Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
In the crazy world of English law and taxes, such things are possible if farcical.
See the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7376925.stm
BigCloset TopShelf
TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
The Hatbox
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
The Law is an Ass
I heard it on BBC Radio Five Live this afternoon and I recommend reading this link. It shows just how cock-eyed our legislation can be here in the UK. Who was it said "The Law is an Ass!"?
Gabi
Gabi.
Mr. Bumble said that.
It was in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist.
Mr. Ram
Re: The Law is an . . .
That would be Mr. Bumble, from the movie 'Oliver'. The line was in response to the statement that 'in the eyes of the law' it is assumed that his wife acts under his direction, to which he promptly replies ...
Penny
re: Emma
Hi
Yes, things are hard as they are, but they are better than they were for a lot of people. GRC gives a lot of benefits. It is upsetting for those whose partners stay with them, as they loose out. I'm not going to say more as I don't want to get political and talk about the spineless government.
However, it is a shame that Emma was not asked about this. Emma mentioned elsewhere earlier that the item, which was reported in the Daily Mail first, was made up from old articles and by a journalist who hadn't spoken with Emma. Make of that what you want.
Hugs
Karen
Civil Partnerships
The sensible thing is to separate the concepts of "marriage" and "partnership".
The law should only refer to partnerships - two (or more?) individuals may form an association and gain associated tax benefits and responsibilities. (e.g. if a homosexual couple adopt/bear/surrogate a child, then they have joint and several responsibility for the child. No rights, or responsibilities, for the egg-donor, sperm-donor, or surrogate in these cases.)
Leave marriage to the churches. If a church says that a man may have four wives then that religion can recognise it, but the law should take no cognisance of it.
A heterosexual couple can have a church marriage (in any church that recognises it - divorcees may have problems) and register a civil partnership for legal purposes.
A homosexual couple can have a church marriage (in any church that recognises homosexual marriages) and register a civil partnership for legal purposes.
To take a current case in England, two elderly sisters who have lived in the same house for over fifty years, should be able to register a civil partnership so that the survivor isn't thrown out of their house when one dies.
Marriage
predates ANY of the religions out there with the possible exception of Hinduism. So why "leave it to the churches" then? I agree that the definitive marriage shouldn't be the purview of law, but not the church, either.
Trusts
That can be accomplished by a civil trust which has many of the advantages of partnerships and marriages. Some but not all. Trusts are very old and are part of the law code of nearly all jurisdictions descended from Roman law, except maybe the old communist bloc. Restrictions on trusts vary from place to place but a good lawyer (solicitor) should be able to sort it out. Trust law is simple compared to corporate law but it isn't for amateurs, usually. I used to sell trusts when I was an insurance agent but I always got a lawyer to draw them up.
- Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.