41–50 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or simpler, just get rid of whatever moralising has lead to that law and just accept that some people want to get married now.
The reason is not a moralizing one, it came into being when the registries were less than perfect to avoid bigamy. It probably could be abandoned in the present day without any loss of functionality but it definitely was not codified into law for moralizing reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or simpler, just get rid of whatever moralising has lead to that law and just accept that some people want to get married now.
The reason is not a moralizing one, it came into being when the registries were less than perfect to avoid bigamy. It probably could be abandoned in the present day without any loss of functionality but it definitely was not codified into law for moralizing reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason is not a moralizing one, it came into being when the registries were less than perfect to avoid bigamy. It probably could be abandoned in the present day without any loss of functionality but it definitely was not codified into law for moralizing reasons.
Isn't bigamy typically a religious moral?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A typical case of making something more complex than needed. They could have simply used a window of time specified as no less than 30 days and no more than 45 days. That would have solved the problem in an elegant and robust way.
What about in the case of daylight savings? Do you need to add an extra hour?
A month ends at the end of a day, regardless of the length of that day or any other day during the month.
This really goes against what the spirit of these sorts of laws should be. The 18 barrier to age of majority is treated as a threshold, sure, but the reality of people is they mature in different ways and over longer periods of time. I (and my culture I guess) considered myself an adult by 16 or 17 whilst friends I know didn't consider themselves adults until 22 or 23. The thing I know is under the law, everyone need…
I absolutely don't see the issue here. The suspect was not 18 at the time of the crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason is not a moralizing one, it came into being when the registries were less than perfect to avoid bigamy. It probably could be abandoned in the present day without any loss of functionality but it definitely was not codified into law for moralizing reasons.
Isn’t avoiding bigamy moralizing?
Think of it this way: If bigamy was legal, you would still want to at least know if you were the only spouse or one of several. A lack of reliable and readily accessible records makes deception all too easy.
Marriage is a contract. Agreeing to a mutually exclusive arrangement only to find out it isn't is a problem, even if you don't think polygamy should be illegal.
I don't know what percentage of the time bigamists are deceiving their spouses and married to someone else "behind their back," but that's certainly a version of events that happens and it makes everyone involved pretty unhappy to find out they aren't the only one.
This is typically done by someone who travels for work. It was much easier to pull off before our current state of global communications.
According to my experience PostgreSQL is very efficient at this game (and many other ones). "select (date '2000-02-29' + interval '18 years')" returns "2018-02-28 00:00:00", so the Court may be right.
Doesn't this just divert the decision making process to the PostgreSQL developers.