|
Post by Avril on Jul 29, 2010 23:18:59 GMT -5
Ar, kiwis're sixy. At least they leck fush'n'chups leck us!
|
|
|
Post by dragrat on Jul 30, 2010 4:13:24 GMT -5
Only saw this about a week ago, on a our national broadcaster.
|
|
|
Post by Avril on Aug 20, 2010 17:31:14 GMT -5
Gosh, I think we've just had a narrow escape! Now I know we're lucky we opted not to have a dodgy celebrant. Serious legal ramifications regarding property rights, residence visas and financial entitlements ensue from the following! Illegal vows put many marriages in doubt Adele Horin August 21, 2010 The Sydney Morning Herald
EXCLUSIVE
THOUSANDS of marriages conducted by celebrants may be invalid because the wrong words have been used in the ceremony.
Celebrants must recite precise words from the Marriage Act for a wedding to be valid beyond dispute. But almost 80 per cent of the ceremonies the federal Attorney-General's department examined last year did not comply with requirements.
Of the 336 sample ceremonies submitted by celebrants as part of their five-yearly review, 261 did not comply with sections 45 and/or 46 of the act, a spokesman for the department said.
As well, 1339 celebrants have been deregistered or chosen to resign since September 2003 as a result of their performance review.
Celebrants say the problem is a symptom of the huge numbers entering the field since deregulation in 2003, and of ''cowboy'' trainers. Some also claim an overly legalistic approach is being imposed on celebrants.
''When I check out ceremonies for new celebrants, I do find large numbers are not 100 per cent within the law,'' said Keith Lammond, the president of Australian Marriage Celebrants, a professional association. ''The most common thing they get wrong is the vow.''
A training DVD produced by the department in 2008 says: ''The vows used in a marriage ceremony are legally crucial. Not following the requirements of section 45 in the vows can result in a void or invalid marriage. There are no exceptions to this.''
It would be up to the Family Court to declare a marriage invalid and this could affect wills, residence visas and bank loans.
But Tony Gelme, the president of the Coalition of Celebrant Associations, said it would be unlikely an incorrect wedding vow would constitute sufficient grounds to nullify a marriage.
A ''distraught'' celebrant told an online forum this month that the department had found the sample ceremony she submitted in 2007 was non-compliant and
had taken three years to inform her. ''I've conducted many, many ceremonies since [then].'' She said she was worried that the ceremonies she had performed were invalid.
According to the DVD, celebrants must say: ''I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, AB (or CD), take thee, CD (or AB) to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband).'' Or words to that effect.
''Words to that effect'' once gave celebrants leeway but since 2006-07 the department has imposed a narrow legal interpretation. The celebrant can leave out ''lawful'' or ''wedded'' but not both, and can change ''persons'' to ''people'' but not to ''family and friends''. The DVD also instructs that while ''spouse'' can be used, ''partner'' must not.
A particular problem, according to postings on the Australian Marriage Celebrants online forum, is that some celebrants put the vow in question form: ''AB do you take CD to be your lawful wedded wife?'' Though CD says ''I do'', Mr Lammond advises this may not be ''worth a cracker''. The ''asking'' was not a legal requirement, just a tradition, and did not constitute the vow, he told celebrants. Celebrants must also cite words from section 46 of the act, known as the ''monitum'', which include ''marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life''.
Since Parliament defined marriage narrowly in 2004 to rule out the possibility of gay unions, the department has disallowed the use of substitute words. ''You could reverse the order of 'man' and 'woman', but that is all,'' the DVD says.
Celebrants report that some couples seek to change section 46 because of sensitivity to gay friends or relatives. But a celebrant who wanted to oblige a couple was advised: ''It wasn't worth it.'' He risked being deregistered and the marriage might be void.
The number of celebrants has grown from about 2000 in 2003 when restrictions on appointments began to be lifted to 10,400 now. They are required to gain qualifications and attend professional development each year. Mr Gelme said tighter rules introduced this year had failed to rid the industry of rogue trainers. ''We have gone off the rails in allowing so many people to be badly trained.''
|
|
|
Post by sunfrog on Aug 20, 2010 20:54:22 GMT -5
Why is marriage "for life?" Why not make it for an agreed upon number of years to see how it goes?
|
|
|
Post by PigsnieLite on Aug 20, 2010 21:13:23 GMT -5
Whut, Oztralia has nothing better to do than analyticle wedding vows? Whut about giving koalas viagra, for Gods sake? KOALAS NEED HELP!
|
|
|
Post by Avril on Aug 20, 2010 22:58:11 GMT -5
Koalas indeed need help - apart from environmental threats, they suffer from chlamydia, conjunctivitis and soggy bottom. However, do you think that viagra would help or tend to spread their highly contagious health concerns? www.koalasincare.org.au/pages/problems.htmMore to the point about our having nothing better to do, we have a Federal election today and I'm about to head out to do my duty. foreign.peacefmonline.com/politics/201008/72631.phpShall I vote for the right wing Liberal party, who are conservative, inept, out of touch and boring as well as alarmingly racist? Shall I vote for the leftish Labour party, with Australia's first ever female PM currently in power? This is the party whose right wing faction ousted the last duly elected PM Kevin Rudd, who was a pretty decent bloke. Ironically it was Rudd who swung my vote from the Greens for the first time since I enrolled to vote. Shall I go back to my old reliable conservationist Greens, whose preferences will go to Labour? Shall I find an Independent who looks pretty? Actually I don't think we have one this year! It would be ironic if Julia Gillard is toppled from power so soon after kicking out the former incumbent. I think a lot of people think it would be karma.
|
|
|
Post by Avril on Aug 20, 2010 22:59:14 GMT -5
Why is marriage "for life?" Why not make it for an agreed upon number of years to see how it goes? Hmm, I wonder how stable society would be if marriage were 'till I get a better offer and bugger me kids'?
|
|
|
Post by Avril on Aug 21, 2010 3:49:51 GMT -5
I'm watching the election vote counts commentary. It's the most closely contested election in the programme anchor's long memory. I just did a Vote-a-matic quiz to see what I should have voted. www.smh.com.au/federal-election/vote-a-matic/index.html How fascinating. My responses to the quiz scored 62.5% Labour, 6.3% Liberals, 31% Greens. That's about right on the issues and policies. I voted Greens because Labour dumped Kevin Rudd and I don't want to pay that. Greens preferences go to Labour so....I guess I still give my vote to them. Just not wholeheartedly. We're in for a long nail-biting night, I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by PigsnieLite on Aug 21, 2010 4:34:49 GMT -5
I dont like that Julia woman. Yahaaa, I hope karma is indeed a bitch. Hee.
|
|
|
Post by Avril on Aug 21, 2010 4:44:40 GMT -5
Eek, this is like that election episode on West Wing! They are neck and neck. Nobody's breaking out the champers (or the beer) just yet.
|
|
|
Post by PigsnieLite on Aug 21, 2010 4:54:59 GMT -5
Wheres Kevin Rudd now?
|
|
|
Post by Avril on Aug 21, 2010 5:00:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by PigsnieLite on Aug 21, 2010 5:08:18 GMT -5
How Amusing It would be for Julia to Lose! If she does, I will do my whirling dervish dance in Pigsnies Moroccan bathrobe!
|
|
|
Post by Avril on Aug 21, 2010 5:32:37 GMT -5
Amusing for about 30 seconds - until we realised we had a Liberal government again. Remember John Howard, the LIB PM previous to our national swing to Labour.
|
|
|
Post by PigsnieLite on Aug 21, 2010 5:35:47 GMT -5
Are the Liberals really that frightful? Here, neither Party can do much of aything, becuz we are Sooo Skint.
|
|