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.


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.
Dean Windmill 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

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

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…