| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- | |
| Soon, married Italians might not have to promise to be faithful | |
| 2016-12-17 | |
| [THELOCAL.IT] Married couples in Italy will no longer have to promise to be faithful to each other, if a new bill is approved. Marriage in that case becomes mere cohabitation with a license.
So a married woman may have three children with three different men, none of them her husband. The promise not to cheat is a "cultural legacy from an outdated and obsolete vision of marriage, family, and the rights and duties of spouses", according to the senators who have signed the bill. At what point were judges authorized to rule on social issues? Who's qualified to judge whether a universal social urge that's been around for thousands and maybe hundred thousands of years is "outdated?" They cited a previous ruling from Italy's top court, which declared that judges could not legally place the blame for a marriage separation "on the mere failure to observe the duty of fidelity". They used to call men who philandered philanderers. Women who did were called hussies. Or sluts. Instead, the other party has to prove that their spouse's infidelity led to the irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage. People have survived adulterous marriage by ceasing the activity and forgiveness of the spouse or by ignoring it or by pretending it's not happening, all without a judicial decision. The bill, which was presented to the Italian Senate last year and has now been passed to its Judiciary Committee, goes on to argue that there is an element of sexism in the current wording. It was originally included to refer to the woman's sexual fidelity, in order to determine whether children were "legitimate", they noted. It would have made more sense just to change the wording to include men. "Until not long ago, only the fidelity of the woman was sufficient to guarantee the 'legitimacy' of children," the bill notes, saying that since the "hateful" legal distinction between "legitimate" and "natural" children was scrapped in a 2012 ruling, there is no longer a need for the clause. There was a fad of "open marriage," in the 70's, maybe? I recall reading that the couple who started that and wrote ever so elaborate justifications got a divorce. If two people marry they should form what's known as a "couple." They should work together for their common good. I feel strongly, perhaps because I'm not a complete idiot, that you're not gonna make that couple when one or both parties is spreading it around. | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #6 I can still see some guys getting their wedding tackled hacked off if they stick it in things other than their wife. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2016-12-17 16:52 |
| #5 ...Well, Latin Lovers, and all... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2016-12-17 15:57 |
| #4 Sum Ting Wong, alright. So if the marriage ends in divorce that kinda takes the dad off the hook for child support, doesn't it? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-12-17 13:58 |
| #3 #2 - like the Chinese couple that had a black baby and named him "Sum Ting Wong"? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-12-17 11:46 |
| #2 I'm sure that this doesn't hold true anymore but could it have had something to do with the fact that a kids mother was an indisputable fact? I mean the baby didn't crawl in there by mistake did it? How about mandatory DNA testing of each kid and the purported parents? That would stop any quibbling about who did what to whom. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2016-12-17 07:51 |
| #1 and wymyns wonder why guys don't want to "settle down, get married and have kids with them". |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-12-17 07:19 |