English   español  
Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/137546
logo share SHARE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorPeña, Lorenzoes_ES
dc.descriptionEste trabajo profundiza y desarrolla las tesis propuestas en el artículo de 2010 "El derecho a la vida conyugal en la sociedad contemporánea" (publicado en ARBOR), contestando a 10 objeciones, lo cual da lugar a incorporar materiales tomados de la historia reciente de las instituciones matrimoniales y de los hallazgos de la etnografía.es_ES
dc.description.abstractThis paper ensues from the debate raised by a previous article, «The right to wedded life in contemporary society», 2010, included as a chapter of the Doctoral Dissertation on Juridical Science, «Idea Iuris Logica», 2015, which was a compilation Thesis, whose concluding section was a set of 48 propositions, five of which were given over to the right to marry, viz.: (1) it is one of the most essential human rights; (2) it is partly a freedom right but also a welfare right; (3) as an associative right it implies the power not just to start a joint life but also to remain therein and not to be forcibly ousted without due reason; (4) a suitable legal implementation calls for the existence of several cohabitation contracts or covenants of different degrees of mutual commitment and duration, with the possibility of a life-long or perpetual bond for those who choose it; and (5) the current lgislation both in Spain and elsewhere is quite unsatisfactory. Those propositions aroused a heated controversy, ten main objections being levelled at my claims. They broach such issues as same-sex marriage, the clash between an undisturbed wedded life and the rights of children, the purportedly necessary anarchy presiding over any two-membered society, which would entail a permanent right to abandon the partner without cause (repudiation), the significance of marriage as against friendship or togetherness in general and the suspiciousness of perennial commitments. Now I thoroughly go into all ten objections and shore up my assertions with further reasons. Then I canvass historical experience, namely the soviet attempt at demolishing family relations in the period 1917-1935, which was doomed to fail; I consider ethnographic evidence, and last I examine the polemics brought about by the UN Human-rights Council Resolution 29/22, passed on 2015-07-02, for the protection of the family. My conclusion is that the West has now chosen the disastrous path blazed out by the Bolsheviks 90 years ago.es_ES
dc.publisherPublicaciones Juriloges_ES
dc.subjecthuman rightses_ES
dc.subjectfamily lifees_ES
dc.subjectperennial commitmentses_ES
dc.titleDisputación sobre el fundamento y el alcance del derecho a contraer matrimonioes_ES
dc.title.alternativeA discussion on the foundations and the scope of the right to marryes_ES
oprm.item.hasRevisionno ko 0 false*
Aparece en las colecciones: (CCHS-IFS) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato  
matrimonio.pdfPDF. DINA54,59 MBAdobe PDFVista previa
matrimonio_a4.pdfPDF. DINA44,42 MBAdobe PDFVista previa
Show simple item record

NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.