snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Soapbox Derby (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)
-   -   Judge declines to nullify marriage after sex change (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=97204)

Jusenkyo no Pikachu 10 December 2018 04:41 AM

Judge declines to nullify marriage after sex change
 
This is a weird one, folks:

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nat...05-p50kda.html

(To clarify: they want to stay married, they just want it re-done as a same-sex couple)

crocoduck_hunter 10 December 2018 06:35 AM

That's just an odd story all around. I'm not sure how to react.

Esprise Me 10 December 2018 08:22 AM

There was a reference to being in legal limbo; did the couple have concerns about the validity of their marriage license after one of them transitioned? Maybe they thought they needed to get married again so their new license would accurately reflect their genders?

Jusenkyo no Pikachu 10 December 2018 09:27 AM

I suspect it was that. Remember, we’ve only JUST legalised same-sex marriage, so we’re still working out the kinks.

Don Enrico 10 December 2018 10:58 AM

Since they don't want to continue the first marriage as a same-sex-marriage, but want to enter into a new marriage as a same sex couple, couldn't they just divorce and than re-marry? What is the legal benefit of having the first marriage declared void instead of just ending it by divorce?

What is Australian divorce law like? Does a mutually agreed divorce come with legal or economical disadvantages?

ETA: Maybe it's more a problem of the laws about transgender? When you legally change your gender in Germany as a trans person, you can have all legal documents changed so they reflect your new gender and name. I believe - though I didn't look it up - that this extends to a marriage licence, at least since same sex marriages are legal here.

Gutter Monkey 10 December 2018 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Enrico (Post 1992908)
What is Australian divorce law like? Does a mutually agreed divorce come with legal or economical disadvantages?

An Australian FtM trans friend of mine got a divorce a few years ago (partly because the relationship broke up, partly because we didn't have same sex marriage back then and he had to get a divorce before he could get his gender legally changed) and I seem to recall that one of the conditions they had to meet to get the divorce finalised was that they had to have stopped living as a couple for a significant amount of time.

Don Enrico 10 December 2018 12:52 PM

We have the same requirement here - no living as a couple for one year. But in cases where both parties agree that that is the case (and you can stop living as a couple while still living in the same flat), the court doesn't question that. Or at least not more than "It says here that you stopped living as a couple in March 2017 - is that correct? - Thank you."

A way to get by this requirement is for the court to decide that despite not being seperated for at least a year, there is no way that the couple will find back together. In the case in the OP, it seems quite clear that there is no chance for the couple - the "original couple", if you will, the one that married years ago - to come back together because one of the partners doesn't exist anymore - at least not as the person that once married.

kia 11 December 2018 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Enrico (Post 1992913)
We have the same requirement here - no living as a couple for one year. But in cases where both parties agree that that is the case (and you can stop living as a couple while still living in the same flat), the court doesn't question that. Or at least not more than "It says here that you stopped living as a couple in March 2017 - is that correct? - Thank you."

A way to get by this requirement is for the court to decide that despite not being seperated for at least a year, there is no way that the couple will find back together. In the case in the OP, it seems quite clear that there is no chance for the couple - the "original couple", if you will, the one that married years ago - to come back together because one of the partners doesn't exist anymore - at least not as the person that once married.

I think that's why they can't get divorced. If you intend to remarry, you don't qualify for the only reason you can get a legal divorce in Australia: irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Fully intending on remarrying won't qualify you. And declaring it null and void doesn't really make legal sense either. It was completely valid at the time in every legal sense.

Marriage in Australia now just makes no reference to sex or gender at all. The fact that one or both parties to a marriage could be transgender at the time of marriage or at any point during the marriage is irrelevant now. While there is definitely ethical/moral arguments for that person not "existing" any more, legally speaking that's not the case.

I can understand their motivations for this. But they could just have a new commitment ceremony/vow renewal or something. Otherwise they'll have to get a divorce under false premise (ie saying they're over) if they want to remarry.

Jusenkyo no Pikachu 11 December 2018 11:12 AM

Yes, but Government bureaucracy is low spooky voodoo that seems to think people marry their sisters (I’ve had a couple of letters addressed in that fashion, and neither of us are married), so re-doing the whole thing might make it a little less traumatic.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.