tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post4027662859464665480..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Draft same sex marriage bill abolishes the terms ‘husband and wife’Peter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-19901384265506372972012-04-27T08:13:12.887-07:002012-04-27T08:13:12.887-07:00I am commenting to make you understand what a exce...I am commenting to make you understand what a excellent discovery my daughter obtained viewing your web page. She figured out many issues, including what it is like to have a great giving mindset to get other people very easily learn a variety of tricky issues. <a href="http://www.dateats.com/" rel="nofollow">transgender dating site</a>hildahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16686973411388635832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-2224426674933512502012-04-27T08:12:12.192-07:002012-04-27T08:12:12.192-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.hildahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16686973411388635832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-11925079296496092762012-02-23T20:19:36.575-08:002012-02-23T20:19:36.575-08:00Islamic Matrimonial site is having a huge no. of m...<a href="http://www.zarooratrishta.com/" rel="nofollow">Islamic Matrimonial</a> site is having a huge no. of members for you to choose from so don't miss the chance.jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08128805205481956778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-87283184787582955142012-02-23T16:39:36.298-08:002012-02-23T16:39:36.298-08:00". A same sex relationship, however committed...". A same sex relationship, however committed or permanent, is not marriage and should not be called marriage." - so your whole objection is based on the word 'marriage'? You genuinely think your own heterosexual marriage will have its existence undermined by the fact that same-sex couples can now get 'married' as well? What?T0m0akl3yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382191016163482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-87930880093743014972012-02-19T11:56:16.095-08:002012-02-19T11:56:16.095-08:00Marriage is the joining together of a man and a wo...Marriage is the joining together of a man and a woman. This is a historical reality as well as spiritual reality. If the gay community want to marry they will have to find a member of the opposite sex to be joined to. This would of course cancel out their crusade for change. Why does a community that feels it is different from want to become like that which it feels is its opposite. Marriage is not for homosexuals never has been. The law does not need to be changed. The homosexual community need to move on. If the government change the law it will be a laughing stock, like the king who was in the all together naked as the day that he was born, even though he believed he had clothes on. Some things are oviously plain for all to see and this is one of them. M.CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-63863183166577896572012-02-16T04:57:08.622-08:002012-02-16T04:57:08.622-08:00It’s all rather curious. I am not making a judgeme...It’s all rather curious. I am not making a judgement about their intention – just saying that the bill as drafted has removed the terms husband and wife from section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and replaced them with the gender-neutral term ‘marriage parties’. <br /><br />However they will now I think have to make similar changes throughout the rest of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (and I suspect a whole raft of other existing legislation) or it will simply not make sense when applied to same sex couples.<br /> <br />The problem they have is that husband and wife are sex-linked words. They either have to redefine them – which is rather more difficult – or replace them, which is what they appear to have opted for.<br /><br />Maybe they got to section 2 and realised what a big job it was and were in a hurry to get their draft bill out so just posted it anyway. <br /><br />It is odd that that the Pink News piece doesn’t even mention the change. I wonder why. Did they not think through the implications or were they deliberately trying to hide what they were doing? In other words were they being devious or are they just incompetent? <br /><br />I am not making a judgement but just highlighting the problem.<br /><br />The mystery to me with this whole thing is why they want same sex marriage when civil partnerships gives same sex couples virtually all the rights of married couples anyway. <br /> <br />It seems to be something about the word marriage that is driving them.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-74969743879242287422012-02-16T04:15:51.781-08:002012-02-16T04:15:51.781-08:00If it is true that they didn't scroll down pas...If it is true that they didn't scroll down past Section 2 of 55 then that is hilarious. But given the contents of your comment above, the headline for this article seems equally sloppy as no-one is abolishing anything, you are presuming that is their intention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-51487236119697168412012-02-16T03:33:36.188-08:002012-02-16T03:33:36.188-08:00It is true that the proposed Stonewall bill only m...It is true that the proposed Stonewall bill only makes one replacement of 'husband and wife' from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 but I think you will find that this is as a result of sloppy drafting. <br /><br />They appear only to have scrolled down to section 2 (6) of an Act which has 55 sections and two schedules and missed several other occurrences but if you look at the act it is clear that unless these are amended too it will not make sense when applied to same sex couples.<br /><br />I am not a lawyer but I suspect that there are literally hundreds of other pieces of legislation that would have to be similarly amended to accommodate same sex marriage on the statute books.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-67030731685477449282012-02-16T03:12:08.435-08:002012-02-16T03:12:08.435-08:00I think it is important to note that the Stonewall...I think it is important to note that the Stonewall proposed Bill removes the term 'husband and wife' in one place and one place only. The conclusion that this is aboloshing the terms from the marriage act is quite a leap, in fact it is very close to being misleading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com