That doesn’t make any sense, the law “recognizing” certain relationships isn’t the same as purely acknowledging the existence and possibility of them for the purpose of laws like if there is a law against cheating on a partner.
Yeah is there some kind of trap card thing in Chinese law where as soon as a court recognizes that two women had a relationship it immediately makes gay marriage legal?
Hmm, the person tweeting this (as far as I can tell, they’re not living in China currently, and is some 1st gen Chinese Canadian YA author who writes Chinese history-inspired fantasy/SF) provided some “elaboration” on the alleged situation:-
The source is from a Chinese lawyer. The law about “ruining a military marriage” specifies committing bigamy or cohabitating with a military spouse, and cohabitation is currently defined as “living as if husband and wife”
If the court wants to charge these women they are then recognizing that two women can legally have a relationship as serious as that of a husband and wife
(responding question whether the cheating couple is being imprisoned) No the soldier is threatening to sue the women unless they give him 200k RMB (27k USD) but they are threatening to counter-sue him for extortion. So right now it’s just threats. Even the lawyer I saw this from doesn’t know how a court would rule in this case.
Not sure about the anonymous “Chinese lawyer” source that they’re relying on, and I can’t find a news source reporting on this case; elsewhere in the thread they posted an SCMP article, but it was about a “coventional” heterosexual jody case from earlier this year). Be that as it may, on first glance, the purpoted legal logic doesn’t seem to be completely without legs to me? If cohabitation is legally defined as “living as if husband and wife”, it seems at least arguable (not saying that it’s an argument that Chinese courts will definitely accept) that the court cannot legally recognise a “lesbian cohabitation” situation without first recognising the concept of a marriage/legally-recognised union between two women?
I think it’s a really flimsy argument tbh.
Say for example a wife of a PLA soldier has an affair with a married man and they live together, eat together, go on dates together, fuck, etc. The male adulterer would not be able to actually marry the soldier’s wife because bigamy is illegal. I don’t think it would fly for a second to argue that the male adulterer can’t be convicted because the Court would be recognizing bigamy.
I’m not a trained Chinese lawyer or anything, but if the English translation of “as if” is accurate then there’s a ton of leeway for interpretation.
(as far as I can tell, she’s not living in China currently, and is some 1st gen Chinese Canadian YA author who writes Chinese history-inspired fantasy/SF)
Not living there currently. She They was born and spent their childhood there and speaks the language natively.
The SCMP article does imply that the law serves both to try to keep a soldier’s mind on the job as well as some legal consequences for anybody specifically targeting a soldier’s spouse who is living alone during a deployment.
I kinda wonder if the law was created to be used in this particular way or if it was written broadly enough that it can be used in spiteful ways, as this instance seems to indicate. If you’re asked for a divorce by your spouse and the first thing you do is start checking security camera footage/cell phone records for evidence of infidelity, that says more about you than your spouse.
It’d be interesting to know the specifics of the law (which does not seem to be quoted anywhere in the article) and if there was any specific history behind its creation and application in court.
The tweet is the dumbest legal take I’ve seen since I stopped tutoring Law 101.
Please share some of the dumbest takes you’ve heard from that’s experience! It sounds rife with humor potential.
I won’t tell on the first years because university is a time where you can have dumb takes and be forgiven as long as you learn from them.
Instead I will tell you about the time I was sued by a sov cit who filed a petition they wrote themselves. It laboriously detailed all the ways in which “I” (he had the wrong person) violated his constitutional rights - how I trampled on his freedom of speech, denied him a fair hearing, seized his property, etc etc - all with detailed references to the US constitution. The problem? We were not in the US, none of the stuff at dispute was in the US, and neither of us were American anyway. Dude straight up did his own research on a different legal system and just assumed it would apply where we were.
Fuck it, struggle session time*: A soldier in the PLA, safeguarding the revolution, is substantively different from an imperialist boot.
The lack of same-sex marriage is a gunuine L, but not a new one unfortunately. Still, uncritical support to my sisters who got it.
* Not really, I got shit to do and I’m not staring at my phone all day for this crap.
Replying to your comment so you see the notification and think you kicked off a sesh but actually it’s just text and a beanis
Part of women’s liberation is being not financially dependent on men, especially through marriage.
If you look at the cases of military marriages in the US as example, the situation we imagine is that some 18 year old women right out of high school marries a boot for the financial benefits. This basically a direct exchange of sex for money. Some communist writers have made very direct comparisons between monogamous marriage and sex work. A generally accepted opinion on hexbear is that sex workers are good but forcing women into sex work is bad.
I think really you’re asking the wrong question. The question should not be “Should people who violate PLA military marriages be punished?”. The question should be “Why are there women who are financially dependent on military marriages?” The answer is that they shouldn’t be and if women weren’t financially dependent on the marriage, they can just leave the marriage instead of cheating. The answer is that a communist society would move away from enforced monogamy.
They weren’t really fighting “for” the Khmer Rouge back then. China saw itself encircled by USSR aligned countries, the incursion (can’t call it invasion, it was only a couple local division, no airt support, no artillery, no naval support) served to demonstrate to Vietnam that the USSR would not go all in for it and it should thus cut the crap it did at the time (such as offloading reactionaries to China instead of dealing with them themselves, diverting weapons intended for Cambodias liberation struggle for themselves). China achieved it goal, hence it considers the incursion a military victory, because strategically it was. Vietnam stopped being a dick.
The alignment with Cambodia was because China needed a local counter balance to Vietnam. once the strategical goal was achieved, the alignment ended.
In a conflict between the US and China, the strongest weapon in the PLA arsenal is Tik Toks posted by soldiers’ spouses and girlfriends at home.
Joking aside, don’t take legal analysis from a rando on the internet just as you wouldn’t take medical or financial advice from them. Most people know sweet fuck all about the law and will act as if they’re god’s gift to jurisprudence.
“Ruining a soldiers marriage.”
She’s not happy, Dave. Let her go.
