The Apostle Paul addresses this subject in great detail that was foreign to the Gospels, as he sets forth the principle that death ends the dominion of the law and then illustrates the principle through the marriage relationship. “But if her husband dies she is free from the law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress" (The Holy Bible, Rom 7:2-3). In some instances, the laws of a state or local authority regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage ignore or even violate the teachings of the Bible. In such cases, as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (The Holy Bible, Acts 5:29). This paper presented my conceptual thoughts, personal insight and research regarding the doctrine of Anthropology, the relationship between marriage, and divorce in today society.
What is common law? Common law is generally uncodified which is, there are no inclusive collation of legal rules and statutes. Common law is dependent on some scattered statutes. This is the decision of the legislation and is largely based on precedent. Precedent is the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases.
In the discussion with the Pharisees about divorce (Cf., Deut 24:1), instead of arguing about what is liable or about the juridical motivations, the Lord places the issue directly at the level of creation. His answer is a fundamental resolution, not a casuistic solution: “what God has joined together, let no one separate” (v. 9). Christ knows very well the pro-divorce praxis of his time and he rejects it. The principle which he refers to is not to be understood as temporal moment in the history of salvation; on the contrary it is to be taken as the original authentic will of the Creator. The unbreakable unity of marriage reflects its genuine meaning which, in fact, calls back to creation itself: a marriage acknowledged in this way becomes a means of salvation for the partners.
Law 129 (Doc C) states that if a married lady is caught in adultery with another man, they will be blinded then casted into the water, whereas law 148 (Doc C) states that if a man has married his wife and a disease has seized her, and he is determined to marry his second wife he will marry the second wife but not divorce the wife who is diseased. This is unjust because the man can leave his wife and get remarried, but a married woman will get blinded and then thrown into water if caught in adultery. The law would have been more just if both men and women had the same consequence when caught in
When Holmes talks of the “failure of all theories which consider the law only from its formal side” of logical deduction, he is frankly acknowledging the crucial role played by experience and even irrational forces. Considered from the perspective of intellectual history, The Common Law may be part of the “revolt against formalism” in many fields, the struggle between “rationalists” and “empiricists.” In this account, everyone from Descartes to Bacon to Hume is engaged in one long battle over whether truth is to be found “in here,” through strictly logical reasoning on the model of mathematics, or “out there,” through observation of the
Putative Spouse However, even though Common Law marriage is not recognized in Nevada, there are situations in which parties who were not legally married such as in the case of a void marriage, may still be able to have a court enforce certain rights and liabilities incurred as a result of such a relationship once such relationship has come to an end. For example, a party whose marriage has been annulled may still have rights to property acquired during the relationship. One such remedy is called the “Putative Spouse Doctrine.” a putative spouse is entitled to many of the rights of a legal spouse. For relief to be granted under the doctrine, the parties must show that they participated in a proper marriage ceremony and that one or both of the
The author explains how a marital contract should not be given to those who cannot fulfill it, such as children and family (30). He then claims that homosexuals can fulfill said license, but unwittingly contradicts himself by saying, “But it isn’t necessary to prove that homosexuals or lesbians are less--or more--able to form long-term relationships than straights for it to be clear that at least some are.” (30). This clearly shows how disconnected the author is from his audience. This is a persuasive article, attempting to sway people into believing that homosexual marriage should be legal, yet he assumes his audience feels it apparent that some homosexuals are capable of the commitment of marriage. He fails to acknowledge his own argument’s importance in favor of believing that his audience does not need
And went on to state that in the current era of modernisation marriage is regarded as partnership of equals and that a wife is not a subservient chattel of the husband. Moreover, towards the viewpoint of a reasonable man the concept of marital rape exemption will be an absurdity to the law. It could be argue that in the decision of the courts in R v R, the judges took a retrospective approach to the case and allowed criminal sanction for a husband to rape his wife. The courts had also confirmed this view in the case of R v Miller. The case of R v R has also bought profound effects to the development of the law in the case of CR v United Kingdom , where the appellants argued that there was a breach of Article 7 of the Convention which the European Courts of Human Right held that to convict under the circumstances of rape is not in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention.
Common law is a body of law created by judges using issues brought to them over time as they decided on cases. Common law based on an old European law adopted as a type of rules used in court to settle disagreements between two parties. The court used rules and principles to solve disputes. There are two major branches of Common law. The first is Contract that governs the principles of the common law system.
The principle of “good faith” in contract law has been inserted with the intention of encouraging parties to a contract to deal with each other in a just and sincere manner. The implied concept of “good faith” turns up not only in the countries having civil law systems but also in the countries with common law systems. The key difference between the application of “good faith” in common law countries and civil law countries is that under the common law, the principle of good faith is applied only at the time of performance and enforcement of contracts, whereas in several civil law systems the principle of “good faith” is applied with respect not only to performance of obligations, but also to pre-contractual bargaining, the formation and interpretation