December 15, 2006

Dec. 15, 2006: Contracts, Divorce, Religion

Church and state collide in top court
Bitter divorce case: When do religious rites become legally binding?
, Janice Tibbetts, CanWest, December 04, 2006

[....] A get is a Jewish bill of divorce that a husband must grant to his wife in front of rabbinical authorities. Under Jewish law, a woman may be divorced, but without a get, she is commonly referred to as an aguhmah, meaning that she is bound to a dead marriage and cannot remarry in the Jewish faith.

Ms. Bruker and Jessel Marcovitz, who is also Jewish, married in 1969 and divorced in 1980. In their divorce agreement, along with arrangements over child support, custody, and dividing their property, Mr. Marcovitz also agreed to give permission for a get. [....]

This appears to be opening a can of worms on marriage as a contract, on the legal implications of a Jewish get, on whether a contract is binding forever, on the obligations of one partner or the other after a divorce. The term "binding" does imply forever, though the courts are changing that, in divorce cases, anyway. There's nothing like a feminist, activist court.

Something tells me it may be wiser to remain single, not to even attempt a marriage today. Furthermore, living together, even without a marriage contract, is fraught with peril if you own anything of value such as property and wish to keep it. In a very short time, that property may half belong to the live-in lover. Maybe a less expensive alternative will be re-discovered.

I prefer an older way where, for the best people, their word was their bond and their reputation, built on that, meant that those people went out of their way to keep their word, even if it would be advantageous not to. Breaking a promise just wasn't done ... not by the best people. It was a contract. Tempus fugit and with it, honour; in its place, we have legality (or is that legal contracts?) and a Supreme Court. We've come a long way, baby.

Sic transit tolerance

A Toronto judge has ordered a Christmas tree out of a provincial courthouse lobby, saying it's not an appropriate symbol to non-Christians. , Dec. 14, 06, With a report from CTV's Janice Golding and files from The Canadian Press

The move by Justice Marion Cohen has upset staff, some of whom have called the decision stupid and insulting.

Cohen says she understands the tree has stood in the lobby at 311 Jarvis St. for years during the Christmas season, but in a letter to employees says non-Christians are "confronted" with the artificial decoration, which makes them feel "they are not part of this institution.'' [....]

The attorney general's office says there is no court or ministry policy that addresses this particular situation. [....]

Touchy appointee? Or has she drunk from the poisoned cup of political correctness too long? Ah, maybe just a natural-born grinch.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home