tsa@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Anantharaman) (12/17/85)
In spite of the fact that I am not religious, I do not see anything wrong with having different laws governing marriage for different religions the way India does, since all such laws apply on a voluntary basis. In a secular state marriage should be viewed as a civil contract, and having different marriage laws is equivalent to offering a choice of standard marriage contracts. Indian law offers one for every major religion practiced in India, including Hinduism, Islam, Catholism and Jainism. It also offers a seperate secular marriage contract for those who do not wish to identify themselves with any of these religions. Furthermore your actual religious beliefs are irrelevant as far as the Indian Law is concerned. If you were married as specified in the Hindu Marriage Act, for example, (which is defined as walking arround a fire seven times with your spouse, in front of a specified number of witnesses), your divorce and alimony will be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act irrespective of whether or not you convert to Islam or any other religion. You do not even have to be a Hindu at the time of your marriage. The only thing I personally find objectionable is the fact that only the Secular Marriage Act requires the marriage to be registered, which means that most people who marry in India, in effect sign a civil contract they have not read, and may not even be aware of (Presumably it would be too expensive to require every marriage to be registered). In "secular" USA the Law will only recognize a marriage performed by a Christian Minister, Jewish Rabbi or certain legal officers appointed for that purpose. West Germany is far more secular in that no marriage performed by any religious authority is recognized. But in both cases the Law does not provide any choice of marriage contracts, which is only available under Indian Law, as far as I know.