Update on Veto Situation

The hopeful bride-to-be has updated me on the situation I blogged about here.

She received a latter from someone in authority of the facility where the intended groom is held. That person with veto power will making a decision soon. In the mean time, the lovers who want to marry can submit things like:

• evidence that they have lived together (what if they don't want to do that until they marry?)
• letters of supprt from members of both immediate families expressing support for the union (really? other people in your family have to approve?)
• statements from both lovers of intent to get premarital counseling (generally a good idea, but required?)
• official documents and informal personal statements about the bride-to-be's criminal record (again, it was the "crime" of loving another consenting adult, so it sounds like they want her to say her relationship was all wrong and she deserved her criminal sentence)
• a plan about how any children, theirs or otherwise, will be protected from the groom-to-be (the implication being a woman who has no kids and hates having kids around would be more likely to pass this test)

The implication is that if they do these things, they might be allowed to marry. This is despite the fact that if the groom-to-be was not incarcerated, nobody would look into criminal records or require passing any of these other tests. The bride-to-be is now asked to submit paperwork as though she is asking for parole, despite the fact that she finished her sentence years ago.

What is the harm of letting them marry?

If you're free to marry the person you love, realize how fortunate you are that nobody else can have a veto over your marriage, because so many people in the world, even in supposedly modern countries, aren't allowed their rights.


"item"'>
The hopeful bride-to-be has updated me on the situation I blogged about here.

She received a latter from someone in authority of the facility where the intended groom is held. That person with veto power will making a decision soon. In the mean time, the lovers who want to marry can submit things like:

• evidence that they have lived together (what if they don't want to do that until they marry?)
• letters of supprt from members of both immediate families expressing support for the union (really? other people in your family have to approve?)
• statements from both lovers of intent to get premarital counseling (generally a good idea, but required?)
• official documents and informal personal statements about the bride-to-be's criminal record (again, it was the "crime" of loving another consenting adult, so it sounds like they want her to say her relationship was all wrong and she deserved her criminal sentence)
• a plan about how any children, theirs or otherwise, will be protected from the groom-to-be (the implication being a woman who has no kids and hates having kids around would be more likely to pass this test)

The implication is that if they do these things, they might be allowed to marry. This is despite the fact that if the groom-to-be was not incarcerated, nobody would look into criminal records or require passing any of these other tests. The bride-to-be is now asked to submit paperwork as though she is asking for parole, despite the fact that she finished her sentence years ago.

What is the harm of letting them marry?

If you're free to marry the person you love, realize how fortunate you are that nobody else can have a veto over your marriage, because so many people in the world, even in supposedly modern countries, aren't allowed their rights.

Posted in: Australia,freedom to marry,law,persecution,prejudice