To be shocked at the divorce laws for same sex marriage re: adultery?

[Bogeyface]

Probably am, probably everyone else knew this except me but this is taken from the gov.uk website

"Adultery

Your husband or wife had sex with someone else of the opposite sex, and you can no longer bear to live with them.

It doesn’t count as adultery if they had sex with someone of the same sex. This includes if you’re in a same-sex marriage.

You can’t give adultery as a reason if you lived with your husband or wife for 6 months after you found out about it."

So, if you are a lesbian and your wife has sex with another lesbian then you cannot divorce her on grounds of adultery! It only counts if it is PIV sex!

I am sure, as I said, that this is just me late to the party but surely when the marriage laws where changed to allow same sex marriage then the divorce laws should have been updated at the same time? Interestingly, adultery is not grounds for ending a civil partnership, so perhaps the best thing would be to end it being grounds for divorce too in order to have parity across the board?

prh - it is true. There have been many discussions of the meaning of adultery across the years.

I was surprised, because I thought law degrees included some legal history, but perhaps they don't all.

I will say, though - some of this stuff is so easy to find out. You just need to google!

LRD - The article to which you link says, "Government legal experts failed to agree what constitutes “sex” between same-sex couples". Note that it is Government legal experts (i.e. the legally qualified Civil Servants who drafted the legislation) that could not agree, NOT MPs. Indeed, that article was written before there had been any debate in parliament on the legislation. It was prompted by the initial publication of the bill.

I've looked at the Hansard record of the relevant debate. I can find no evidence that there was any discussion about how adultery should be defined.

LRD Stonewall have some guidelines on the subject, namely

The donor will not be the legal father if both lesbian partners are treated as legal parents (since a child can only have two legal parents). This means that the donor will not be the legal father :
• If he donates to civil partners who conceive by artificial insemination at home or at a clinic
• Or if he donates to non-civil partners at a UK clinic and they sign the relevant forms to elect for the non-birth mother to be treated as the child’s second parent

He will, therefore, only be treated as the legal father if he donates through sexual intercourse, or to a couple who are not civil partners at home.

From www.stonewallscotland.org.uk/sites/default/files/pregnant_pause_with_cover_2.pdf

This is from 2009 though so if it has been updated then fair enough.

It would be one word against the other though, regarding intercourse - how can you prove that rather than using a syringe?

I thought law degrees included some legal history

They do include the history of how the law has developed. They do not include every single debate in parliament. Debates that don't result in any change in the law aren't generally relevant to understanding the current law (although I accept that is a sweeping generalisation).

some of this stuff is so easy to find out. You just need to google

Please enlighten me. I've Googled for MPs discussing the definition of adultery and can't find anything relevant.

phr, I know what it says.

If you read the full thing, it does talk about MPs too. I don't see why col finds it so unimaginable that MPs could discuss this issue, since it is clear from that piece that they will have discussed it.

I'm aware there wasn't a formal debate.

peach - YY, I was looking at the marriage legislation. A child is presumed to be a child of the marriage, and this wasn't changed when equal marriage came in.

But Lurking I married in a registry office. I entered a civil contract. I certainly didn't enter a religious one or one where I should be forced to dream up or justify the reasons why I no longer wish to be married to that person.

So did we . But the fact of the matter is the "institution of marriage" is defined by parliament, and affected - in no small degree - by the Christian heritage of the UK, plus the fact that the UK is not a secular state, but a Christian one. And will remain so as long as our head of state (The Queen) is head of the CofE and the CofE is represented in parliament (the house of lords).

We can all think what we like, but those are the facts.

Personally I think it's anachronistic (that's a polite way of saying fucking ludicrous) that in the 21st century the UK has not only an established religion, but a hereditary monarchy. But, there you go - the magic of Norman feudal rule over a millennia.

And if you can have same-sex marriage, why does polygamy not get a look in. We've already decided that marriage is not a lifelong union between a man and a woman, so surely all alternatives should be equally embraced ?

Cross post.

phr, do you distinguish between discussion and formal debate?

In one post you seem to be distinguishing, and in another you don't.

My reply was to col, who found it unimaginable that MPs would discuss this issue. I pointed out that it's already been raised. Yes? We can agree there?

If you want to google for legal history of debates on adultery, I'd try something like 'legal history of adultery in the UK' and go from there.

If you read the full thing, it does talk about MPs too

I have read the full thing. It refers to MPs saying this will lead to confusion and to some MPs suggesting that adultery will be (or should be) abolished as grounds completely. There is no reference at all to MPs discussing the definition of adultery.

It is clear from Collaborate's post that he was referring to discussions in Parliament. Of course, MPs may have discussed the definition of adultery privately as might anyone else.

do you distinguish between discussion and formal debate

Yes I do. To me, if someone says "can you imagine MPs debating X" I presume they mean a formal debate in parliament (in which I would include select committees). I would not think they were referring to informal discussions between MPs (or, indeed, private conversations between MPs and others).

Yes, but col asked if we could imagine that debate.

And I replied that it had already been discussed - so, it is hardly beyond the scope of imagination.

S/he didn't ask 'has it been debated'.

I'm a bit unclear what you're after - maybe I'm being slow?

I thought that adultery as grounds for divorce was a piece of legacy legislation. It came in in the 19th century. Being able to cite unreasonable behaviour has superseded it. Adultery in a same sex marriage wasnt included because same sex marriage didnt exist.

The original legislation quite probably had protection of family assets behind it. The concept of marriage, legitimacy, reasonable behaviour have all moved on.

I would expect adultery to be removed at some point as a specific grounds for divorce. It does seem quite anachronistic. A bit like having a separate law to cover murder by shooting when just plain murder covers it.

LRD you were clearly arguing that the definition of adultery had been debated in parliament.