Re: Just a counterpointramouAugust 7 2007, 03:02:09 UTC
I consider that there's a large distinction between speeding laws and this sort of law. I also have to point out that the article is highlighting the fact that it's a bigamous gay relationship, not that there's tax fraud. That part is really disturbing.
But, when interracial marriage was illegal, if you were there, would you support people who broke that law? (granted, I have clear libertarian tendencies)
Re: Just a counterpointramouAugust 7 2007, 03:03:40 UTC
Thanks for the clarification on "suspended sentence". I see that term a lot, and I always thought it was meant the sentence was put off for that amount of time to allow for current circumstances (like the fact that the woman is pregnant).
On that note, it doesn't say anything about her partner. Odd, 'cause she's clearly involved.
Hmm. It's interesting. While the lying about her marital status in order to enter the civil union is what got her into trouble, the article doesn't say whether British law allows for second "marriages" at all. I know that secondary unions of some kind (perhaps only religious) are permitted here but only the first is recognized as a legal marriage. It was a big issue for the Mormon community. I assume that whatever system allows them must allow them regardless of gender/sexuality, especially now that we have same sex marriages in this country.
Comments 5
(The comment has been removed)
But, when interracial marriage was illegal, if you were there, would you support people who broke that law? (granted, I have clear libertarian tendencies)
Reply
On that note, it doesn't say anything about her partner. Odd, 'cause she's clearly involved.
Reply
p.s. Hi. :)
Reply
That does sound like a positive step in the not-making-it-explicitly-wrong sense.
How people fight over words and thoughts. Why fight?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment