@sim How about each religion decides what a marriage is for that church, and administers the use of the term under canon law for their own field, but doesn't get to regulate domestic partnerships? That way a catholic church could regard someone as married to someone else, long after the domestic partnership was dissolved.
@sim Of course, one aspect of rectification would be to re-assess how marriage is valued as a social institution at all. Should it be held to be separate from generic contract law, and what terms would be regarded as unconscionable?
You may recall that one of the big debates around the time of the gay marriage wrangling was whether or not the state should be involved in defining marriage at all - and no few people said that it shouldn't.
@sim I think that it may have to start with re-examination of the marriage contract. Who is promising what, to whom, and what values or penalties accrue to wronged parties? Right now that's largely managed by a mess of common law, blended with well-meaning fiddles from people too distracted to do root cause analysis.
@sim The usual argument put forward is that the interests of the children, if any, are paramount. This immediately leads to a sort of weird dynamic in which the parties to a contract are not judged by their conduct with respect to the contract. The incentives are all wrong. If you want marriage to be justifiable for men, there has to be some kind of grounds for honourably washing their hands of a shit situation.
@sim Yes, but the problem that arises is that, short of cases of outright abuse, you end up with the same set of rules and discussions regardless of whether it's two good people that just grew apart and didn't violate anything, or one person that tore up any conception of what a marriage is. There's no opportunity for proper management of context.
@sim Interesting question.
One possible start would be to recognise the respective interests of parties to the marriage. For example, in many jurisdictions infidelity is not regarded as cause for divorce any more. This is a major consideration for men who might unwittingly raise bastards - a not insignificant investment of time and effort, and by the traditional understanding of marriage, not what they signed up for.
Just one example.
@chazcon There's also been an expansion of what almost amounts to correspondence classes for schools - essentially a distributed curriculum, administered by parents. The homeschooling field is turning more and more welcoming.
In WA at least the teachers' unions are (measurably - listed as the biggest lobbyist by dollars) exercising huge power, and have made it deliberately difficult to homeschool, but have failed to stem the growing trickle.
Tricky. If Twitter editorialises nazis off, then the nazis simply leave for their alternative places, like their own IRC or Mastodon servers. Problem: not solved. However, Twitter then has to find some margin of what's acceptable - and then gets painted as hostile to the right wing. Unless they also ban people that openly support other genocidal ideologies such as communism, and then you'd hear the left whine about it. No win situation.