Marriage (1 Viewer)

[Ziff]

Just for your reference if you want to use it in an essay or assignment:

S. 43 Family Law Act 1975
The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to:
"the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life"

S. 46 Marriage Act 1961
Subject to subsection (2), before a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, not being a minister of religion of a recognized denomination, the authorized celebrant shall say to the parties, in the presence of the witnesses, the words:

"I am duly authorized by law to solemnize marriages according to law. "Before you are joined in marriage in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter. "Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."; or words to that effect.

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by Ziff
"Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."; or words to that effect.

Thanks Ziff, your my hero!

The very last words in that sentence is ambiguouis. LoLz, time for litigation!

 

[Ziff]

Originally posted by santaslayer
Thanks Ziff, your my hero!

The very last words in that sentence is ambiguouis. LoLz, time for litigation!

That's a direct quote from the legislation but I'm sure that any FmCA judge or the government would still hand your arse to you on a plate.

 

[~*HSC 4 life*~]

Ziff, will u marry me?

 

[Ziff]

Maybe.

 

[adamj]

Re: Re: Marriage

Originally posted by santaslayer
Thanks Ziff, your my hero!

The very last words in that sentence is ambiguouis. LoLz, time for litigation!

You can't apply the Golden Rule here, its crystal clear what the court means and there is Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee to back it up.

If you want litigation, wait till I complete Family Law first, that way no more precedents. lol

 

[Ziff]

Just for your reference if you want to use it in an essay or assignment:

S. 43 Family Law Act 1975
The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to:
"the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life"

S. 46 Marriage Act 1961
Subject to subsection (2), before a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, not being a minister of religion of a recognized denomination, the authorized celebrant shall say to the parties, in the presence of the witnesses, the words:

"I am duly authorized by law to solemnize marriages according to law. "Before you are joined in marriage in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter. "Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."; or words to that effect.

Just a quick thing regarding the Marriage Act this is before Howard has tampered with it yet. I don't understand why he wants to insert that same term again into the Act?

I know that other changes are being done so homosexual marriages from overseas are not recognised, but this on in particular when the definition is already in there?

 

[santaslayer]

Just a quick thing regarding the Marriage Act this is before Howard has tampered with it yet. I don't understand why he wants to insert that same term again into the Act?

I know that other changes are being done so homosexual marriages from overseas are not recognised, but this on in particular when the definition is already in there?

The first Act is in regards to it's definition and its jurisdictional powers.

The second Act is in regards to the procedure which legally binds the ceremony. ie. The minister is to remind them of the legal contract they are about to enter.

Is that what your asking?

 

[Ziff]

No. Howard's proposed changes to the Marriage Act, what exactly are they going to do?

 

[santaslayer]

It isn't just a proposed change to the Marriage Act, but also the FLA and others. Some changes include:

1) The Government proposal, would insert into the Marriage Act “the commonly accepted definition of a marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life”. This would prevent couples who marry in overseas jurisdictions that formalise same-sex unions, such as Canada and some states in the US, from having their marriages legally recognised in Australia.

That answers your first question about the definition thingy I guess.

2) Amendments to the Family Law Act that would ensure same-sex couples will not be eligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement concerning the adoption of children to which Australia is a party.

3) Proposed changes to the superannuation laws would, however, allow same-sex partners to receive superannuation death benefits taxed at the dependent’s concessional rate rather than the existing 30 per cent rate for non-dependents.

That's all I remember for now. Here's a brief insight into the changes I just found.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html?oneclick=true