A Generation Removed: The Fostering and Adoption of Indigenous Children in the Postwar World
A Generation Removed: The Fostering and Adoption of Indigenous Children in the Postwar World
复制标题
被移走的一代：战后世界土著儿童的养育和收养
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
N. Lowe
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Lowe
婚姻并不明确，正是因为婚姻不一定像大多数人那样以个人主义的方式看待。当然，这一直是人们对在这方面过于仓促地采用刑法的关注，也许不幸的是，这方面的最新发展来得太晚，无法在这份有用的文件中发表评论。这就提出了一个问题，即国家如何在一个单一的机构内容纳这种不同的婚姻观点。似乎越来越多的穆斯林婚姻不属于国家机构，因为如果他们的婚姻是在未登记的清真寺举行的，双方没有完成必要的民事手续（许多人没有登记）。拉杰纳拉角阿赫塔尔（第8章）试图发现为什么会这样，而普遍的原因似乎是他们似乎认为没有必要这样做。对他们来说，宗教婚姻是最重要的。结果，当然，根据民法，这对夫妇被认为是未婚同居者，没有合法婚姻带来的好处，特别是在死亡或离婚时。Akhtar没有提供解决方案。我的观点是，法律应该将其承认范围扩大到所有宗教婚姻，无论在哪里举行，只要它们是由授权人主持的，就像在苏格兰一样。这与彼得·W.边缘在第12章，谁描述为“共同生产”之间的国家和宗教团体，并将限制法律的承认，以完全民事诉讼。法律委员会在1973年提出了这一建议，但边缘将走得更远，甚至不称之为婚姻。但我认为，只要满足某些条件，国家应该承认宗教婚姻，从而（可能）扩大婚姻民法的适用范围，并表明其对一个单一但多样化的社会中的一系列社区和社区实践的认可。这就留下了如何定义公证结婚的问题。乔纳森·海岭在第13章中部分地谈到了这一点，他正确地谴责了对异性性交能力的明显痴迷。这是一个残余从其遥远的根源在教会法，其中大部分已被冲走，幸运的是很少目前的实际重要性。这是社会规范战胜法律的规范的又一个例子，海岭对以照顾取代性作为"婚姻核心“的偏好几乎肯定反映了这种规范。然而，如何在法律的规定中表达这一点却不太清楚。其他贡献详细研究了莎拉·法里蒙德（Sarah Farrimond）在英格兰教会婚礼中的仪式象征主义（第10章），以及罗西·哈丁（Rosie Harding）在第11章中对上议院二读辩论中使用的语言进行的话语分析，这些辩论成为2004年民事伴侣法案和2013年婚姻（同性伴侣）法案。总之，通过突出社会视角，这本书提供了一个值得欢迎的提醒，即婚姻远远不仅仅是一个法律的机构，这些贡献是与讨论其未来有关的迷人信息的来源。John Eekelaar牛津大学彭布罗克学院名誉研究员john. law.ox.ac.uk
marriages is by no means clear, precisely because marriage is not necessarily seen in the individualist way as many of the majority population may do. This of course has always been the concern about over-hasty employment of the criminal law in this area, and it is perhaps unfortunate that recent developments on this came too late for comment in this useful contribution. This raises the question as to how the state can accommodate such differing views of marriage within a single institution. It appears that a growing number of Muslim marriages fall outside the state institution because the parties do not complete the civil formalities necessary if their marriage took place in an unregistered mosque (and many are not registered). Rajnaara C. Akhtar (Chapter 8) sought to discover why this is so, and the prevalent reason seemed to be that they did not seem to see any need to do this. For them, the religious marriage was the important thing. The result, of course, is that the couple are considered unmarried cohabitants according to the civil law, without the benefits being legally married brings, especially on death or divorce. Akhtar does not offer a solution to this. My view is that the law should extend its recognition to all religious marriages, wherever solemnised, provided they are officiated by an authorised person, as in Scotland. This is in direct opposition to the view put forward by Peter W. Edge in Chapter 12, who describes it as a ‘co-production’ between the state and religious communities, and would confine legal recognition to an entirely civil proceeding. The Law Commission suggested this in 1973 but Edge would go further and not even call it marriage. But I think that, provided certain conditions are met, the state should recognise religious marriages, thereby (probably) extending access to the civil law of marriage and also demonstrating its approval of a range of communities and community practices within a single, but diverse, society. This leaves open questions of how civil marriage should be defined. This is partly addressed by Jonathan Herring in Chapter 13, who rightly castigates the apparent obsession with the ability to have heterosexual intercourse. This is a remnant from its distant roots in canon law, most of which have been swept away, and fortunately are of very little current practical importance. This is another example of social norms overcoming legal ones, and Herring’s preference for care to replace sex as being ‘at the heart of marriage’ almost certainly reflects such norms. It is less clear, however, how this could be expressed in legal provisions. Other contributions examine in detail the ritual symbolism in Church of England weddings by Sarah Farrimond (Chapter 10), and a discourse analysis by Rosie Harding in Chapter 11 of the language used in debates in the House of Lords second readings of the bills that became the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. In sum, by highlighting social perspectives, this collection provides a welcome reminder that marriage is far more than a legal institution and the contributions are a source of fascinating information pertinent to discussions about its future. John Eekelaar Emeritus Fellow, Pembroke College, Oxford john.eekelaar@law.ox.ac.uk