political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Useless Fact of the Day: No 94
Did you know that if you are gay and get hitched in a civil partnership you can't get an annulment because of non-consummation? Just thought I'd share that with you.
I hate to be pedantic (because I know how irritating it is) but surely consummation implies in law that sexual intercourse is involved... bringing me to my second article of pedantry: sexual intercourse is strictly a heterosexual phenomenon. Thus a homosexual relationship can never be consummated in the true sense - so I wouldn't expect to be able to end a civil partnership on that basis.
yes I did know that - the Civil Partnerships Act started life as a back-bench 10-Minute Rule Bill introduced by yours truly. But you can get a divorce without really having to give a reason, so long as both agree. As for non-consummation, there are many lesbian couples of whom, er, you wouldn't quite know how to put the question...
I was involved working on the Act and we drafted an 'adultery' equivalent clause. When we met with the Minister and her civil servants to discuss it, they awkwardly explained why it would be technically difficult to enforce. To make it absolutely lawyer-proof would have involved the use of words and phrases which we all agreed it was best not to allow the House of Lords to debate...
Never mind that - Soddem and Begorrah are about to be flooded - see the latest on BBC Climate Change News 24 - run for the hills - we're all doomed !!!
We should get together Jailhouse. My cell or yours?
Iain will you please get a grip? Bit tedious and very childish don't you think?
Annulment? Isn't it the Pope that grants that? And doesn't it require proven virginity of the female - clearly the norm for a catholic heterosexual ahead of marriage!
To make it absolutely lawyer-proof would have involved the use of words and phrases which we all agreed it was best not to allow the House of Lords to debate...
Didn't stop Sir Nicky Fairbairn during a similar debate in the Commons, as I recall...
"we all agreed it was best not to allow the House of Lords to debate... "
Not the best place to toss around sodomistic language. It is rarely a packed place so you would have been unlikely to see a messed debate from the red benches.
Heydrich If only we could connect their thrusting bottoms to some kind of cam and connect it to a generator then we would have a cheap and reliible source of electricity , they exist on a diet of amyl nitrate and sushi.
So when you finally make it as an MP, (although by then sex will be a fond memory) You can always introduce a private membember's bill to amend the act. Wish you luck!!
praguetory, you wanted a source. Sad (gay) man that I am, I read the bill when it was going through and I can confirm that Iain is 100% correct. I am sure the text of the act is on the HMSO website or somewhere.
It is not a useless fact but it is obvious....getting an annulment is not easy if you look at the grounds.
The real question Iain is if the Law Commission plays around with cohabition and makes people legally-partnered by virtue of the fact that they share a house it means only by having two housemates or maintaining separate households, or sleeping with your brother can you avoid having court action when you dump your boyfriend
Now that is bizarre - to lose the choice about civil partnership and to be automatically registered
Quentin Davies wrote to Dave Cameron "Although you have many positive qualities you have three, superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions, which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve."
Iain, it's good that you mention this aspect of the Civil Partnership Act, but I disagree with your characterization of it as a "useless fact". Rather, it represents just one several ways in which the Govt sought to "de-sexualize" the Civil Partnership Act, and by extension de-sexualize same-sex relationships, in a way which, in my view, reflects a prevailing heteronormativity (that is to say, it reflects, and also reinforces, the social and political forces that force us to conform to heterosexual norms).
It is why, as a gay man, I am ambivalent about the Civil Partnership Act and what it reveals about what the Govt, and society more generally, thinks about same-sex relationships.
And it is why I'm uncomfortable when the Civil Partnership Act is identified as one of Blair's achievements. This assessment, in my mind, overlooks the important ways in which the Civil Parternship Act is ambivalent about same-sex relationships.
Although most members will be glad to see the back of this dripping wet europhile it is also true that many,many members are "thinking what he's thinking" about dave.
Neither can you get a divorce for unfaithfulness. But then again, that's probably just as well knowing most gay men...
ReplyDeleteDoes a court get to decide who gets custody of the dogs?
ReplyDeleteA major bone of contention in many heterosexual break ups
Who is your source for this one?
ReplyDeleteI hate to be pedantic (because I know how irritating it is) but surely consummation implies in law that sexual intercourse is involved... bringing me to my second article of pedantry: sexual intercourse is strictly a heterosexual phenomenon. Thus a homosexual relationship can never be consummated in the true sense - so I wouldn't expect to be able to end a civil partnership on that basis.
ReplyDeleteyes I did know that - the Civil Partnerships Act started life as a back-bench 10-Minute Rule Bill introduced by yours truly. But you can get a divorce without really having to give a reason, so long as both agree. As for non-consummation, there are many lesbian couples of whom, er, you wouldn't quite know how to put the question...
ReplyDeletehow many tory mps voted against the civil partneship Act?
ReplyDeleteI was involved working on the Act and we drafted an 'adultery' equivalent clause. When we met with the Minister and her civil servants to discuss it, they awkwardly explained why it would be technically difficult to enforce. To make it absolutely lawyer-proof would have involved the use of words and phrases which we all agreed it was best not to allow the House of Lords to debate...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteToo much information! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteNever mind that - Soddem and Begorrah are about to be flooded - see the latest on BBC Climate Change News 24 - run for the hills - we're all doomed !!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIs something troubling you Iain? :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWe should get together Jailhouse. My cell or yours?
ReplyDeleteIain will you please get a grip? Bit tedious and very childish don't you think?
Annulment? Isn't it the Pope that grants that? And doesn't it require proven virginity of the female - clearly the norm for a catholic heterosexual ahead of marriage!
I think you'll find dearest homophobic anon 12:30 that the correct expression is:
ReplyDelete"I'm not gay but I help out when they're short handed"
Usually followed by boyf collapsing in gales of laughter.
Dale's poodles are proving spectacularly hilarious in a mature kind of way today.
To make it absolutely lawyer-proof would have involved the use of words and phrases which we all agreed it was best not to allow the House of Lords to debate...
ReplyDeleteDidn't stop Sir Nicky Fairbairn during a similar debate in the Commons, as I recall...
"We should get together Jailhouse. My cell or yours?"
ReplyDeleteMine.
Can you bring the strap-on this time please?
"The organisations I belong to disown me and every word of this thing long before the cock crows."
ReplyDeleteOoooerr... I love it when you talk dirty.
What time of day does your cock crow, Chris?
I wonder - does felching count?......
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"we all agreed it was best not to allow the House of Lords to debate... "
ReplyDeleteNot the best place to toss around sodomistic language. It is rarely a packed place so you would have been unlikely to see a messed debate from the red benches.
Well I'll be b*****ed!
ReplyDeleteI kiss cats.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe worst thread I have ever seen on here Iain. Couldn't we just fix the problem by burning gays to solve our energy problems?
ReplyDeleteWill this be affecting you directly in the short term Iain?!!!
ReplyDeleteI was quite shocked when my eye caught a headline in today's paper: "Sizzling Gay runs fastest 200m".
ReplyDeleteThe article was of course in reference to a sports meeting somewhere or other. (But it did not say who was chasing him...)
.... amazing what you learn on this blog....
ReplyDeleteIf I keep reading I'll get a NVQ (not very qualified) in applied sociology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHeydrich
ReplyDeleteIf only we could connect their thrusting bottoms to some kind of cam and connect it to a generator then we would have a cheap and reliible source of electricity , they exist on a diet of amyl nitrate and sushi.
So when you finally make it as an MP, (although by then sex will be a fond memory) You can always introduce a private membember's bill to amend the act. Wish you luck!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletepraguetory, you wanted a source. Sad (gay) man that I am, I read the bill when it was going through and I can confirm that Iain is 100% correct. I am sure the text of the act is on the HMSO website or somewhere.
ReplyDelete**************
ReplyDeleteQUENTIN DAVIES DEFECTS TO LABOUR
***************
It is not a useless fact but it is obvious....getting an annulment is not easy if you look at the grounds.
ReplyDeleteThe real question Iain is if the Law Commission plays around with cohabition and makes people legally-partnered by virtue of the fact that they share a house it means only by having two housemates or maintaining separate households, or sleeping with your brother can you avoid having court action when you dump your boyfriend
Now that is bizarre - to lose the choice about civil partnership and to be automatically registered
Davies is pro-EU and I think he does not like the way the conservatives are going i.e pushing for a referendum. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
ReplyDeleteSo no annulment because of non-consummation?
ReplyDelete....Talk about getting shafted.
And what about Quentin Davies did I hear someone say?
ReplyDeleteAnother defection?! PERFECTLY timed to screw us over as much as possible?
ReplyDeleteFux sake!!!!
Why not just boot out every single bloody Europhile/Clarkite out the party?
They cause nothing but trouble!
HAHAHAHAHA RATS SINKING SHIP!!
ReplyDelete**************
ReplyDeleteCHRIS PAUL DEFECTS TO CONSERVATIVES
***************
would it be rude it intrude on private grief
ReplyDeleteThis is yet another example of how awful Browns Labour is.
ReplyDeleteAll he can attract is elderly Clarkites into the fold.
He is doomed.
"no annulment because of non-consummation?"
ReplyDeleteThe MPs wanted to put it in but they couldn't be ***ed! Not even Quentin Davies the sheep abuser.
Quentin Davies wrote to Dave Cameron "Although you have many positive qualities you have three, superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions, which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve."
ReplyDeleteThis brings to mind John Hegleys comments about tourng on the Isle of Mann.
ReplyDeleteHe queried if he was still comitting an offence when "he entered Douglas"!
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIain, it's good that you mention this aspect of the Civil Partnership Act, but I disagree with your characterization of it as a "useless fact". Rather, it represents just one several ways in which the Govt sought to "de-sexualize" the Civil Partnership Act, and by extension de-sexualize same-sex relationships, in a way which, in my view, reflects a prevailing heteronormativity (that is to say, it reflects, and also reinforces, the social and political forces that force us to conform to heterosexual norms).
ReplyDeleteIt is why, as a gay man, I am ambivalent about the Civil Partnership Act and what it reveals about what the Govt, and society more generally, thinks about same-sex relationships.
And it is why I'm uncomfortable when the Civil Partnership Act is identified as one of Blair's achievements. This assessment, in my mind, overlooks the important ways in which the Civil Parternship Act is ambivalent about same-sex relationships.
Although most members will be glad to see the back of this dripping wet europhile it is also true that many,many members are "thinking what he's thinking" about dave.
ReplyDeleteOh dear, the Tory homophobes have really had a field day on this one.
ReplyDeleteIain,
ReplyDeleteIs this a likely scenario then?