|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay weddings - what happens next?
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Babies. The other white meat.
Alsatian Rieslings are quite appropriate with charcuterie.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Ah! someone who understands proper pairings. Not like these peasants with their broad-stroke guesstimates.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Babies. The other white meat.
Alsatian Rieslings are quite appropriate with charcuterie.
I was actually wondering if there was a veal comparison.
...what the hell am I saying???
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience is that "breeders" is more often used by heterosexuals without children who seem to believe that that fact makes them morally superior to those of us with kids, who are all of course brats.
I'm sure that does happen, but my experience as a "non-breeder" is that many people with children consider that that fact alone makes them morally superior to me. They may well be morally superior to me - many people are - but it's not because I'm not a parent. "Oh, but anne, you'd feel differently about it if you had children of your own."
Anyway before I really get started, I'm just trying to say that moral superiority is an equal opportunity idiocy.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One answer to the question is a gay couple sue the church for refusing to marry them.
And they have 5 children by surrogacy, which sort of answers another question on this thread.
The law was written so that this case will just be a waste of time and money (of course the flip side is that it will show the bill does not do what it says on the tin...rather scary thought...)
I love the pithy little statement at the end "Aren't Christians supposed to..." after having highlighted his 'Christian' credentials previously (screams of hypocrisy IMO). It's a load of tosh and attention seeking nonsense from a media crazed couple who bring the whole community into disrepute and will do little to help bring the CofE closer to recognising the validity of SSR's.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Yes. I am not sure this 'case' will ever reach the courts, since the law seems pretty watertight and I doubt the couple's lawyers could advise them to pursue it (and incur the costs), but if it does it would be a useful test case, particularly as the church in question appears to be CofE.
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Interesting thought on this piece of news. I don't think they'll necessarily win this case, but this particular couple have got experience of changing the law - they fought and won to bring their first children home from America. Are they publicity seeking? or are they agents for change? Isn't publicity part of the modern way of changing minds? Don't you need to court publicity to change public opinion?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
True, it probably is more a shot across the bows from the gay rights lobby than an actual legal fight (the Act won't even come into force until mid 2014). And they are clearly setting up a definite angle to their argument, less bullying, more a Rosa Parks fight against injustice 'they're meant to be Christians' tone.
Have to say they're an ideal couple to use - one if not both is Christian, both are young and charismatic, 5 children so will get sympathy, plus they have experience of these fights.
As for motivation, who can unpick motivations? Probably a mixture of believing in what they do and enjoyment of the celebrity they get in the movement because of it, each feeds into the other.
I also suspect that there will be some on the traditionalist side who will also be also itching for this - I've heard plenty of St Helens sermons stating that the secular world is moving against the church, whatever claims Parliament makes, and the sooner we get martyrs, the better.
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think some anti-SSM people will love this, and will be praying that it succeeds, then they have a perfect martyr's crown. I also doubt very much that it will succeed. I wonder if any divorced people have tried to sue over not being to remarry in some churches?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think some anti-SSM people will love this, and will be praying that it succeeds, then they have a perfect martyr's crown.
But presumably some pro-SSM people will love this too. A match made in heaven indeed!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Storm
Apprentice
# 878
|
Posted
I agree that the law has been tightly enough drafted that there is probably no workable legal case.
But in the article, one of the couple makes reference to being members of their local parish church at Danbury. I couldn't find any explicit position statement from that church, but given St John Baptist Danbury is listed on www.gaychurch.org and reading between the lines of this statement on its parish website, it's plausible that the vicar and local pcc would be perfectly happy to carry out a gay wedding in the church if they were not prevented by law.
So although this is being presented as a couple trying to force the church to marry them, the more interesting question is not about whether a couple can sue to force an unwilling Conservative vicar to marry then or an unwilling congregation to provide their building for the services (which is the scare-story), but whether a vicar and local church who want to do so can reasonably be prevented.
In fact – due to the strength of the lock on the CofE – I think the answer is clearly that the vicar and local church cannot perform the marriage until or unless the CofE hierarchy asks for the law to be changed and that suing will not help that.
The follow-up question is should the hierarchy be able to constrain the local parish church in this way. Given the current CofE governance structures, they clearly can and reworking the structure of the CofE to make it a grouping of Congregationalist churches is just not going to happen.
Pastorally, I think the CofE should choose to permit the decision to be taken at a local level, perhaps with strong protections so that either a vicar or a PCC can block a particular church being licensed for same-sex weddings. But that would mean acknowledging that there are a range of views within the CofE which the House of Bishops doesn't currently seem to want to do. ISTM that the government and the courts should (and indeed will) keep out whether religious denominations, even the established church, take decisions centrally or locally, simply requiring that a decision to conduct same sex marriages be in accordance with that denomination's decicion making procedures.
Posts: 18 | From: a place called vertigo | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Excellent points Storm. Another question(I apologise if it has been answered elsewhere) is if a SSM-sympathetic CofE vicar, with the support of an SSM-sympathetic PCC, were to attempt an SSM, whether that SSM would be null and invalid, or whether it would be valid but the priest would face dire consequences? In which case, what about a priest nearing retirement, or with an ineffective or SSM-sympathetic bishop - would they risk it?
[ 02. August 2013, 16:19: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
I think it would be null and invalid, in the eyes of the State as well as the Church. This is because in a CofE wedding it is the clergy who carry out the necessary State role of registrar. They can only act as registrar within the parameters set by the State, which are for marriages that the State permits the CofE to carry out, i.e. not SSM.
It is very unlikely that a legal challenge at the present time would even get a hearing. Basically the High Court will not entertain an application for judicial review on a hypothetical future situation save in very exceptional circumstances. There needs to be an administrative decision, e.g. an actual refusal to conduct a marriage, to bite on.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
What happens next? The C of E is to be sued? So much for 'it won't be forced upon anyone with religious convictions'?
Article here.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One answer to the question is a gay couple sue the church for refusing to marry them.
And they have 5 children by surrogacy, which sort of answers another question on this thread.
um - yes, that's what we were discussing
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Oops. Sorry, I'm out of here.....
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The question has been raised about 'what difference does SSM make to traditional marriage?'
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
It's not what gays want.
It's not what married people used to have.
Those two 'laws' are not, by the grace of God, applicable to me personally (unless an affair is on the horizon somewhere - God forbid) but they were part of the identity of marriage and its protections and sanctions. They are gone.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
It's not what gays want.
It's not what married people used to have.
Those two 'laws' are not, by the grace of God, applicable to me personally (unless an affair is on the horizon somewhere - God forbid) but they were part of the identity of marriage and its protections and sanctions. They are gone.
No, they haven't as I understand it. The law on consummation and adultery still apply to marriages between a man and a woman. They won't apply to a marriage between two men or two women.
In that sense, we don't have 'equal marriage' in England since what's available to a homosexual couple is slightly different to what's available to a heterosexual couple. But your heterosexual marriage is unchanged.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question has been raised about 'what difference does SSM make to traditional marriage?'
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
It's not what gays want.
It's not what married people used to have.
Those two 'laws' are not, by the grace of God, applicable to me personally (unless an affair is on the horizon somewhere - God forbid) but they were part of the identity of marriage and its protections and sanctions. They are gone.
This is a peculiarly English complaint when one takes into account that many jurisdictions have only a single "no fault divorce" pleading of irreconcilable differences between the marital partners. Further, many jurisdictions have got rid of annulments for any reason other than some patent fraud or error that made the marriage legally impossible in the first place, e.g., a marriage contracted when at least one of the partners is below the established age of consent for marriage in the particular jurisdiction, perhaps using a falsified or counterfeit form of identification. Legal annulments have pretty much faded into history in many jurisdictions, partly because of the advent of no-fault dissolution of marriage laws.
I fail to see how the grounds for divorce or annulment make a marriage any less of a marriage from a civil institution standpoint.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
Of course, this kind of technicality could be argued for any change in family law. "I didn't sign up for the new revision to standards of joint child custody in cases of divorce, therefore my marriage is ruined!!!" And yet we only find this kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth when the law is revised to accommodate same-sex couples. While this doesn't prove such arguments are motivated by personal animus, it certainly points that way.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
I'd never have joined this club if I knew they were going to let THAT sort of people in. How am I supposed to enjoy my meal with one of THOSE people sitting three tables away?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
So, after 28 years of marriage, does (1) still make a difference to you and your partner?
In the course of my marriage the rules on (2) have shifted several times, both due to changes in the law and because we've moved to a different jurisdiction. None of these changes have had anything to do with Marriage Equality. We have always been able to get divorced if one (or both) of us commit adultery, but the details of the process and what is listed on the decree may vary. So which has more bearing on the definition of our marriage - the fact that we can still get divorced, or the fact that, under some circumstances, we can't publicly point out one partner as having sinned?
We've seen far more changes in other areas, such as tax laws and property ownership. Probably the biggest shift in the definition of our marriage was when we moved away from a Community Property jurisdiction. While I much prefer the Community Property model, I certainly wouldn't say that the change has any adverse impact on our marriage.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If marriage is the joining of two people by God, how the ever living fuck is a parliamentary bill going to change that ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce. ...
Yeah, and that's a good thing. The government has no business between my legs. Or anyone else's.
If you disagree, picture yourself walking into the local police station and confessing that you never consummated your marriage and instead had a series of affairs. I'm sure they'll throw the book at you ... if they ever stop laughing.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Was annulment on the grounds of non-consummation possible if both parties (opposite sex) went into the marriage fully knowing consummation wasn't possible?
Doesn't adultery still apply as long as the outside party is of the opposite sex. For example a same sex couple (both men) where one cheats with a woman is adultery and, on the other side, an opposite sex couple where the husband cheats with another man is not adultery.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I don't think adultery has been a ground for divorce in Australia since I was a toddler. Not formally, anyway. We did away with that whole system of having grounds.
I'm wondering, Mudfrog, if that means that (1) you would have refused to get married in Australia, or (2) you somehow think all Australian marriages are invalid/not of the same quality as yours.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Just so everyone understands, I'm talking about reforms that applied purely to heterosexual marriages, seeing as how Australia still doesn't have same-sex marriage.
So I find the idea that no adultery as a grounds for divorce is somehow one of those bad things caused by SSM to be completely preposterous.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If you disagree, picture yourself walking into the local police station and confessing that you never consummated your marriage and instead had a series of affairs. I'm sure they'll throw the book at you ... if they ever stop laughing.
Why would you go near the police station - it's a civil matter. Adultery was decriminalized in England more than 150 years ago, and although I gather it's still technically on the books in some US states, it quite clearly wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge were any attempt to be made to prosecute it.
I don't think non-consummation has ever been a crime, although my knowledge of the dusty corners if mediaeval law is rather less than exhaustive.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question has been raised about 'what difference does SSM make to traditional marriage?'
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
...
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
You're complaining that same sex marriage is ruining the traditions of Christian Divorce?
Wow.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Excellent points Storm. Another question(I apologise if it has been answered elsewhere) is if a SSM-sympathetic CofE vicar, with the support of an SSM-sympathetic PCC, were to attempt an SSM, whether that SSM would be null and invalid, or whether it would be valid but the priest would face dire consequences? In which case, what about a priest nearing retirement, or with an ineffective or SSM-sympathetic bishop - would they risk it?
I am not an expert by any means, but I think it more likely that said Vicar would explain that the sacrament of marriage is not effected by the Vicar, the Church or the State. It is effected by the couple themselves, to one another, before God and before witnesses. Vicars don't marry couples; they marry one another.
Therefore, there is no actual difference between a couple having a register office union of whatever kind and a blessing in church, and having a traditional church wedding. In both cases the couple can take vows in the sight of God and the congregation, with the Vicar giving his blessing to those vows.
There is no need to redefine traditional marriage, or to change anything. The only requirement is to understand the sacramental status of said vows before witnesses and God, and that whatever form it may legally take, theologically it is sufficient.
In terms of efficacy, register office plus blessing in church is identical to marriage. The bits that matter are the same; the couple make the vows to one another before witnesses, the Vicar pronounces his blessing. The bit of paper may be different, but who every looks at their marriage licence to remind them of their happy day? Don't we all just look at the photographs?
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Doesn't adultery still apply as long as the outside party is of the opposite sex. For example a same sex couple (both men) where one cheats with a woman is adultery and, on the other side, an opposite sex couple where the husband cheats with another man is not adultery.
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex. So, for example, a husband who has sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife commits adultery, but he wouldn't if he only received oral sex from her. If a man had anal sex with another man that would similarly fail the test.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Um - UK Government site on divorce cites 5 grounds for divorce
- Adultery
- Unreasonable behaviour
- Desertion
- Living apart for 2 years (both consenting)
- Living apart for 5 years
I *think* non-consummation comes under unreasonable behaviour
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Isn't non-consummation grounds for annulment, rather than divorce?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex.
AKA You're still a virgin if you do anal. If this is the case then it's ridiculous and the law needs to be changed.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
It's not what gays want.
It's not what married people used to have.
Those two 'laws' are not, by the grace of God, applicable to me personally (unless an affair is on the horizon somewhere - God forbid) but they were part of the identity of marriage and its protections and sanctions. They are gone.
No, they haven't as I understand it. The law on consummation and adultery still apply to marriages between a man and a woman. They won't apply to a marriage between two men or two women.
In that sense, we don't have 'equal marriage' in England since what's available to a homosexual couple is slightly different to what's available to a heterosexual couple. But your heterosexual marriage is unchanged.
This is correct, but with the crucial extra word: "Yet".
Adultery isn't defined in statute law, it has been defined through legal precedent by the courts. The courts have obviously only had to pass judgement on heterosexual marriages because up until now they were the only ones that have existed. It is only a matter of time before a failed SSM comes up before the courts, whereupon they will have to define adultery for those cases as well.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
The bit of paper may be different, but who every looks at their marriage licence to remind them of their happy day? Don't we all just look at the photographs?
I came across mine the other day, and enjoyed identifying the different people's handwriting. I also found my birth certificate, which contains my father's handwriting.
I don't have nearly so much affection for my children's birth certificates, which are typed.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex.
AKA You're still a virgin if you do anal. If this is the case then it's ridiculous and the law needs to be changed.
I believe performing anal sex as a means of contraception is called Saddlebacking after the mega-church in Southern California.
Not quite as popular a neologism as Santorum, but still useful.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
To those opposed to civil marriage equality: To borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, granting civil marriage rights to gay couples neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. If your particular faith tradition doesn't recognize the validity of same-sex relationships, then they're free to continue not to do so. If you don't care for same-sex marriages, then don't enter into one or take part in one. I assume that those of you opposed to marriage equality also take a dim view of, say, serial marriages, frivolous marriages a la Las Vegas and "reality" TV, green-card marriages and all the other ways that couples legally enter into something other than what you consider to be holy matrimony. So why not just hold your noses/avert your eyes for same-sex marriages as well?
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
LutheranChik: To borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, granting civil marriage rights to gay couples neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket.
Do you realize what the present cost for the last one I went to? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Actually, though it is a ground for annullment, one can use also non-consummation (and, while we're on the topic, adultery) as a fact to prove unreasonable behaviour.
Essentially, to prove UB, one needs to provide a number of 'facts', or examples, on the petition. One usually provides 3-6 facts.
There is no definition of what can be a fact, because the test of unreasonsable behaviour applies to what the petitioner themselves considers unreasonable.
One could therefore use adultery or non-consummation, or indeed separation, if one wishes. People often do this because there is not the same need to prove adultery or non-consummation when they are facts in a UB petition, as there would be if you were using them as a standalone basis for a petition for divorce or annullment. If they are used as facts on a UB petition, you can just asset them.
However, in practice, certainly in my (limited) legal experience, we would not want to use adultery or non-consummation as facts of UB if we were acting for the petitioner. That is because our aim is to get the divorce through. Adultery and non-consummation are offensive accusations, and the receiving party may object to them, even if they also want the divorce.
Therefore in general, even if the real reason for the breakdown of the marriage is adultery, you will use relatively inoffensive facts like 'she doesn't get on with my friends', or 'we never spend any time together'. Enough to get the divorce through, but not enough to offend the other side.
Therefore debates about the meaning of adultery or non-consummation, though important, will not (IME) greatly affect the realities.
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question has been raised about 'what difference does SSM make to traditional marriage?'
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
...
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
You're complaining that same sex marriage is ruining the traditions of Christian Divorce?
It made me laugh. Mudfrog, the conservative upholder of traditional marriage against the gays, arguing that the main problem with equal marriage is that it doesn't do enough to encourage divorce and buggery.
Remind me again which side won this argument.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Doesn't adultery still apply as long as the outside party is of the opposite sex. For example a same sex couple (both men) where one cheats with a woman is adultery and, on the other side, an opposite sex couple where the husband cheats with another man is not adultery.
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex. So, for example, a husband who has sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife commits adultery, but he wouldn't if he only received oral sex from her. If a man had anal sex with another man that would similarly fail the test.
Of course what most people mean by adultery is sexual contact with someone other than your spouse. So the law doesn't match most people's understanding anyway, and it would be next to impossible to prove unless a pregnancy resulted.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think you'll find male-female anal sex is illegal in the UK...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
