In favour of matching brackets
If only the makers of law were forced to study one of the mathematical disciplines. Something where pairs are understood. Something as simple as matching parentheses. Something where the law “going in” matched the law “going out”.
The government (that seems honour-bound to undo what saner minds have put in place) has decided to examine the mechanism for same-sex couples to divorce. Should the need arise. Up here, in the greater whiter, marriage is a right. Took a lot of time and ink, but the gender mix isn’t an issue any more. Head on down to the local marriage merchant, pay your fee, plead eternal devotion/emotion for your counterpart and the knot is tied. Residency requirement: minimal. I’m not going to create a table by jurisdiction; assume that it works without too much in the way of blood, toil or extended vacation requirement.
Divorce, on the other hand…. prepare to spend a few seasons in the greater whiter. You’ll gain a new appreciation of snowplow technique, mittens and the madness of our legal system. I hear that a year and a day is the minimum for enduring your wedded bliss, before seeking recourse in the court of your choice.
This wouldn’t seem to be “wild and crazy” if we hadn’t invited nationals from other countries to get their toes wet up here. Come on acroos the boarder, spend a few days and get the nuptial blessing denied by your (close) neighbours. And then, if things don’t work out, apply for a visa and spend the necessary 366 stormy nights to untie.
“What God has joined, let no man”, etc.
I believe that your choice to associate or disassociate is your choice. In a rational system, the time required for residency would be equal at both ends of your personal equation. I remain hopeful that the government of the day will find some way to put their personal bias aside and modify the statutes.
