If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No it's two way. It's between you and your spouse but one of the clauses requires that the court signs off on your agreement to terminate the contract. They cannot overrule it, unless you haven't fulfilled the rest of the contractual stipulations - the clauses I gave as an example above - so aren't a third party to the contract.
natural justice
:no: :no: :no:
For who? Not your next of kin, that's for sure.
yes, it would be.
You aren't making sense, which is unusual for you. Someone losing out doesn't mean something is unjust.
When my sister married her husband, the state withdrew my rights to her estate, regardless of my wishes - is that unjust? I certainly don't think it is, but you appear to be arguing it is. I think, however, most people would argue that the law and natural justice are on the same side.
On the other hand I feel it was unjust that when my mother died, the man she married inherited her estate leaving me with nothing. As he and I are not related I have permenantly lost rights to those things. He recognises this is against natural justice, and has made provision in his will. From your argument above, you would agree the law is unjust because I have lost out.
I spoke to my sister, and she agrees with me that it would be unjust for her to inherit my half of this house - even though she could do with the money. I ask you, where would the justice be if my partner was forced to sell the house we've shared our lives in?
But tjhose were her wished, which is the important part here. As you say she got married and thus made a choice. If she hadn;t got married the state wouldn't have passed those rights to her boyfriend, would they?
No, in that case the law was just and it was your mother who should have lokoed after you if she wanted to. Again by getting marreid she made a decision.
So, if you want to protect him/her then why not do so? It is entirely in your hands and you cannot really complain if you don't do that.
errr, doesn't that directly contradict what you just said? where it was rights being removed with no consideration for the wishes of the next of kin?
I fail to see any justice at all. I see things happening in accordance with the law, but that is not the same thing. I think you'll have to explain where the justice is.
There isn't yet an non-discriminatory way of doing so. Or are whites only bus seats acceptable to you?
No. The difference is that one is removed by the state and one is removed by the person whose proprty you would inherit, whose life support you would switch off, whose organs you would donate. It should therefore be their decision and not the states.
How come? Your mother made a decision. Surely it should be her decision to make an not the states?
How is allowing anyone to have a contract with pretty much anyone they like discriminatory?
And how is my approach in any way similar to "whites only buses"? Especially when you consider that was a state enforced sanction which over rode the wishes of individuals?
Where is the difference?
I would have thought that she was trying to divorce him would have been an indication that wasn't what she wanted.
However that is an irrelevance, you are asserting she actively made the decision, and I dispute that. People have faith in the legal system, and assume natural justice will be the result.
People believe in "common law" marriage, and this proposed legislation would bring the law into line with that belief
it isn't, but that isn't the case. A man and a woman can't enter into a civil partnership, untill they are no longer discriminated against it would be wrong for me to enter a civil partnership. as a result, I have no way of gaining relief from death duty. errrr, because this is a state enforced discrimination which overrides the wishes of individuals?
Cohabitation can be just friends. It's important to remember that. Marriage/civil partnership is a clear statement about the relationship and also about the wishes oft those individuals.
Until I got married I hadn't made the final commitment to my [now] wife. It's the "all that I have" moment.
You didn't mention that aspect. He was still legally married to her though and the contract was still inforce. Again her will is important here. Mine contains my children and not just my wife.
You mean she was forced down the aisle? That she didn't say her vows, that she didn;t sign the marriage licence freely? If you aren't saying that then how can you assert that she didn;t make an active decision?
Then they are fools.
"Common Law" being the operative phrase there, non?
Yes they can. It's called marriage.
What is the difference between marriage and civil partnership, with regards the rights of the individuals involved?
Where is the discrimination?
Before civil partnerships existed I would have fought the cause along side you. Problem is that there is a means of getting rights for your partner, whether hetro or homosexual.
If people choose not to take up that protection, that transference of rights, then they really cannot complain that they do not attain those rights. If cohabitation is "virtually the same" as marriage then what is the difference, why not take that extra step. If the relationship is a committed as you suggest then it really isn't a huge step to take at all... if it isn't that committed then my contention is that the partners should not have the next of kin rights anyway...