Un-Coupling Family Law: The Legal Recognition and Protection of Adult Unions Outside of Conjugal Coupledom

Swennen, Frederik

doi:10.1007/s10691-020-09422-6

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Griffiths, 2017: 157; see also Lind et al, 2010), it is also true that the influence of the semiotic conversion that the law requires cannot be underestimated. Swennen’s (2020) empirical research into unfamiliar adult unions also has confirmed the contention (see Rosenbury, 2007) that the adults concerned experience their legal inexistence as social inexistence (see Cacho, 2012). Different interviewees explained that, for them, legal recognition ‘means that you officially exist’, ‘[t]hat it is real’.…”

Section: Cont(r)actualisationmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The main point we set out to make here is that recognition models can be devised that are able to regulate multiple interdependencies between ‘friends, non-monogamous lovers, ex-lovers, partners who do not live together, partners who do not have sex together, those which do not easily fit the “friend”/“lover” binary classification system’ (Roseneil and Budgeon, 2004: 138; also Diduck, 2008b; Lind et al, 2010; Rosenbury, 2007; Stychin, 2005). This model could also involve multiple lovers and metamours (Swennen, 2020). More precisely, our contention is that for this recognition model to be produced, family assemblages have to be treated as ‘singularities’ (as we will clarify below) that have a life of their own and do not have to satisfy the requirements of the Sexual Family.…”

Section: Treating Families As Assemblagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cont(r)actualisation: A Politics of Transformative Legal Recognition of Adult Unions

Croce

Swennen

2020

Social & Legal Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article champions a new legal recognition model that emphasises the transformative potential of people’s use of family law. After discussing the flaws of prevailing recognition models, it insists on family formations being unique assemblages that cannot be captured by generalised technical categories. It makes the claim that, rather than one-size-fits-all model for relationship recognition that relies upon dyadic, sexual and domestic relationships, people ought to be able to identify different modules of relationship upon which to base legal recognition or particular legal consequences. It terms this model ‘cont(r)actualisation’, as the law should adopt a new orientation to how people form their normative networks. In the context of relationship recognition, this means that fixed bundles of pregiven labels should not drive recognition; rather, different modules or nodes law users themselves define when performing family ought to define family for law, at least for different legal purposes.

show abstract

Section: Cont(r)actualisationmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Treating Families As Assemblagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cont(r)actualisation: A Politics of Transformative Legal Recognition of Adult Unions

Croce

Swennen

2020

Social & Legal Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We contend that the model of cont(r)actualisation that we have developed in recent years is likely to contribute to the transformation we are pinpointing here. We initially designed cont(r)actualisation as a transformative model for the legal recognition of non-traditional family configurations between parents and children, on the one hand (Swennen and Croce 2017;Swennen 2019), and between adults on the other (Swennen 2020;Croce and Swennen 2021). In doing so, we aspired to challenge the traditional view of family law categories as predefined, static statuses.…”

Section: Cont(r)actualisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Person, Property, Relationships: A Cont(r)actual View

Croce,

Swennen

2024

Law Critique

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article challenges the long-standing boundary that separates human beings from non-human entities, whether animate or inanimate. In doing so, it engages with the jurisprudential strands that debate the transformative power of law in moving towards a fuller recognition of human relations with non-human entities. To this end, the article first examines the legal theoretical strategies that scholars have so far developed to overcome the dichotomous vision that pits humans against non-humans. It then argues for a new model of understanding property, called cont(r)actualisation, which seeks to reconfigure existing strategies. It makes the case that the legal categories of person and object should be brought together under the overarching heading of ‘legal entity’. Rather than being built around humans as persons/subjects and non-human entities as objects/objects, law should be built around the contingent points of contact between particular entities in a particular web of relations. In this way, the article advances a view that does justice to how these entities contribute to what human beings are and do.

show abstract

“…For instance, conjugality-even when formally dropped as a requirement-continues to inform understandings of partners' behavior as well as provisions of legal benefits to which the partnership law refers, as in Belgium. 340 Eliminating the requirement is thus a necessary yet insufficient condition to overcome the pull of conjugality.…”

Section: What Does "Meaningfully Different" Mean?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Marriage Apostates: Why Heterosexuals Seek Same-Sex Registered Partnerships

Palazzo¹

2022

CJGL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Same-sex marriage is now a reality across Western countries. While this was a positive achievement for the LGBTQ community, some crucial questions remain unanswered. One of these questions concerns the future of nonmarital statuses, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. After the legalization of same-sex marriage, U.S. states are simply phasing them out. I wish to argue against this trend. Based on an original analysis of empirical data and case law, I argue that nonmarital statuses retain value for non-traditional families. In fact, states must introduce nonmarital statuses open to couples regardless of gender, including adult friends and relatives. To support this argument, I present two analyses. First, I survey empirical research showing that (1) opposite-sex couples are signing up for nonmarital statuses at increasingly high rates, where available; (2) interest in such laws is growing even among same-sex couples in countries where same-sex marriage has existed for a long time. Second, I outline the legal and theoretical justifications for extending same-sex nonmarital partnerships to all couples. To this end, I analyze recent strategic litigation in Europe initiated by heterosexual couples who sought access to nonmarital statuses reserved for same-sex couples. The analysis allows me to identify three approaches: a status recognition approach, a utilitarian approach, and a legal-pluralistic approach. Ultimately, I offer guidance to policymakers in crafting a status that would be suitable for modern couples. Families that do not tick the boxes of the traditional marital family model continue to slip under the radar of law. Resurrecting these laws can fix the problem of their legal invisibility.

show abstract

Un-Coupling Family Law: The Legal Recognition and Protection of Adult Unions Outside of Conjugal Coupledom

Cited by 5 publications

References 30 publications

Cont(r)actualisation: A Politics of Transformative Legal Recognition of Adult Unions

Cont(r)actualisation: A Politics of Transformative Legal Recognition of Adult Unions

Person, Property, Relationships: A Cont(r)actual View

Marriage Apostates: Why Heterosexuals Seek Same-Sex Registered Partnerships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About