tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post6595879095315116066..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Marriage registration: a few questionsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-17093372059294010752008-11-06T01:30:00.000+05:302008-11-06T01:30:00.000+05:30I agree that mere removal of 'special' from the ti...I agree that mere removal of 'special' from the title of a legislation may not eliminate the mental block that people have in letting themselves to be covered by one law even in same faith marriage.<BR/><BR/>Inviting objections from people, when had a couple married in their respective religion would not have required calling for objection, is not only self-defeating (especially with regard to paternalism and patriarchy imbued in our governing systems) but also imposes an additional requirement. This additional requirement is not a precondition to marriage, not at least under Hindu and Muslim Laws of Marriage; then what could be the rationale for retaining it. <BR/><BR/>Also, I wonder what could be the repercussions of allowing a couple marrying under a 'special law' to choose what kind of property law would they like to be covered under, rather than imposing on them one regime which is available as a part of a package deal offered by the government. I understand that this could be seen as beginning of a uniform civil code, but it could be so that we might actually not be able to market the legislation to large number of couples (same faith) who want their rights arising out of relationship to be covered by the 'special law' but their would want their personal law of property to apply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com