Surely Rules Are Rules Aren't They?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/24/gay-couple-sue-uk-same-sex-marriage-civil-partnership

/// When they went to book a registrar for their wedding, they were told they could not marry unless they first formally dissolved their civil partnership – in effect getting a divorce. ///

[Peter Pedant]

yah absolutely
the rule is: one or the other but not both

[ToraToraTora]

they don't like the law of the land? can't sue for that.

[jim360]

"they don't like the law of the land? can't sue for that."

The government gets taken to court loads of times when people don't like the way the law works. Sometimes the government even loses. So of course people can sue or instigate legal action... not sure why you thought otherwise, really.

[ToraToraTora]

great I'm suing the governement over my last speeding ticket, I don't agree with the speed limits. jim you're a genius!

[mushroom25]

I can't believe they didn't forsee this. oh, wait......

[FredPuli43]

Where does it say, in law, that a couple in a civil union have to dissolve that union before they can contract the union of what is to be called 'gay marriage' ? Is there any legal difference, apart from the name 'marriage', between the two unions? And on what grounds could they dissolve the first union?

Rules are not rules. If they were, the whole body of law called equity wouldn't exist, for one thing!

[naomi24]

I would have thought that unless special provision is made for two people already in a civil partnership, dissolving the civil partnership before entering into a marriage contract is essential. What if one or both of them had entered into a civil partnership with someone else at some time in the past?

[Baldric]

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."

[jim360]

Yes, but that one would lose, Tora, before it even got to court. On the other hand recent laws can end up challenged in court, for example this one, or various aspects of the recent benefits changes.

[FredPuli43]

Naomi, of course we don't permit bigamy, which is essentially what it would be if one of the couple had been in a civil partnership with someone else and had not dissolved that partnership before marrying a new partner. But this couple are the same couple in both instances

[naomi24]

Unless the law is changed to make special provision for two people already in a civil partnership, this challenge should fail too.

[mushroom25]

fred, the relevant part of the act says:-

"55.Section 9(1) enables civil partners who had their partnership formed in England and Wales to have their partnership converted into a marriage, and provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing the procedures for doing so. The use of this power is subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure on first use of the power and the negative procedure thereafter.

56.Subsections (2) and (3) provide a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing procedures for conversion of civil partnerships formed outside the United Kingdom under an Order in Council made under Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Civil Partnership Act which deals with civil partnerships registered at British consulates or by armed forces personnel. Subsection (3) makes clear that this applies where England and Wales is the relevant part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of registration of the civil partnership under the respective Order. The use of this power is subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure."

as I read the reports, the secretary of state hasn't yet made the required regulation, nor will this happen before the end of the year. thus the only option for conversion at this time I dissolution.

[naomi24]

I realise that Fred. The law needs to be specific.

[FredPuli43]

Thanks , mushroom, now isn't that brainless ? The Secretary of State should have had regulations drafted before the Act came into force and then exercised his power at the first opportunity. That can be done, and is, when the Act is impotent until regulations are in.

[ladybirder]

Well I hope they hurry up because two friends of mine who are already in a Civil Partnership have invited me to their wedding in January 2015 fully expecting that by then the "conversion" will be law.

[pixie373]

How strange. You can marry the same person twice without getting divorced in between.

[jno]

similar to what people in mixed-sex marriages call renewing their vows, pixie?

(I know it's not quite the same as this couple want to upgrade rather than renew.)

But this is clearly just a case of political muddle: a secretary of state has forgotten to do something and ordinary people are paying the price.

[boxtops]

Interesting - I never ever thought of that complication.

[jno]

neither had the Secretary of State, it seems. Goodness knows what we're paying him for.

[jno]

actually, I suppose it's a her, Theresa May.