Leglislation / pseudo-trollbaiting

[mattp]

Finally got to went to bed after 0330 and just woke up now. Had a funky dream which involved a game of football made with a ball made from recently-chewed gum. I forget who I was playing with though.

You know you've had little sleep when, despite have 220 people on your flist, only 7 new entries appear between sleeping and waking.

I meant to post this the other day:
As a result of the Civil Parnership leglislation coming into effect, many other Acts are going need to be modified in order to include them. Going back over 125 years, some of the amended Acts include:

Explosive Substances Act 1883
Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908
Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945
Statistics of Trade Act 1947
Marriage Act 1949
Births and Deaths Registration Act
Pharmacy Act 1954
Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963
Theft Act 1968
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Slaughterhouses Act 1974
Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
Mobile Homes Act 1983
Companies Act 1985
Broadcasting Act 1990
Sexual Offences Act 2003

One such example is taken from the Explosive Substances Act 1883:

In any proceeding against any person for a crime under this section, such person and his wife, or husband, as the case may be, may, if such person thinks fit, be called, sworn, examined, and cross-examined as an ordinary witness in the case.
— http://www.geocities.com/jpadfield13/exploact.html#exploact1883

Why explosives need to be such a special case, I don't know. Maybe it's this sort of thing which makes it such an arduous task.
More reading at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40033-bb.htm

Disclaimer: From the outset, I want to make it clear that I'm very happy with the huge steps towards equality, and I don't want to come across as ungrateful, but...
This is now another reason why I'm not happy with the Civil Parnership as it stands. For starters different-sex couples are not eligible so it creates an Us-Them divide. "You can't have proper marriage, but we'll give you something else to shut you up". One of the reasons given against allowing same sex couples to have a Marriage (under the Marriage Act of 1949) was the alleged arduous task of rewording the legislation. The fact that so many other Acts have been amended thus far blows away that argument.

How's that for a dramatic thing to see on Christmas Eve morning? :-)

Comments

[vampwillow]

couple comprised of gender 'a' and gender 'a': Civil partnership
couple comprised of gender 'a' and gender 'b': Civil marriage

Mostly, it is in the terminology ... and the latter option can, of course, have "religious marriage" if they are practicing (or fake) members of certain belief systems in this country - the others still need the civil marriage alongside their religious ceremony.

AISI, the *ONLY* reason to not permit same-gender couples to be "married" (which, I note is what the press are terming it, quote marks and all) is that there is some supposed "sanctity of marriage" that would be destroyed were two men or two women allowed to get "married".

That'll be the same sanctity that endorses getting married for a bet, for a tv show, because you happen to be in Reno, famous, whatever ... and get divorced five days later. hrrrrmph!

[mattp.livejournal.com]

*wry smile* Yeah, I'd noticed the use of quotation marks too. And I fully agree about the so-called sanctity being diminished, and use some of the same examples to challenge people who offer that line of argument.

It just goes to add to the Us-Them divide, and the less-informed assume that equality has now been achieved because they assume can get married because the press keep using that word.

</Grumpt>

Ooh, that reminds me. I want to get the book Is it just me or is everything shit, because it appeals to my cynical nature.

[mhw.livejournal.com]

Couldn't agree more.

Merry Christmas, love!

[jojomojo.livejournal.com]

As I'm sure you're aware, it used to be that a witness could not be required to bear testimony against their spouse in common law. As for explosives as an exception, wasn't this about the time anarchists were terrifying Europe with big round bombs? Sounds like a 19th century War on Terror sort of thing.