Sex and the civil partnership act: the future of (non) conjugality?

This article considers the transgressive and transformative possibilities in the sexual silences of the U.K.’s Civil Partnership Act 2004. The absence of a consummation requirement and adultery as a specific ground of dissolution do open up some possibilities but are not unproblematic. These issues are explored in the context of the England and Wales Law Commission’s apparent ‘return’ to a conjugal model in its forthcoming consultation on cohabitation. It is concluded that though the Act may open up possibilities for expanding the legal recognition of relationships beyond those that are sexual, this raises concerns about the further privatisation of care as well as increased state intervention in relationships. Instead, I argue that the purpose and function of relationship recognition should be deconstructed and separated from ideology and romantic mythology about what families and relationships are and should be. If it does wed itself so closely to the conjugal marriage model in the consultation document, the Law Commission will miss a valuable opportunity to ask important questions about the purpose and function of relationship recognition.     

THE “END” OF MARRIAGE*

This article addresses four different meanings of the “end” of marriage. It rejects the broad interpretive assertion that Lawrence v. Texas and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health signal the destruction of the institution of marriage, though both are criticized for politicization and feeble legal analysis. Those decisions have provoked a backlash that may contribute to a rediscovery of and re‐valuation of the importance of the institution of (conjugal) marriage, as passage of state marriage amendments suggests. If Goodridge and Lawrence show that genderless unions are the ultimate form of marriage, they would lead to the end of democratic society as well as of the institution of marriage. The fragmentation of marriage by reduction to functional relationships is myopic. While current developments may make it harder for the institution of marriage to thrive, the institution of marriage is “here to stay.”     

SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE: A PROPOSAL FOR CHILD CUSTODY MEDIATION*

Same‐sex marriage is a contentious, politically charged issue full of diverse, complicated considerations. In 2003, Massachusetts joined the list of jurisdictions to legalize same‐sex marriage, the first in the U.S. Now that same‐sex couples can marry in particular international jurisdictions, governments must address how to sensitively allow these couples to divorce. Same‐sex couples have a unique set of needs and issues, most clearly demonstrated if children are involved in the marriage. This Note argues for the creation of mediation programs in American jurisdictions with same‐sex marriage, to specifically determine child custody agreements upon divorce.     

婚姻的两维度多层次匹配理论的构建

婚姻两维度多层次匹配理论的基本模型是在批判地吸纳了关于解释择偶的婚姻市场理论、社会交换理论和进化心理学理论的合理成分的基础上构建的。两性在婚姻匹配中倾向于遵循两个基本原则，一是双方有关婚姻资源条件具有等价性；二是双方有关婚姻特质具有契舍性。这是分析婚姻质量的两个主要维度和该理论的两个主要命题。个体的婚姻资源和婚姻特质分为生理的、心理的、社会的及价值倾向的等多个层次，每个层次都涉及等价性和契合性匹配问题。使用该理论的基本命题可以解释目前我国城乡婚姻匹配冲突的原因。该理论模型既能解释婚姻匹配的静态结构，又能解释婚姻的动态变化规律，从而为婚姻指导提供依据。     

通过对一件重婚案件的审理谈重婚罪的犯罪构成和法律类型

一夫一妻制是我国法律对于婚姻关系规定的基本原则,重婚行为侵犯的正是我国一夫一妻的婚姻关系制度,破坏了我国社会主义的婚姻、家庭制度,必须予以刑事处罚。在司法实践中,重婚行为又表现为不同的类型,而不同的类型其构成犯罪的条件亦有所差别,应当根据不同的情况区别对待。     

两个置换对女工婚姻家庭的冲击及对策研究

国企实现两个置换紧锣密鼓,在新旧体制转换的交接处,曲靖市直国企女工的婚姻家庭无疑受到一些冲击。顺利解决由此带来的问题,需要女工自己的努力和良好的外部环境的营造。     

变性人婚姻家庭法律问题探析

变性对亲属制度形成严重挑战。变性人的性别识别方法,采用"户籍登记法";变性人享有结婚的权利和自由,但应向对方履行告知义务;变性是婚姻关系终止的单独的一种原因;变性不能解除父母子女关系,婚姻关系终止后,未变性一方直接抚养未成年子女,变性方承担子女的抚养费,可构建未成年子女抚养费信托制度;变性人对不满10周岁的未成年子女享有探望权;变性人没有生育能力,子女通过收养和人工生殖技术来解决,应建立人工生育子女协议公证制度。     

国共两党司法风格的比较——以军人婚姻为中心

在1930-1949年间国共两党及其政府的法律制度中,军婚是共通性较多的法律制度之一。二者在处理军婚案件时表现出不同的司法风格,体现了两党在法律上的价值取向,具体表现在共产党更为注重政策和人情,将军婚的保护和革命利益紧密联系在一起,重视用非法律手段(如调解)解决婚姻纠纷问题,而国民党则更注重法理,更重视以法律方式解决问题,且不大认同共产党将军婚和国家利益绑在一起的观点。在当时的环境下,共产党大众化的司法更为适应社会情势,国民党在司法活动中表现出来的重视法理、尊崇法治的专业精神和较高的法律解释水平也应该给予积极肯定。     

关于完善男性间同性性侵犯刑法保护的思考——以平等权为视野

由于现行刑法中没有相关规定,男性间性侵犯的现象大量在法律空白中蔓延,造成了巨大的社会危害。因此必须从犯罪对象和犯罪手段两个方面着手对男性间性侵犯行为进行深入研究,并力求能够从立法上平等保护男性的性权利。