Originally Posted by
nkedel
Present US family law draws far more upon common law and secular principles out of the enlightenment and the (mostly post-WW2) modern reform movements than it does Christianity. That it still draws on the latter at all (or indeed, that it still embeds more general legally prescribed gender roles and stereotypes) is a bug and not a feature.
Can you give an example of a "Christian" (or if you prefer, "Judeo-Christian") principle still embedded in US family law?
Sure, the ban on gay marriages is the best example.
Originally Posted by
nkedel
Well, that's a bit more progressive than say, many Muslim countries. Does that also mean a nominally-Hindu couple could choose a civil marriage?
I have never known anyone getting a civil marriage in India, so I don't know. But according to Wikipedia it seems like anyone can get one.
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is an Indian legislation enacted by the Parliament of India to provide a special form of marriage for the people of India and all Indian nationals in foreign countries, irrespective of the religion or faith followed by either party.
Originally Posted by
nkedel
Hardly; you need only look at divorce laws as they existed 70 years ago in the US and nearly always required fault -- a time when Protestant Christianity still had a much much direct sway on law and culture (even if the former was just as unconstitutional then as it is now.)
That's true. I stand corrected.
Originally Posted by
nkedel
1) The secular legislature, in a constitutional democracy like the US is subject to constitutional limits and rational basis review.
2) Can you actually give an example of "better"?
There are many problems with US family law that are "better" in other countries. One that comes to mind is the cost of hiring a lawyer for adoption disputes, rather than going through mediation by a religious or community elder as is the norm in many parts of Asia.
Originally Posted by
nkedel
It's based on values held by the majority, but I question whether those values are in any way "Christian" any longer; a lot of the values embedded in the post-enlightenment western/democratic/capitalist consensus are largely antithetical to traditional Christianity, and those come out especially in modern family law.
When I say "Christian" values, I mean values held by Christians today, not Christians from Biblical times. Most legislators in the US are Christian, and their values are going to come through in the laws they write, whether they realize it or not. In both the interracial marriage debate of the 1950s and the gay marriage debate of today, churches played a prominent role. The opinion of church leaders shaped the opinion of the public, and the lawmakers, in a significant way. No non-Christian religious institutions had this type of influence. So US family law is still influenced by Christianity, but Christianity itself has changed from what it was a century ago, and US family law has changed with it.
Originally Posted by
nkedel
Can you give an example of how some individual (or a member of any other faith community) is hurt by having family law decisions made under US law vs. religious law?
Yes, in many religious laws, divorce is far more difficult than under US law. Therefore, couples are more likely to work out their differences and stay together. This generally benefits their children. Under the American system, there are far too many kids living in unstable, single-parent households, which you do not see in other cultures.