The Supreme People's Court has released the latest draft of the Judicial Interpretation (II) of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code. It seems to be a trivial legal provision, but it is related to the vital interests of thousands of households.
To put it simply, yes. Once it takes effect, it will profoundly affect our perception of marriage and family life.
Source network
Let's start with the cohabitation part. The provision stipulates that even if the cohabiting parties have not entered into any property agreement, one party may claim compensation on the basis of "raising children, caring for the elderly, assisting in work, etc."
Source network
Cohabitation is not the same as marriage, and it is precisely because they do not want to establish a property relationship that they choose this ambiguous state.
Let's look at the divorce compensation clause. In addition to the conventional division of joint property, the court may also determine an additional amount of compensation based on factors such as the duration of the marriage, the division of labor, and other factors.
Source network
This breaks with traditional property expectations, and the amount of money that couples will receive after a divorce will be even more uncertain. The nature of the marriage relationship has also changed from a property contract to a quasi-labor relationship.
When we marry or live together, are we really just a contract about property and affection, or do we sign an invisible employment contract? Will future housework require the calculation of working hours and wages?
On the face of it, these provisions appear to protect the interests of the party in charge of the housework. In practice, however, they tacitly treat housework as an obligatory effort that requires special compensation. It's not fair!
Source network
The division of household chores is a self-determination of the husband and wife, and the contribution of both parties is not a one-way dedication. In the marriage contract, the man and the woman have different contributions, but their status should be equal.
The bigger danger is that this is tantamount to legally granting privileges to one party and destroying the foundation of the contract society. As long as they are married or cohabited, they can claim the property of the opposite sex at will, which will bring a lot of contradictions and disputes.
The consequences of this "protection" have long suffered in Europe and the United States. For example, in France, if an ex-wife finds a boyfriend, she can always get high alimony from her ex-husband. In Germany, there are even strange phenomena such as "it is difficult for men to marry and live together".
Source network
Although feminism was once rampant in developed countries, it also brought serious harm to the whole society, the relationship between men and women fell to a freezing point, and the concept of family was on the verge of collapse. How can we repeat the mistakes of the past?
In the face of these developments, we can't help but ask: Are we really going to repeat the mistakes of these developed countries and get bogged down step by step?
Do we really want to sacrifice the most basic contract order and fairness and justice of the whole society in order to cater to the interests of certain groups?