New UK marriage regulations from 1st February

I think the government, and any government has the right to legislate who gets married in their country and for what reason.  I personally wouldn't think that I had the right to go to any country  without conforming to their laws and requirements.  And like Britwife pointed out, in the US you can't even go to a different state without running into different laws and  regulations.

I think the government, and any government has the right to legislate who gets married in their country and for what reason.  I personally wouldn't think that I had the right to go to any country  without conforming to their laws and requirements.  And like Britwife pointed out, in the US you can't even go to a different state without running into different laws and  regulations.

Well said, Mindy!  Too right. 

  It does not have the right to make a buck in an unreasonable or unfair manner.  Those of you who think the government has the right to take extra money simply because it needs it, why don't you donate an extra hundred pounds to Inland Revenue?

Respectfully, I do. That's to say as a singleton, I don't get the tax deductions that the government gives to married people.

Respectfully, I do. That's to say as a singleton, I don't get the tax deductions that the government gives to married people.

I don't know enough about UK taxes, but in the US, married people sometimes pay more than singles, sometimes less, depending on the situation. When I was in a same sex relationship, I calculated how much taxes we would pay if we could file as a married couple. We would have paid much more taxes if we could file as married, because her income was much lower than mine, so filing as a married couple would have brought her into a higher tax bracket. Depends on the individual case.

People with children get tax deductions to help pay for raising their children, but you don't have to be married to have children.

When I talked about donating 100 pounds, I meant voluntarily. A donation is, by definition, voluntarily. My point was that it's easy to say the government has the right to collect revenue when it's coming from someone else's pocket.

As for the point that someone who can afford a destination wedding at a Scottish castle can afford a visa fee; well someone who can afford a destination wedding at a Scottish castle isn't likely to move to the UK in order to go on the dole, either.

Well, in practical terms, it doesn't really matter what, ethically, the government has a right to do.  However, speaking legally rather than ethically,  I know that the new rules have been protested on the grounds that:
1) The fact that people who marry in the Church of England are exempt is a form of religious discrimination.
2) The rules violate the right of every human being  to have the freedom to form a family, as stated in the International Declaration of Human Rights.


I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

The new regulations are not going to stop anyone from legally marrying or forming a family and therefore not in violation of the IDHR. 

Sorry, Universal Declaration, not International.

It's implied that the right to marry means the right to marry someone of one's choice.Otherwise,  it means that a 12 year old girl who is forced to marry her 50-year old uncle, who has been raping her since she was 6, is enjoying the protection of her "rights." (She got married, didn't she?)



It's ironic that a country that has had a monarchy for thousands of years expects people to marry for love.  I also find it interesting that some of the people here who say that a couple that want to visit the UK to marry, and not even stay in the country, should have to jump through hoops are the same people who say that having to  take an exam to become a UK citizen is too much trouble. I guess it's alright as long as someone else is doing the hoop-jumping.

I also find it interesting that some of the people here who say that a couple that want to visit the UK to marry, and not even stay in the country, should have to jump through hoops are the same people who say that having to  take an exam to become a UK citizen is too much trouble. I guess it's alright as long as someone else is doing the hoop-jumping.

Well I'm one of those who has no problem w/the new UK marriage regulations OR taking exam/providing proof I speak English to naturalise. 

Either play by the rules or don't come.  It's very simple, and it's no more than the US government expects from its own citizens as well.

Hardly the same hoops - applying for a visa for a sepcific purpose is not comparable to a citizenship exam.  I also don't see where anyone is being forced to marry against their will by the new requirement so not really sure where you're coming from with your "It's implied that the right to marry means the right to marry someone of one's choice."  No-one is being denied the right to marry anyone, there are just some rules about geting married in the UK. If you don't like it, you can get married somewhere else.  If you want to talk about denial of human rights, may I suggest you choose a more Draconian regime as your target, Saudi Arabia perhaps or Yemen?

  If you want to talk about denial of human rights, may I suggest you choose a more Draconian regime as your target, Saudi Arabia perhaps or Yemen?

Bad logic.

Or, in childhood terms, "two wrongs don't make a right."

I beg to differ, requiring people to get a visa is hardly on the same level as lopping off a guy's hand for stealing a carrot.

I am not quite sure where you are going with this debate sweetpeach, but since you seem convinced that someone's fundamental human rights are being horribly  violated by this new law will you be startiing a letter writing campaign?  I notice that none of the leading human rights defenders (eg, Amnesty Int, Human Rights Watch, Liberty) have taken up the cudgels yet.

It is perfectly within a country's rights to make anyone who wants to come to that country - for whatever reason - to jump through whatever hoops it wishes.

And you either do or you don't.  Simple as that.

Hardly the same hoops - applying for a visa for a sepcific purpose is not comparable to a citizenship exam.

Yes. Being allowed to vote and serve on a jury should be more difficult.

I also don't see where anyone is being forced to marry against their will by the new requirement so not really sure where you're coming from with your "It's implied that the right to marry means the right to marry someone of one's choice."  No-one is being denied the right to marry anyone, there are just some rules about geting married in the UK.

I wanted to make it clear that I never meant to imply that I, personally, think there's a violation of human rights. I was just reporting what other people are saying, and trying to explain the reasoning  behind it.  I just think the new marriage rules are unnecessary and are going to cost the UK lots of money in tourism.

edit: Cross-posted with the next 2 posts with Peedal and Britwife. The above was written before I read those 2 posts.



 

The new marriage regulations don't deny the universal right to marry, they regulate the consumer enactment of that right.

The UK government isn't prohibiting marriage, it's saying this: if foreigners want to consume governmental resources (since it is ultimately the State, not the Church or Temple or Synagogue that certifies the marriage), then they must pay a licensing fee for the State's "labor". Citizens pay for this in a number of ways, but mainly through taxes. Visitors do not. In a free market, these consumers can choose to marry elsewhere, at home, in other European lands, etc.

The issues of the citizenship exam and the marriage regulations are slightly different, since, at this point, no explicit fee is being proposed to take the exam. I'm not sure that anyone is saying that there shouldn't be an exam; it's just that clearly it's another administrative hassle and conceptually I have very little confidence in this government to make a proper test that actually is about the mechanics of British and EU civil society and State protocols, rather than some thinly veiled cultural racism.

'There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. '
Louis Armstrong

Bumping what I actually said.



Quote from: sweetpeach on January 23, 2005, 04:25:01 AM




However, speaking legally rather than ethically,  I know that the new rules have been protested on the grounds that:
1) The fact that people who marry in the Church of England are exempt is a form of religious discrimination.
2) The rules violate the right of every human being  to have the freedom to form a family, as stated in the International Declaration of Human Rights.


Just reporting what others have argued.

I really just meant to say that because the new laws are being protested--when  the Superintendent Registrar at Leeds emailed me, she expressed her dislike for them--there's a chance that they might be changed.
 
« Last Edit: Today at 10:45:53 AM by sweetpeach »  Report to moderator    70.23.29.26