Become A Member | Forum | Profiles | Personals | Classifieds | See Who's Online ...
 
View Topic
  Message Boards : Current Affairs : View Topic : 103 Posts, Page 2 of 7
  HomeNewNoticesHot TopicsPollsStatsBlogs Login / Register
 
This Gay Marriage Thing Has Really Taken Off !
 
# 16 : Sunday 17-12-2017 @ 21:50
 
 
Someone said :
You are right about the children but h3s not dying so he could live for years

They can't go ahead with it now anyway

Why?
Reply
 
 Recent Message Board Topics
Dance/Electronic Recommendations
What Song Are You Listening To Now?!?!
Keep/Repeal The 8th, Referendum?
Bored Horny
The Amazing Facts Thread
What To See At The Cinema 33 1/3
Dead Thread 2018
Gay Districts In Cities: Under Fire From Rising Property Prices
 
Hey! If you enjoy shooting the breeze with like-minded people, check out
our Message Boards
• Advice • Coming Out
• Computers • Current Affairs
• Discussion • Food & Drink
• Going Out • Humour
• Health • Music
• Newbies • Sexual Issues
# 17 : Sunday 17-12-2017 @ 22:11
 
 
Someone said :
Why?

They planned it for the 22nd originally, but "due to the weather" they had postponed it to January as of yesterday.

Me think they have been told off by the Cashel's Registrar...
They will probably fall foul of the legislation introduced to slow down or stop marriages of convenience.

Interestingly, the 2016 legislation only considers the possibility of marriages of convenience where one of the party is a foreigner. So I suspect the Registrar may have raised the issue of the validity of the marriage, and of the consent, on slightly different grounds.
Reply
 
# 18 : Sunday 17-12-2017 @ 23:41
 
 
Someone said :
They planned it for the 22nd originally, but "due to the weather" they had postponed it to January as of yesterday.

Me think they have been told off by the Cashel's Registrar...
They will probably fall foul of the legislation introduced to slow down or stop marriages of convenience.

Interestingly, the 2016 legislation only considers the possibility of marriages of convenience where one of the party is a foreigner. So I suspect the Registrar may have raised the issue of the validity of the marriage, and of the consent, on slightly different grounds.

But Michael McDowell former AG and former Justice Minister claims it is legal
Reply
 
# 19 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 00:02
 
 
Someone said :
But Michael McDowell former AG and former Justice Minister claims it is legal

As I said, we hall find out.
He is not the Pythia of Delphi... nor am I.

It does not seem that insincerity of intent is valid impediment to marriage. (As opposed to consanguinity/kinship, intellectual disability, unresolved marital status or sham marriage with a foreigner, or forma issues with the Registrar, the venue or the legal declarations...)

But who knows... it will be interesting to see if they intend to go ahead with the sham.
Reply
 
# 20 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 02:27
 
 
Personally, I really don’t see the problem with it. They are not doing it to make a mockery of same-sex marriage but I’m sure some LGBT people will be unhappy with this. Also I don’t think very many heterosexual people will go for this. This will be rare.
Reply
 
# 21 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 03:15
 
 
I'd totally go for Sham Gay marriage if it put some other guys hand in my pocket instead of the Governments.. Down with inheritance Tax & that type of thing..
Reply
 
# 22 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 08:15
 
 
Someone said :
I'd totally go for Sham Gay marriage if it put some other guys hand in my pocket instead of the Governments.. Down with inheritance Tax & that type of thing..

Grand so; Can we take the roads and hospitals off you.
Reply
 
# 23 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 08:17
 
 
Someone said :
As I said, we hall find out.
He is not the Pythia of Delphi... nor am I.

It does not seem that insincerity of intent is valid impediment to marriage. (As opposed to consanguinity/kinship, intellectual disability, unresolved marital status or sham marriage with a foreigner, or forma issues with the Registrar, the venue or the legal declarations...)

But who knows... it will be interesting to see if they intend to go ahead with the sham.

But you and spieeman were making statements he is breaking the law but a legal expert said he isn't
Reply
 
# 24 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 08:31
 
 
I'm a bit surprised, I thought it would have been a no-brain fraud. I would have thought that the intent behind the contract would have been important.
Reply
 
# 25 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 09:25
 
 
McDowell?

any relative of the homeowner could throw that " marriage" out and take the house .

Strange that McDowell the representative of the legal profession would skip over the other legal requirements of marriage and indeed the other legal questions in this case but of course if he gave free clear information cases wouldn't end up in the courts where they make all of their money ...

Reply
 
# 26 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 09:58
 
 
Someone said :
McDowell?

any relative of the homeowner could throw that " marriage" out and take the house .

Strange that McDowell the representative of the legal profession would skip over the other legal requirements of marriage and indeed the other legal questions in this case but of course if he gave free clear information cases wouldn't end up in the courts where they make all of their money ...

Right so

You have more legal knowledge than the former AG
Reply
 
# 27 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 10:18
 
 
Someone said :
Right so

You have more legal knowledge than the former AG

So you don't think any relative of the homeowner couldn't get that marriage thrown out of court and reclaim the house as their inheritance?
And of course he has a relative everybody has.
Reply
 
# 28 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 10:35
 
 
Someone said :
But you and spieeman were making statements he is breaking the law but a legal expert said he isn't

I did?
I called it a sham after the post where you say "but it is legal": many a sham is legal!
I said they might fall foul of the law, before that post, and added that the registrar may have been raising concerns on that ground or slightly different grounds. Again, that does not mean he is breaking the law, just that he may be faced with objections and delays whose legal foundations would need to be tested.

They are making a mockery of marriage, as so many other people have in the past, in straight or gay relationships.
The issue is that they are advertising their intent to do it to defraud Revenue. (Though one could argue it is only defrauding the Revenue if the marriage is illegal, but they state themselves that their intent is fraudulent)

It will be up to Revenue to see if they have grounds to take actions, and/or for the law makers to create the same safeguards that would have been needed for other arranged marriages designed to preserve financial assets.

Also, if they contract life insurance, the life insurance company may refuse to pay out on te basis that the marriage was not contracted between spouses (for which no definition exist in law as such, apart from defining and being define by marriage!)

If this goes ahead, we may just have into a society that accepts to define spouses as

We are facing the same issue as we had with convenience marriages...

So as I said... we will find out!

Now, just to drive the point further on the possibility if declaring the marriage void after the fact, there is a provision that a judge can declare a marriage void if:
At the time of the marriage, there was a lack of consent. In other words, you or your spouse did not give free and fully informed consent to the marriage. This may be due to duress, (i.e., you were forced into the marriage), mistake, misrepresentation or fraud .

The last bit could be grounds for a Registrar to rise concerns that they expressed an intend to go around Revenue rules. But technically they will not have left any paper trail as nothing in what they sign to notify an intention to marry, or what they said when they get married.

One tricky bit could be the exchange of rings.
Before, the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage was that in a marriage, the exchange of rings was a mandatory part of the civil ceremony for marriage only.
So based on the current wording of the civil marriage instrument, one may argue that the words spoken at that time may not be truthful, and may void the marriage. But if that were the case, then infidelity prior and during marriage would e cause for dissolution, which it is not...

So I will say it again: we will find out! In time.
(And I suspect the delay is not weather related, as I cannot imagine them wanting a big media-circus wedding with a kissing of the grooms)

And eventually it may be judges that it is the abuse of a legal situation.
That cannot be excluded!
Reply
 
# 29 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 10:48
 
 
But will the public ministry be bothered to fight this? Unlikely. Will the Revenue makes sure that they are hit with all the obligations linked to marriage, including:
- mean-testing allowances
- re-evaluating the carer's status and past payments
- re qualifying their past relationship as a "cohabiting couple" if they shared the same house but declared in the past to being single
- etc . Certainly! Will some insurance look back at their declaration of being "single" when a marriage would mean that all that time they were "cohabiting couples". Certainly! So I will say it again: we will find out!

Actually that raises another question as regards the hierarchy of relationships:
For the purposes of this Part, a cohabitant is one of 2 adults (whether of the same or the opposite sex) who live together as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship and who are not related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relationship or married to each other or civil partners of each other.

It would be hard to argue that marriage itself does not involve them "liv[ing] together as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship."
Reply
 
# 30 : Monday 18-12-2017 @ 10:55
 
 
Someone said :
So you don't think any relative of the homeowner couldn't get that marriage thrown out of court and reclaim the house as their inheritance?
And of course he has a relative everybody has.

What legal requirements for marriage are they breaking?
Reply
 
Prev 1234567Next