The Supreme Court has ruled that if a man and woman are in a live-in relationship for an extended period, in the eyes of the law they will be treated as a married couple and their child would be called legitimate. I find this at the same time progressive and regressive. On the one hand, at least the woman and her children will have some rights in the situation. But on the other hand, the language and imagery strike me as utterly old fashioned:
The court observed that “…Where the partners lived together for long spell as husband and wife, there would be presumption in favour of wedlock. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.”
Yes, I presume the Britishers came up with that funny word, bastardy! My point is that the concept of marriage remains the dominant one, and the divergent practice of living together without marriage is somehow being constructed to fit into the dominant paradigm, rather than be recognised in its own right as an acceptable practice.
And what about those ‘bastards’ whose parents didn’t live together for a long period? I guess the law is not in their favour.
