Unbundling marriage law

IF 0.7 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES Family Court Review Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1111/fcre.12820
Shahar Lifshitz
{"title":"Unbundling marriage law","authors":"Shahar Lifshitz","doi":"10.1111/fcre.12820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article illuminates the legal regulation of the economic rights of non-marital partners at separation or death. Current approaches have typically fallen into two categories: one advocating for the separation of legal regimes based on formal status, treating cohabitant partners as strangers, and the other taking a functional approach, treating cohabitation and marriage as substantively identical. However, both approaches fail to offer a coherent alternative for regulating cohabitation. This article proposes a novel third option – the institutional, autonomy-based, pluralist model. The pluralist model acknowledges the legal commitment between cohabitants while carefully distinguishing the legal regulation of cohabitation from that of marriage. Unlike prevailing models that offer a “package deal,” the pluralist model selectively applies only suitable components of marriage law to non-marital relationships, considering thoughtful criteria for their applicability and ensuring a nuanced approach. The pluralist model offers a middle ground between treating cohabitants as strangers and treating them as married for purposes of regulating marital property, spousal support, and inheritance. Ultimately, it provides a framework that considers the complexities of non-married relationships while maintaining a desirable level of legal clarity.</p>","PeriodicalId":51627,"journal":{"name":"Family Court Review","volume":"62 4","pages":"877-899"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fcre.12820","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.12820","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article illuminates the legal regulation of the economic rights of non-marital partners at separation or death. Current approaches have typically fallen into two categories: one advocating for the separation of legal regimes based on formal status, treating cohabitant partners as strangers, and the other taking a functional approach, treating cohabitation and marriage as substantively identical. However, both approaches fail to offer a coherent alternative for regulating cohabitation. This article proposes a novel third option – the institutional, autonomy-based, pluralist model. The pluralist model acknowledges the legal commitment between cohabitants while carefully distinguishing the legal regulation of cohabitation from that of marriage. Unlike prevailing models that offer a “package deal,” the pluralist model selectively applies only suitable components of marriage law to non-marital relationships, considering thoughtful criteria for their applicability and ensuring a nuanced approach. The pluralist model offers a middle ground between treating cohabitants as strangers and treating them as married for purposes of regulating marital property, spousal support, and inheritance. Ultimately, it provides a framework that considers the complexities of non-married relationships while maintaining a desirable level of legal clarity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解除婚姻法的束缚
本文阐明了分居或死亡时非婚伴侣经济权利的法律规定。当前的方法通常分为两类:一类主张根据形式地位将法律制度分开,将同居伴侣视为陌生人;另一类采取功能性方法,将同居和婚姻视为实质上相同的行为。然而,这两种方法都未能为规范同居提供一个连贯的替代方案。本文提出了新颖的第三种选择--以制度、自治为基础的多元化模式。多元模式承认同居者之间的法律承诺,同时将同居的法律规范与婚姻的法律规范仔细区分开来。与提供 "一揽子交易 "的普遍模式不同,多元化模式只选择性地将婚姻法的适当部分适用于非婚姻关系,同时考虑其适用性的深思熟虑的标准,并确保采取细致入微的方法。多元模式在将同居者视为陌生人和将他们视为已婚者以规范婚姻财产、配偶赡养和继承之间提供了一个中间地带。最终,它提供了一个框架,既考虑到了非婚姻关系的复杂性,又保持了理想的法律清晰度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A call to action: Every family deserves active efforts. Keeping the black family together-active efforts as the standard for all removal and reunification efforts Cheating the evidence to get to best interest and the presumption of unfitness Lies my child welfare system has told me: The critical importance of centering families' voices in family policing legal advocacy Unbundling marriage law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1