The institutional framework is not intended to resolve emotional problems. [...] You can define marriage or intimacy whatever you want, but that is very different from signing a legally binding detailed agreement about responsibilities and rights of each party which should be a condition of a legally recognized 'civil union.'
==================
Understood.
So, your *vision*, so to speak, is of a clearly defined *framework* which would address the rights and responsibilities area of unions. It seems you believe this would act as a curative to some of the romantic flights of fancy which are no doubt responsible for much unhappiness and the high divorce rate due to people's unreasonable expectations and incomplete understanding.
Well maybe, but as Pascal said, *the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.*
Regarding the situation itself...
An old friend as I said who's made me very uncomfortable with these complaints because I feel bad for her husband who's only doing as he was programmed and is actually a generous and decent fellow. I tell him to ratchet back to save his health and his marriage but he doesn't know how. It's actually very sad to see how corporatism can wreck the lives of even quite privileged workers.
My wife, a wise woman who often sees much farther than I (thank the maker), believes my friend's motivation in sharing too much carries a rather obvious ulterior motive.
But that's a discussion for another list altogether. Or, better yet, no list at all, just the kitchen table.
DRM