This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Whiteley a spy, says Tomlinson
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
hedgehog50  Croydon 08 Mar 17 5.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The definition of the grounds for voidable marriages should definitely be changed to remove the phrase normal sexual intercourse. In truth, if you've been having any kind of sexual relationship with your partner, chances are the annulment won't be granted. Annulment rights don't validate or invalidate marriages, as annullments a specific preclusions ruled on very specific individual circumstances. Chances are, if someone was to pursue an annulment to a gay marriage on the grounds of non-consummation, and appeal it to the supreme court, then its likely they'd win their case. I can't even find any statistics on annulment. I understand that a marriage is also voidable if an interim gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has, after the time of the marriage, been issued to either party to the marriage, or that the respondent is a person whose gender at the time of the marriage had become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| legaleagle 08 Mar 17 6.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Article from Solicitors Journal" on "consummation" in the light of same sex marriage. 'The consummation of marriage has historically been a source of legal oddity. Take France, where from 1550 to 1667, virility was proven through 'trial by congress', sexual intercourse in front of witnesses. And manual arousal by expert witnesses to test the alleged impotency of husbands was not unknown in England's mediaeval consistory courts.. ...If 'ordinary' intercourse is penile penetration of the v*****, what 'completes' intercourse? Sadly for the respondent in W (Orse K) v W [1967], although able to "penetrate [his] wife for a short time [,] soon after he got inside her, his erection collapsed and he came out". His ephemeral entering of his wife was perhaps "ordinary" but was not "complete". In Grimes v Grimes [1948], Finnemore J held that coitus interruptus was no vera copula: consummation required "emission" within one's wife. Two days later though, Wilmer J in White v White [1948] deemed ejaculation not to be a prerequisite of consummation. And, bizarrely, in Snowman v Snowman [1934] , despite the petitioner's pregnancy by her husband, consummation had not taken place because penetration had not occurred. With Latinate delicacy, Bateson J in Snowman found that "fecundation [had] taken place ab extra"'. Edited by legaleagle (08 Mar 2017 6.55pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 08 Mar 17 7.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
Article from Solicitors Journal" on "consummation" in the light of same sex marriage. 'The consummation of marriage has historically been a source of legal oddity. Take France, where from 1550 to 1667, virility was proven through 'trial by congress', sexual intercourse in front of witnesses. And manual arousal by expert witnesses to test the alleged impotency of husbands was not unknown in England's mediaeval consistory courts.. ...If 'ordinary' intercourse is penile penetration of the v*****, what 'completes' intercourse? Sadly for the respondent in W (Orse K) v W [1967], although able to "penetrate [his] wife for a short time [,] soon after he got inside her, his erection collapsed and he came out". His ephemeral entering of his wife was perhaps "ordinary" but was not "complete". In Grimes v Grimes [1948], Finnemore J held that coitus interruptus was no vera copula: consummation required "emission" within one's wife. Two days later though, Wilmer J in White v White [1948] deemed ejaculation not to be a prerequisite of consummation. And, bizarrely, in Snowman v Snowman [1934] , despite the petitioner's pregnancy by her husband, consummation had not taken place because penetration had not occurred. With Latinate delicacy, Bateson J in Snowman found that "fecundation [had] taken place ab extra"'. Edited by legaleagle (08 Mar 2017 6.55pm) Did Mr.Snowman melt inside her?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Mar 17 8.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Well this thread has taken an unexpected direction.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
  Hrolf The Ganger 08 Mar 17 8.21pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Well this thread has taken an unexpected direction. Not really. It started off with a couple of knobs.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Mar 17 10.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
I understand that a marriage is also voidable if an interim gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has, after the time of the marriage, been issued to either party to the marriage, or that the respondent is a person whose gender at the time of the marriage had become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. It protects the legal rights of the other party, from being deceived (if re-assignment was conducted prior to marriage) and it represents the rights of the other party within the marriage. The rights of both transgendered and non-transgendered have to be accounted for in law.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Mar 17 10.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Well this thread has taken an unexpected direction. It was always going somewhere of the straight line, too much signialling.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 09 Mar 17 11.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
It protects the legal rights of the other party, from being deceived (if re-assignment was conducted prior to marriage) and it represents the rights of the other party within the marriage. The rights of both transgendered and non-transgendered have to be accounted for in law. But does this go far enough? Surely, in this day and age, to make transgendered men/women more fully integrated into (what is offensively called 'normal society), if a transgendered person proposes 'marriage' to a non-transgendered man or woman, shouldn't it be law that the latter has to accept?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 17 9.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
But does this go far enough? Surely, in this day and age, to make transgendered men/women more fully integrated into (what is offensively called 'normal society), if a transgendered person proposes 'marriage' to a non-transgendered man or woman, shouldn't it be law that the latter has to accept?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.