Skip to main content

Marriage and proposals for change

There is a continuing debate about Marriage and the meaning of Marriage.

In 2011 Mostyn J addressed the all party parliamentary group on family law and spoke about what marriage was from a legal perspective. The speech can be read via the report here

Historically marriage was more about children than adults.  Today, however, from a legal perspective it is mainly about an ill defined economic contract which can cost at lot of money to terminate.

The aspects of family law that relate to the care of children have been taken substantially outside the law of marriage.  Additionally in the last parliament the common law duty of a husband to care for his wife was abolished - without a peep from anyone at the time.

Hence Marriage today is mainly legally about divorce law.

Generally family law in the English and Welsh jurisdiction has evolved through the courts with an element of intervention from parliament.  However, because it is not the sort of things that fits into a government/opposition form of debate it has not been effectively considered by parliament.

Hence we now encounter a situation where from a legal perspective Marriage is something where any legal duties that are enforceable are enforced through divorce law.  Furthermore it is a legal entity that concentrates on the adults rather than the children.

Within this context there is no reason why it would require both partners to not be of the same sex.  There is a separate and more important question as to whether our family law should concentrate more on the interests of the children than the adults.  I take the view that this would be sensible.  However, that is not where we are at at the moment.



Comments

ted said…
Dear John

I found your blog on "marriage and proposals for change" had no relation to what is being proposed by your government. I found it confusing, irrelevant and obscure. I still don't know where you stand on allowing same sex couples to get married. As you know same sex couples do have children and if marriage is good for heterosexual couples then it follows that it is good for same sex couples.

Please could you make your feelings on this issue more clear for us all to understand.
Unknown said…
In the final para "no reason that would require both partners to be of the same sex"

Is this a typo? - as it is it doesn't make sense. Does he mean 'opposite sex' and can we draw the conclusion therefore that John accepts Marriage can be between same sex couples?
Jake Maverick said…
TIs never get married or have children. why would you put anybody else at risk? and none of the bloody state's business anyway....

old enough to rememebr what liberal democracy actually means, seems no words actually mean what word really do mean anymore

charlatan!
Vidal said…
This really is an odd post. It doesn't state where do you stand on granting basic equality to lgbt people.
Jake Maverick said…
I'm sorry, who are the 'lgbt people'?

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…