Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Same-sex marriage does not in any way invalidate existing marriages. See the original post which spawned this thread.
I wasn't being clear, I meant in relation to abolishing the institution of marriage and having only CUs. I'd rather amend the institution of marriage.
-
I'm having serious congnitive dissonance made bearable only by Dannelle's post earlier. My take on this thread, or part thereof, is that so long as marriage remains principally a modern variant on a religious-based ceremony and excludes gay people it is homophobic. I can't disagree with that. And so the next part is what to do which is where I come a little unstuck. I'd rather not invalidate marriages to modernise marriage which means amending the Marriage Act right? Amending it to allow same-sex marriages. If that were done, marriages could be performed either by churchy folk (with or without homophobia) and celebrants?
Incidentally, I part-officiated at a family member's marriage. The groom worked out what the celebrant had to do, very limited, and asked that I do all the other bits.
-
Well, I liked getting married despite accepting the institution as an Original Gangsta Misogynist Tool of the Patriarchy, so you never know.
Ditto and I believe so too did my wife. The comment that marriage as an institution is steeped in mysogyny and homophobia may well be true of the historical institution, but it isn't a feature of mine or all others (or are you saying that if gay people can't marry, that is homophobia... that's something I'd not thought of). That said, my marriage was so distinctly un-churchy it was practically a CU (though it predated their existence).
I've only been following this discussion rather than actively participating in it so perhaps I'm not saying anything new, however my sense is that the institution of marriage has changed and should continue to.
-
Not proved as such. But I suppose it means that the Police believed Kristen Dunne-Powell enough (and presumably found sufficient evidence) to echo her claims in their statement - relatively forcefully, from what little we've been quoted.
Bart, I think it is proved that Vetich is not the nice guy who snapped he claims to be. Unless you believe "proof" can only occur in criminal courts?
This information can be both correct and still not the subject of a criminal prosecution. I don't know why the Police didn't charge him with these acts, but unless and until the publication is challenged, I think it's reasonable to believe that it's true and therefore, Vetich's assault on Ms Dunne Powell was not one-off, but just the last in a series of assaults.
The plea bargain process doesn't invalidate claims, it just determines which will be the subject of criminal prosecutions.
-
Reading a more fullsome account, I wonder why more of Vetich's actions weren't prosecuted but that's a matter for the Police. Certainly this list proves the lie that he was otherwise a nice bloke.
-
<late-but-just-wanted-to-say>
Governments Shouldn't Interfere in Personal Relationships
Excellent. Before you leave the playing field, would you mind levelling it?Genius.
I'll resist the compelling urge to use this little gem until it's truly appropriate and will notify Emma when I find a suitable occassion.</late-but-just-wanted-to-say>
-
Sorry to hear of your accident Giovanni, I've been lucky to so far avoid being speared by various pieces of train-set... it's a daily challenge however.
-
My solution? Abolish marriage as a legal form and make CUs onlyhave legal status. If people want to get married in a church, fine, they should go to it and plight their troth and promise to obey.
TracyMac, I don't see a reason to abolish one set of arrangements when you can augment it with others? Marriage works for lots of people, even those that have a few of them, it's just that they've been exclusive of other stable loving relationships. Marriage has survived being principally a religious arrangement, de facto relationships and CUs will further extend respect for couples/relationships but for some, marriage will continue to have meaning.
I also think that relationship-type contracts should be customisable - for example, you could enact standard-form contracts to agree power-of-attorney, shared guardianship of children, power-of-attorney for health matters, next of kin/default beneficiary, shared property, etc, with as many individuals as you choose, for a standard fee.
If you mean broadening the recognition of extended families, I completely agree. If you mean broadening the recognition of relationships that are based on sexual connections, my only query would be about thresholds (and knowing little about polyamorous relationships, I'm guessing there's a point where they're distinguished them from more casual connections) but then since marriages are clearly no longer lifelong connections, I wonder what "standard" there really is?
-
Yes, it's social equality as well as legal equality that I want.
And rightly so though it's not something you can legislate for.
At the risk of sounding like a legal realist, I suspect CUs are slightly ahead of present social attitudes (I think the swing against progressive politics is gathering pace, Rankin's appointment is emblematic) and that Labour had exhausted it's progressive mandate. I'm not happy about that, quite the opposite (but I know that as a straight white hetro-male I'm less at risk during any counter-phase). I appreciate the frustration you may feel at any suggestion that CUs are training-wheel marriages; they're not and as I said up-thread, it's essentially what my wife and I choose before it was available.
-
JackE,
Not sure about pubs, but I think most pharmacies will be covering it.
Genius!