Re: [IAC#RG] Definition of "Hindu"

1. I support the Uniform Civil Code. Law must be the same for all.

2. There should be separation of religion and state and complete freedom to practice the religion of choice or invent new religions and this should not be the business of the state.

3. Similarly, there should be separation of state and marriage. The state may record marriage, but beyond very basic rules (like "no kids" or "no domestic abuse or rape" or "if there is no specification in the marriage contract, an exclusive relationship will be assumed" etc - can be drafted by wise people) the state should stay out of the nature of the union. Whether it is a normal one on one heterosexual marriage, homosexual, polgamy, polandry.... whatever. We should register marriages by marriage contracts which must state the terms of the marriage and the members of the union, which should be crafted by the participants in the marriage by mutual consent. Whether it is an exclusive relationship or a time limited marriage or includes a pre-nuptial contract or a bisexual marriage.... whatever it is. 

It is hardly the business of the court or state who commits to share their lives with whom. There is no point having rights movements for each individual kind of marriage. I think we need to reboot all our laws around marriage to make them simple and freeing. Under such a system, a religious marriage may haveterms as per religion written into the contract - for example. Any religion. No need for separate laws. Write your contract, notarize it, register it. Done. Whatever it is. Will also make for a far more mature marriage and transparenc. For example, will a wife sign a contract that expects specific behaviors? Better than the current practice of nasty surprises later.

Vidyut