cleopatra
Cleopatra
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
- Messages
- 314
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
hey hey hey....who heard about "Kevin?"
The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. In Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, Lord Penzance defined marriage as
'the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others'
through pusuasive precedent, aust. adopted this definition and it was upheald as the basic legal definition of a marriage until the 2001 case of "Kevin".
It is a requirement of a valid ceremony of marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) that the parties be a male and a femaleat the date of their marriage . On 12 October 2001 Justice Chisholm of the Family Court of Australia handed down his decision in Re Kevin (validity of marriage of transsexual) [2001] FamCA 1074 which found that a post-operative female to male transsexual had validly married.
in lay term, kevin was a woman, became a man and is now legally allowed to marry a woman, as the social context has changed and the meaning of "a man and woman" now has different connotations.
just thought id let u kno that this exsists, cos my teacher only just found out, and the other teacher had NO CLUE!!! dont want anyone to study the wrong thing. (I did consider not lettin anyone kno, but that'd b selfish
)
does everyone else kno this? am i just at a shit skool?
The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. In Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, Lord Penzance defined marriage as
'the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others'
through pusuasive precedent, aust. adopted this definition and it was upheald as the basic legal definition of a marriage until the 2001 case of "Kevin".
It is a requirement of a valid ceremony of marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) that the parties be a male and a femaleat the date of their marriage . On 12 October 2001 Justice Chisholm of the Family Court of Australia handed down his decision in Re Kevin (validity of marriage of transsexual) [2001] FamCA 1074 which found that a post-operative female to male transsexual had validly married.
in lay term, kevin was a woman, became a man and is now legally allowed to marry a woman, as the social context has changed and the meaning of "a man and woman" now has different connotations.
just thought id let u kno that this exsists, cos my teacher only just found out, and the other teacher had NO CLUE!!! dont want anyone to study the wrong thing. (I did consider not lettin anyone kno, but that'd b selfish
)does everyone else kno this? am i just at a shit skool?
