Marriage in the Honorverse

As for money and taxes and inheritance and who gets the kids in a divorce. How many partners one can have and how marriage works while still on active duty???

For Instance if Khumalo and Terekov got married, and then Married Lord Stefan Young, would they becomes Lords as well?

Would Khumalo become a Sir when Marrying Terekov who he has a fondness for? Would Terekov and Young both become distant members of the Winton Imperial Family?

See how it gets all confusing and we havn't even considered kids yet.

To the original topic, there is at least one passage that discusses marriage. Mostly it is in regards to the advent of prolong. Essentially it said that marriage had to be re-evaluated because of the length of people's lives. Society in the Honor-verse is still adjusting, but the idea of 'marriage is forever' was on the down swing. The theory seemed to be more along the lines of: whatever makes a couple happy. It's none of the government's business beyond inheritances.

Divorce still exists. Unions are not only dissolved but adjusted. For example, when Honor marries Hamish and Emily. Their priest says something to the effect of: So long as both of them are agree-able to changing their vows, there's nothing wrong with you marrying them both.

The priest makes it clear that the happiness of their union is the most important thing.

IRC, Skimper, when marrying into a noble family, the new spouse would be lord/lady or whatever title the already ennobled spouse had. Unless their own title is higher then their spouse's. But they would not gain a seat in the Lord's simply for marrying a noble.

For the children, whomever the designated heir is, would hold the 'heir's seat', the others would not be seated in the Lord's. The children would have an honorary title before their names, even if not the heir.

All,
First, let me apologize for starting up a painful discussion.
I do not mean to impign upon anyone's - and I do mean anyone's - choice of partner, decision on having/not having kids, or issues that prevent having kids.
I know there are inequalities in today's legal codes, both in the US and elsewhere, regarding marriage. This particular thorny subject was what I tried to avoid when I was talking about the 'core idea'.
When governments get involved in personal lives things get way too complicated. When we talk about marriage today we talk about tax codes, insurance rates, hospital visits, and inheritance. Personally, I'd prefer a simpler set of laws.
Hanuman, I am not satisfied with our system here and now. That does not, however, mean that I'm all for the changes people are pushing rapidly and without due consideration. I've too many friends, both hetero- and homo- sexual who have rushed into what I still believe to be a lifelong commitment. My own marriage has had some very rocky times; multiple deployments can do that. I HATE divorce with a passion because of what it does to both the partners and everyone around them. I've lost friends because I refuse to pick sides - barring two cases of spousal abuse. When people talk about 'lessening the sanctity of marriage' I tend to grind my teeth - the sanctity of marriage is the love between people that endures the hard times and amplifies the good times. It is about becoming 'family' - that 'place where not only do you go when there is nowhere else to turn, but they have to take you.' We have nothing to be ashamed of while we talk about changes to our society - we are, indeed, trying. As someone from elsewhere, you should not pity US for trying to work out the details. In fact, it somewhat angers me. They're still stoning people in some countries for loving the wrong people - I went, spending tears, sweat, and not a little blood to try and change that - and I came back to people ranting about how my nation was 'unfair' and should be 'ashamed' of how we treat homosexuality. It took this nation 'four score and seven years' to take the first steps to fix racial discrimination - what makes you think it is going to be easy to fix the rest? At least we're trying, which is more than most others can say. Stop wasting invective and rants on people who are willing to listen and try to understand how far we have come in your lifetime.
Back to my first, initial, attempt at this. Way, way, back marriage was an attempt to ensure the continuation of a person's lineage. Ultimately, it was about what you were going to leave behind. Today it's about a lot of things, which is why we're having this discussion. The Honorverse has solved the problem - by clearly delineating that marriage is about love and partnership - be it through one or many partners, for the endurance of the family in often hostile environs. Beowulf uses polygamy/polyamory to ensure there is at least one 'homemaker' in the relationship; Grayson uses multiple wives to ensure fertility and progeny for the greatest genetic variance to prevent inbreeding; Manticore accepts any arrangement as part of the continuation of the noble houses that are a vital part of their government. Inheritance can be odd, but most rules are quite clear - singular titles go to the first born (formerly males on Grayson, but now any) - while property not entailed with the title is split among primary heirs or according to the will of the deceased.
I'll lay odds there are plenty of court cases still about legacies and estates, but thank goodness RFC has glossed over those.
We're a long way from the Honorverse's tolerance; at least we in the US and our wonderful Canadian neighbors are working on it. Instances of literal 'gay-bashing' are so remarkable that they hit nationwide news; contrast this with nations where it is not news because it is part of their daily life and accepted - note that this includes the majority of Europe. I know you don't want to hear it, but have patience. At least you know no one's going to lynch you while the solution percolates through our Republic. Save your invective for the people that kill others for being different.

Dave

Spoken like a true homosexual who dismisses the child centric function of traditional marriage to justify their demand for marriage equality then screaming bigotry to silence dissent.

Keep in mind that I understand that some homosexuals adopt or have children from previous relationships (sexual orientation seems to evolve for some people as their life situation changes). However; children are not the natural result of homosexual activities. No matter how many times homosexuals "DO" each other in whatever combinations, permutations and perversions, no one will get pregnant unless they are two or more females using a turkey baester filled with semen from someone else.

I could also accept the argument that the institution of marriage should be eliminated because HETEROSEXUALS have so profoundly undermined it with their behaviors. Once upon a time, society understood that the institution of marriage was intended to regulate the behavior of heterosexuals. Not only did marriage confer certain economic privileges on pairs of adults, the associated legal edifice imposed penalties on people who indulged in non-marital or extramarital heterosexual sex because such behavior was likely to result in children that would not be properely cared for. Given the fact that most children born to heterosexual women in the US are
born outside of marriage, it is obvious thatnthe institution of marriage no longer regulates heterosexual activity.

Rather than continue to fight over gay marriage or polygamist marriage (polygamy has a severe downside but it is an extremely effective social convention for ensuring for the care of children), why don't we just eliminate the institution of marriage? Every imaginable grouping of consenting people and barn yard animals can simply form Limited Liability Corporations to own property and these LLCs can include provisions for property distributions in the event of any members death. The normal IRS rules for value discount due to lack of marketability and lack of control would take the sting out of estate taxes. However; simply eliminating the estate tax would be simpler.

hanuman wrote:

Lazalarlives wrote:I'd have fewer problems with the modern 'marriage' debate if we'd get back to that core idea. So far most of the beneficiaries have been divorce lawyers, not kids.

Just my two cents,
Dave

Spoken like a true heterosexual with no idea what it is like to be told that YOUR relationship is substandard, that YOUR family is worth less than others.

Sorry, Lazalarlives and all the others who have been commenting on this, but you brought this particular topic up. I just refuse to back down on this point.

Unfortunately (from your perspective) marriage is NOT just about children. In the United States the federal government provides 1 138 tax and other benefits to married couples. Many of those benefits do centre on children, yes, but most do not.

Moreover, if marriage was JUST about children, then logic suggests that any couple that cannot have children, or is too old to have children, should be banned from getting married in the first place. Also, that same logic suggests that any couple whose children are no longer dependent upon them, should by law be required to divorce.

The question Americans should ask themselves, is this: are we really serious about our commitment to the principle of equal treatment before the law for ALL American citizens? Or do we believe that some Americans are more equal than others?

As for the statement regarding lawyers and children, that is one of the most unthinking, superficial and callous remarks I've read on these forums in all the time I've been a member.

The fact of the matter is this. If even ONE child can be certain that his/her parents will both have the right to make medical decisions for him/her, then all the boohaa about marriage equality was worth it. If even ONE child can be certain that tonight federal and state welfare benefits will provide enough food for dinner, then all the boohaa about marriage equality was worth it.

I can go on and on and on, but the truth is that, today, not just one or a few, but thousands upon thousands of American children, whose parents just happen to be of the same sex, can go to bed with the certainty that THEIR families enjoy the same legal freedoms, benefits and responsibilities that ALL heterosexual families are entitled to.

It is just a pity, and in my opinion as a foreigner who greatly admire America, a great mark of shame, that so many of the United States continue to fail in their commitment to that most important of American values.

Sorry for the rant, but like I said, someone else started the topic, and marriage is an important enough subject that I cannot simply remain quiet.