View Single Post
  #8  
Old 11 December 2018, 02:17 AM
kia's Avatar
kia kia is offline
 
Join Date: 07 February 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
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.
Reply With Quote