|
Real0ne -> RE: Democracy or Republic -- Which Gives Gays More Rights? (5/23/2010 11:19:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
So The Marriage Act 1753 didnt make it over the pond pre-rebellion then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753
And nothing like it, by which "common law marriage" was specifically abolished (though it had never been in the first place), was subsequently enacted?
That must make property, estate and trust law problematic?
E
yeh for the guv :)
here we have the unlimited right to contract.
People have to know and understand the law because turn on mees operate under the courts and will always put you into leegoeland.
I did find this kind of cute which in fact proves my points about sovereignity.
The common but mistaken assumption that a simple exchange of consent would suffice is based on later, erroneous readings of ecclesiastical case law: such an exchange created a binding contract to marry rather than a legal marriage.[4]
[edit] The effects of the Act
The Act tightened the existing ecclesiastical rules regarding marriage, providing that for a marriage to be valid it had to be performed in a church and after the publication of banns[5] or the obtaining of a licence.[6] Jews and Quakers were exempted from its provisions, although the Act did not go so far as to declare such marriages valid and it was many years before their legal standing was assured. Nor did the Act apply to members of the British Royal Family. Indeed, members of the Royal Family have been consistently exempted from all general legislation relating to marriage since this date, which is why doubts were expressed in 2005 about the ability of Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles in a civil ceremony,[7] civil marriage being the creation of statute law.[8] It was also provided that the 1753 Act had no application to marriages celebrated overseas or in Scotland.[9]
The Act was highly successful in its stated aim of putting a stop to clandestine marriages, i.e., valid marriages performed by an Anglican clergyman but not in accordance with the canons. Thus the notorious practice of clandestine Fleet Marriages associated with London’s Fleet Prison was ended,[10] although there were various short-lived and abortive attempts to claim exemption for the Savoy Chapel in the Strand[11] and the parish of Temple in Cornwall. The early death of the Savoy’s minister on board ship while waiting to be transported for his flouting of the Act may have discouraged others from making similar claims, even if his demise was due to gout rather than to the conditions of his imprisonment.[12]
|
|
|
|
