I think this bill must be made really explicit to the public. Reading this report gives me some goose bumps. Paragraph 2 of this new report claims the Bill requires males to share property with their female counterparts even though the two might not be married. Question, Why should the bill be limited to only males sharing property with female counterparts, married or not? If both men and women enjoy same rights to property under the constitution, why should only the male be limited by this new bill to share his property with a female simply because the female choose to live with this male without duress? If this bill is not properly handled, I am afraid the entire institution of marriage as a union between 2 persons who feel attracted to each other to do so, will be reduced to a property acquisition entreprise of females on the hunt for rich and promising guys with the hidden motive of having a share in his property if she can scheme well enough to live with him for the required number of months the bill mandates.
Posted on: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:15:03 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015