The Neutral Zone, end of the Family unit?

[The Librarian]

Taking a sabbatical from Starfleet or other job to raise a child would not be a problem.

A couple in Starfleet went on sabbatical in Brothers. They ditched their children on the Enterprise. Don't people usually take sabbaticals to spend time with family or something? They were dumped on Riker, one kid nearly killed himself, and the other was told it was all his fault. Parenting fail.

I think you'd be surprised at how often parents want to take a vacation and leave the kids behind with their grandparents/uncles/aunts/executive officers. Sometimes you need some time away to relax and not worry about having to manage the kids as well. It's just that normally you expect the temporary guardians will be a little more... competent.

 

[FormerLurker]

In regards to goverment involvement in marriage, marriage would not exist in its current form without government involvement, dating back thousands of years. The marriage contract itself is a contract, not between the individuals involved, but between the couple as a unit, and the government.

Marriage was created as a means for a breeding couple to force the government to recognize both their relationship, and the family unit (including any and all children) that relationship formed. All couples at the time that did not have this contract forcing recognition found their families split up, and their property sold off by the government, against their will, when one member of the original couple died. Engaging the contract forced the government to recognize not only the constancy of the family unit, but the inheritance that unit provided to future generations.

As such, there is no marriage without direct government involvement.

 

[Vanyel]

Don't most countries, including the United States, only require a legal, not religious marriage. Meaning a court or other government body marries a couple; then, only if the couple wants, or can afford a church wedding, they can have one. Effectively removing religion from marriage and not government? If that is right, I wonder why people are in such an uproar over same sex marriage.

 

[FormerLurker]

You actually have it backward, as seen in my post above yours. Religion didn't get into the whole marriage thing until certain religious leaders realized they could make money requiring their congregants to marry 'in the church'. As far as same sex marriage, they were legal thousands of years ago. It wasn't until some busybody said "The only purpose of marriage is to have children" that that particular bugaboo was unleashed.

 

[patweb]

In regards to goverment involvement in marriage, marriage would not exist in its current form without government involvement, dating back thousands of years. The marriage contract itself is a contract, not between the individuals involved, but between the couple as a unit, and the government.

Marriage was created as a means for a breeding couple to force the government to recognize both their relationship, and the family unit (including any and all children) that relationship formed. All couples at the time that did not have this contract forcing recognition found their families split up, and their property sold off by the government, against their will, when one member of the original couple died. Engaging the contract forced the government to recognize not only the constancy of the family unit, but the inheritance that unit provided to future generations.

As such, there is no marriage without direct government involvement.

I believe that marriage pre-dates government by several thousand years.

 

[FormerLurker]

Not ceremonial marriage. That was a direct outgrowth of the people wanting to prevent the government from grabbing up all lands and chattels of landowners that die, so they can be properly passed on to heirs. While wills were recognized, they were far more likely to be accepted if the family could present the government's recognition of the marriage relationship as well. This forced the government to recognize the heirs as legitimate(there's a concept).

 

[T'Girl]

until certain religious leaders realized they could make money .

Oh please.

I believe that marriage pre-dates government by several thousand years.

Religion also predates government, certainly government outside of the immediate vicinity of a given city state.

 

[FormerLurker]

T'Girl, this has been documented by historians far better informed about it than I. Doubting me just because I'm not citing long, boring science texts is disingenuous.

 

[Mytran]

Marriage, at its heart, is a verbal contract between two people to wish to join their lives together. For thousands of years (nobility and wealthy families aside) if two people said that they were married - they were. As long as they had said the vows to each other (specific vows varied from culture to culture of course) then that was enough - witnesses would not even be required unless there was an objection to the union (that one half was already married, for instance!). This is where legal issues and governments got involved, so if in doubt a couple of witnesses to the vow would often be handy.

Over time of course, the process became more legislated to the point where it is today. What form it may take in the 24th Century I do not know!

 

[T'Girl]

Don't most countries, including the United States, only require a legal, not religious marriage

The opposite occurs as well, people will have a religious marriage without having it recognized by the state. Most people get the government paperwork too.