally, it is without any effect whatsoever.
Purchasing an engagement ring can constitute a quasi-contractual promise to marry. A public engagement announcement lends more substance to the promise.
Saying "I want a divorce", and even telling a lawyer you want a divorce is merely hearsay and constitutes nothing at all.
How France approaches these issues may be very different from how we approach them in the U.S.
In California, everything's community property regardless, so whether or not there's an intent to divorce, or someone's actually filed for divorce, or the couple is happily married doesn't affect things much, at least in the absence of a pre-nup.
But people can sue away no matter what. The question isn't whether or not they can sue, but whether or not things are likely to go in their favor.
Yes, it gives the child a legal father (and, in the case of soldiers and policemen, government benefits attributable to their father's service).
There are sentimental, legal, and financial reasons to do it.
"Purchasing an engagement ring can constitute a quasi-contractual promise to marry. A public engagement announcement lends more substance to the promise.
Saying "I want a divorce", and even telling a lawyer you want a divorce is merely hearsay and constitutes nothing at all. "
Hmmm..
Dick Kessler needs to come up with a ring that constitutes intent to divorce...the Kessler 180..worn on the middle finger of course. Those will be some good radio ads...
Well, there is the death tax in the US after all.
But, Walter, if the spouse refuses to accept the divorce ring, is there any recognition of the intent to divorce?
Look, there's nothing wrong with this situation. The article refers to this being approved only under grave circumstances, it's not done that often, so I imagine there has to be a substantial body of evidence that marriage was iminent.
I don't think this is tantamount to rifling through court archives, locating a dead guy, checking out his estate, and posthumously seeking to marry him in order to inherit a portion of his wealth, nor do I think it's the beginning of a slippery slope to such a thing.
I can't think of any reason not to permit a civil marriage. It's a legal arrangement and the child will benefit from having a legal father. As far as religion goes religious marriage, except in some religions, is until death and that has already happened. So, in essence it's a matter of law and the law allows it. Whether the law should allow it is up to France.
(Had to add quotes to keep it from getting too confusing)
"But, Walter, if the spouse refuses to accept the divorce ring, is there any recognition of the intent to divorce?"
I don't know..was quoting someone else's legal comment regarding intent and thinking the jewelry industry should find a way to make $$ off it like they do engagement and marriage. Hey..all about the love. (you have to hear a Kessler ad to appreciate this)
But upon reading your comment on mutual intent, made me remember various folks who got engaged and either temporarily reconsidered or called it off. Not that a guy (or gal) ever gets cold feet....
What's happening here is from the old Code Napoleon -- which persists in some forms in Quebec -- by which the defunt had engaged in a contractual promise. Because there's a child involved, engendering questions of inheritance and more (not least of which is the man's military death benefit for the support of the child), the state believes in rare cases that it has a social interest in respecting the deceased's clearly expressed wishes.
Bender -- in Kansas and a lot of other states, yes. You father the child ... you support it. End of discussion.
This is one of the things in the latest abortion legislation here: that the abortion clinic must inform the mother that the father will be forced to provide support for the child unless it is made available for adoption.
You father the child ... you support it.
The question isn't whether the mother could sue for child support. Of course she could.
The question is, if, instead of being killed, Chennouf had broken up with his girlfriend, should she be able to sue him for alimony (spousal support)?
What's happening here is from the old Code Napoleon -- which persists in some forms in Quebec
You don't have to go to Canada to find jurisdictions that follow Civil Codes based on the Code Napoleon. Louisiana is a civil law jurisdiction, and so is Puerto Rico along with some of the Pacific Territories. In both Europe and South America, civil law is the rule rather than the exception. Even in the U.K., the birthplace of the common law, Scotland has a civil law system (although it predates the Code Napoleon)
Bender...What's that expensive diamond ring given and recieved and worn starting at entry into the marriage covenant? It's the real ring evidencing the covenant, and called the engagement ring worn after betrothal.
A later gold band is added to make the church ceremony seem to have some role too.
The Courts here on frontier day America always accepted the public engagements followed by a sexual act as a Common Law Marriage. They leaned in favor of expansive interpretations so the babies would not be labeled bastards and the parents labeled fornicators.
Now no on cares about morality labels...and the Government highly rewards a single parent mother.
Courts have recently stopped that doctrine that was there to benefit the young couples.
Now the government would rather not have to spend any time hearing cases about dates of marriage as that keys into the benefits and the citizenship issues.
The French still view their laws of marriage as originally expansively designed to serve the needs of the husband, wife and babies.
Legalistic Church Ladies of both genders and the swarm of 80 IQ lazy government employees applying laws today insist on making it simple enough to make condemn young people so that those legalists and civil servants feel that they have some importance.
The Sabbath Day keeping is also such a well defined law, but a higher authority once said to the cruel priests that the Sabbath was made for men and not men made for the Sabbath. Same is true about marriage laws.
Does the priest still marry them "till death do you part"?
BTW, this is one of the problems with Mormon marriage, which is for all eternity. A life sentence is bad enough, but at least the grave finally gives release. But married for eternity . . . . What is there to hope for?
For each person murdered by Islamists we should be allowed to murder 10 Islamists.
I wonder what his heirs might think.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा