Judge Refuses To Ctrl-Z Divorce Order Made By a Misclick (theregister.com) 202
Richard Currie reports via The Register: A simple misclick at a London law firm led to a surprise divorce for an unsuspecting couple. An employee at Vardags, self-described specialists in high-net-worth marital breakdowns, opened the wrong file when applying for a divorce in His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) online portal. With a click more potent than Cupid's arrow, the solicitor "issued a final order of divorce in proceedings between Mrs Williams, the applicant wife, and Mr Williams," court papers [PDF] say.
The digital slip occurred on October 3, and thanks to the system's "now customary speed," as described by Judge Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, marital bonds were finally and totally severed in a mere 21 minutes, less time than most couples spend arguing over what to watch on Netflix. When Vardags realized the blunder two days later, it scrambled to reverse the order. The application was made "without notice to the Husband's solicitors -- the Wife's solicitors considered at the time that this was the correct approach given that the Final Order itself had been made without notice."
In the ensuing legal melee, Mr Williams, previously unaware of his sudden single status, received a letter sent by HMCTS the same day as the accidental divorce, stating that he was no longer married. But it was not until October 11, a week later, that he was formally informed of his bachelorhood by his ex-wife's solicitors. Meanwhile, his solicitors entered the fray, demanding that the case be brought before the President of the Family Division to sort out this matrimonial muddle.
The digital slip occurred on October 3, and thanks to the system's "now customary speed," as described by Judge Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, marital bonds were finally and totally severed in a mere 21 minutes, less time than most couples spend arguing over what to watch on Netflix. When Vardags realized the blunder two days later, it scrambled to reverse the order. The application was made "without notice to the Husband's solicitors -- the Wife's solicitors considered at the time that this was the correct approach given that the Final Order itself had been made without notice."
In the ensuing legal melee, Mr Williams, previously unaware of his sudden single status, received a letter sent by HMCTS the same day as the accidental divorce, stating that he was no longer married. But it was not until October 11, a week later, that he was formally informed of his bachelorhood by his ex-wife's solicitors. Meanwhile, his solicitors entered the fray, demanding that the case be brought before the President of the Family Division to sort out this matrimonial muddle.
What was the mistake? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read through the article several times, and still can't figure out what the intended act was, and what was instead done by accident. It says they "Opened the wrong file" when applying for a divorce. What's the mistake? Are they not trying to divorce?
Re: (Score:2)
His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) online portal.
With a click more potent than Cupid's arrow, the solicitor "issued a final order of divorce in proceedings between Mrs Williams, the applicant wife, and Mr Williams,"
And why is a lawyer the one finalizing the divorce order?
Shouldn't that power solely lie with the judge (or the judge's staff)?
Re:What was the mistake? (Score:5, Informative)
It does. The article skims over a few salient facts. The couple had applied for divorce and both wanted to be divorced. But the wife was holding out for more money. Before the final order could be granted, both parties had to consent to it. (There are ways of doing divorce without both parties' consent, but they are more complex). So what the lawyers did was to fill out the electronic form on behalf of their client saying, "Yep, all good from our side" - only for the wrong client.
Re: (Score:2)
His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) online portal.
With a click more potent than Cupid's arrow, the solicitor "issued a final order of divorce in proceedings between Mrs Williams, the applicant wife, and Mr Williams,"
And why is a lawyer the one finalizing the divorce order? Shouldn't that power solely lie with the judge (or the judge's staff)?
"Issued the final order" means submitted the order to the courts for approval. This is somewhat typical, as many orders are prepared by the lawyers and simply reviewed / signed by the courts; this saves the courts (the public) time and money. It was not "finalized" until the judge actually signed off on it.
Re: (Score:2)
And why is a lawyer the one finalizing the divorce order?
Shouldn't that power solely lie with the judge (or the judge's staff)?
No, judges and courts are required for dispensing rulings on disagreements. Solicitors handle all manner of other agreements (not lawyer, solicitor, they are different).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What was the mistake? (Score:5, Informative)
Lawyer, intending to do work on divorce case A, instead opened divorce case B, and filed the divorce finalization for B, instead of the A they were intending to.
Both parties were getting divorced, but all the negotiation stuff wasn't completed yet for B.
Apparently, this has been favorable for the husband, but the lawyer firm that did the bad action is/was representing the wife. So now the husband's lawyers are going "no take backs!"
The latest judge in this seems to be taking the position that they were trying to get divorced anyways, no need to undo the divorce just to do it again.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes the party that was mistakenly divorced was applying for a divorce, but still negotiating over details. So they were prematurely divorced.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read through the article several times, and still can't figure out what the intended act was, and what was instead done by accident. It says they "Opened the wrong file" when applying for a divorce. What's the mistake? Are they not trying to divorce?
The law firm deals with divorces. After the couple has everything sorted out (who gets what, how much is alimony, etc), then it is submitted. In this case, a couple was still going through the process of splitting assets (or maybe seeing if reconciliation was still possible) when an employee accidentally submitted the case as being finalized.
I would have thought an in-person session would be required to avoid a fat-fingered mistake like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read through the article several times, and still can't figure out what the intended act was, and what was instead done by accident. It says they "Opened the wrong file" when applying for a divorce. What's the mistake? Are they not trying to divorce?
From the ensuing order from the application to set aside the divorce order:
"The solicitors have explained that the member of staff involved had intended to apply for a final order of divorce for another client, in a different divorce case, but inadvertently opened the electronic case file in ‘Williams v Williams’ and proceeded to apply for a final order in that case."
Re:What was the mistake? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've read through the article several times, and still can't figure out what the intended act was, and what was instead done by accident. It says they "Opened the wrong file" when applying for a divorce. What's the mistake? Are they not trying to divorce?
I'm not a lawyer. But I ask my lawyer friends questions all the time so I do know some stuff.
Another post says that the couple had started a divorce but had not entered into any negotiations. So the article is very unclear, but based on the seemingly weird reactions of the judge and the husband, this seems to be correct - the couple actually was headed for divorce, just not today. The judge gave the wife a hint, that while he isn't going to undo the court ruling because from his perspective the proper procedure was followed and it's not his fault that a dumbass jumped the gun on the forms, she does have the ability to potentially undo the divorce by suing her lawyers instead. My guess is that they won't make that clear to her.
Re: (Score:3)
A good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
tl;dr is, law firm had two clients wanting divorces, they accidentally submitted the file for the wrong client indicating the client agreed to the divorce with the terms provided, when the client had not.
So the husband is elated since the wife was trying to get more favorable terms.
It sounds like the wife gave the lawyers permission to act on her behalf in court (which is what being a lawyer is) and they accidentally misrepresented her position to the co
Re: (Score:2)
It's not clear where her claim would be though. Obviously the lawyers made a mistake, but under UK law you can't benefit from a mistake. For example, if someone transfers money into your bank account because of a typo, you can't keep it. You must return the money and they can use the courts if you don't.
So in this case, given that the husband knows it was a mistake, it's not clear that he can refuse to continue negotiating in good faith. If he refuses the ex-wife might be able to start civil proceedings aga
Re:What was the mistake? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not quite correct, thought the article doesn't really explain it very well. The husband was well aware of the divorce and was in fact eager for it to happen. The wife wanted the divorce to happen, but was holding out for more money. Note that the lawyers she retained are specialists in high net value divorces.
Before the final order is granted, both parties have to agree to it (there are ways of doing divorce without both parties' consent, but they are more complex and if both parties consent, that's easily the easiest way of going about it). The husband had already given this consent, the wife was withholding it in the hope of getting more money. Her lawyers accidentally filled in a form on her behalf that said, in effect, "Yep, all good from our side." The court, now having the consent of both parties, granted the divorce.
The article quotes the wife's lawyers at some length, saying how ridiculous it all is that it can't just be undone, but their financial interest in this result should not be overlooked. They have been telling her about all the money they're going to extract from her husband and now, because they made a mistake, she doesn't have the opportunity to do that. Her recourse now is to sue her lawyers for malpractice. The lawyers are now on the hook for whatever prize they dangled in front of her. If they try to argue that the settlement wouldn't have been as big as she had been led to believe, they will have to argue that their own advice was incorrect, which would in itself have been malpractice.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why people have E&O coverage (errors and omissions). And why it is expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that I am sure the attorneys were granted the power (by her) to act (and sign) on her behalf in this matter. Speculation, but PoA is standard practice in a lot of contractual dealings.
judge is right (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't want to make divorce lawyers rich... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People change.
I think the better advice would be to wait until your mid to late 30's to get married.
context missing (Score:3)
What I read (between the lines, since the actual lines don't fucking explain):
- they were getting divorced anyway (both the husband and wife have different teams of lawyers)
- someone at the wife's law firm clicked basically "ok let's call this marriage done" in some online portal
- the husbands lawyers didn't see anything wrong with that
- the judge said "okey dokey, you're divorced"
- the wife's lawyers said "wait! No! We want to undo that"
- the judge said basically that the court had followed the procedures it was supposed to, and if the wife was angry, she should file against her law firm
My inference is: very wealthy couple getting a divorce, arguing over how much she should get. Her law firm accidentally said "ok we're satisfied close this case" and his lawyers instantly agree.
So yeah, her law firm is upset because now not only are they not getting a fat % of the overly optimistic alimony they probably claimed they could get for her, they absolutely are legally exposed to get sued for that full amount themselves.
The hilarious result would be if his law firm helps her sue them. Even funnier if he pays for it.
Re: (Score:2)
the contingency fee sounds unlikely.
Last I checked, they are only legal *at all* in the US, and a crime in all other Common Law jurisdictions.
And even in the US, they are illegal in divorces, save in California.
hawk, esq.
OMG what a gift (Score:2)
This couple should follow Fates freehand
A divorce is literally a six figure enterprise unwinding the vows of State in US
Its not paper that binds, right?
Re:Easy Fix (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy Fix (Score:5, Informative)
Marriage is unrelated to any ceremonies. It's a contract with benefits regarding taxes, immigration, property, healthcare and other matters.
Whatever ceremonies you perform in any place to commemorate the occasion are legally meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage is about two people connecting, it's not inherently a religious event
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess you have that right to disagree even if you're wrong.
Lots of creatures (including humans) mate for life. There doesn't have to be a higher power to enforce it
Re: (Score:2)
Data point of 1, but no god was present during my wedding ceremony, just a retired judge, some friends and family.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also going to have to disagree on it being a "first and foremost' religious construct. That's more European, I think, and even then, it was more because the church became the main record-keeper for a fairly long period of time, they had the halls and regular meetings to announce marriages, to perform a ceremony that might make the couple more likely to stick it out, they were the ones doing counseling, etc...
It became religious, it didn't start that way, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Why do you think that a man should get tax breaks for fathering children if he's abandoned the relationship and makes no effort to help the mother either by being there or by paying child support?
Re: (Score:2)
As an agnostic, or an atheist with the honesty to admit we don't know what we don't know, however you prefer to view it, I never saw marriage as a religious construct. Religion has a lot of flowery ways to describe marriage. And the two concepts have been with us (humans in general) for about as long as we've been able to call ourselves human, so there's bound to be some cross-breeding of the constructs, but I think it's debatable that a modern person necessarily believes marriage to be religious in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And it was around several thousand years before that. Religion might want to claim it, but marriage for political reasons like maintaining power and alliances is older than Christianity, and well described before its precursors.
You might be using the word "construct" incorrectly. Better to say that religion is a proponent of marriage, or that it incorporates it.
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage is a lot older then the big religions
Re:Easy Fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy Fix (Score:5, Informative)
It's not an unintended divorce - the person they accidentally divorced early DID have divorce proceedings.
The person who hired the firm wants a divorce, and the man she divorced is happy with the order. That is why they aren't allowed to reverse it.
Thus it was over to McFarlane, who agreed with the husband's lawyers that there was no authority for setting aside a decree absolute where there had been complete procedural regularity.
The law firm is hired solely by high net-worth individuals; generally to help them get as much out of the divorce as they can
in terms of money/property/etc.
The Wife's law firm screwed up by submitting her final divorce ticket early.
This gives up the chance to negotiate for a share of the marital property to the spouse they represent;
thus the husband is left with 100% of the money and property, since the Wife submits the order and did not go through the process to negotiate for any of it.
They cannot just back out of a final divorce order, So long as the husband objects, and why would he want to agree to cancel the order that leaves him with 100% of the assets?
Not exactly a great moment for the divorcing spouse or their attorneys.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with your point of view is that every _civil_ order I have ever seen is drafted by one of the attorneys for the parties, acceded to by the other party's lawyer, and then the judge just signs it. I remember sitting in court twice with a judge telling me and the other party that the divorce order he was signing was not reviewed by him and that what was in it was an agreement between the two parties. He wasn't deciding, therefore if we weren't happy with what was in there, this was the time to sp
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it can't be undone is to protect people getting divorced from abusive partners. Once it has gone through the only way to undo it is to get married again, so that someone can't forget a signature on a retraction or something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Had a boss who had a marriage ceremony, but refused to get a marriage certificate because it would mean his wife would lose benefits from her deceased first husband. It wasn't a religious ceremony, but I can certainly imagine the case of having a religious marriage without a civil marriage.
Just living together for enough time in many jurisdiction gives a "common law" marriage standing, such that if one dies then the surviving partner has certain rights regarding common property. Ie, a marriage in all but n
Re: (Score:2)
The formal marriage ceremony used to be just for the rich or elite.
It's still not really all that cheap to get married if you actually want to have a ceremony.
Re:Easy Fix (Score:4)
This was purely a civil matter, not religious. Both parties were in the process of getting a civil divorce. But one couple had the process accelerated too much, so that they had not even completed negotiations. The husband is happy with the result, the wife wanted more to be finalized. Which I think means that they may be in court to figure out who owns the house, how to split the bank accounts, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
If people want to file for some kind of government sanctioned and operated legal construct that may or may not carry with it some legal obligations and/or entitlements, let them do that.
You mean, like, two people would enter in to contract with each other? We could even have a special name for that legally recognized union of two people and after they enter into the contract, the government would have it recorded
Splendid idea!
Re: (Score:2)
alvinrod opined:
Perhaps the government should have nothing to do with religious ceremonies. If people want to file for some kind of government sanctioned and operated legal construct that may or may not carry with it some legal obligations and/or entitlements, let them do that.
Neither my wife nor I are religious in any way. We were married in the back yard of my parents' house - by the mayor of West Carrollton, Ohio.
A marriage ceremony may or may not be religious in nature, just as there may or may not be strictures of a religious nature on marriages of which one or both parties to which are adherents of a faith that routinely imposes those conditions. But the legal nature of the bond itself is a matter of civil law. That's why a cleric, for instance, can marry yo
Re:Easy Fix (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps the government should have nothing to do with religious ceremonies.
The government has nothing to do with religious ceremonies. If you go to a government council to get married you do so under no cross, under the eyes of no god, and facilitated by someone who has no religious power over you what so ever, without even a "ceremony". Marriage may be a religious construct to you, but the legal implications of a civil partnership is huge and the government absolutely has a business in certifying it.
Now what the government has no business in doing is deciding whether such a partnership should be restricted based on gender.
Re: (Score:2)
prenuptial agreements ought to be mandatory
If Republicans have their way, there will never be a need for prenuptuals because no-fault divorces will be illegal [cnn.com]. Your partner beating you? Too bad. You have to stay married. No need for a prenup if you can never divorce.
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
You point to an opinion piece on CNN to prove that Republicans want to get rid of no fault divorce? Then you build a straw man that a victim of abuse wouldn't be able to file for divorce because no fault divorce would be illegal? First off, I would be skeptical of CNN understanding what Republicans want. They are as far biased in favor of Democrats as Fox News is biased in favor of Republicans. It is an opinion piece.
Secondly, no-fault divorce is when neither spouse wishes to name a specific culpable act /
Re: (Score:2)
CNN is biased in favor of Democrats:
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you no-fault divorce is necessary to divorce a spouse that beats you?
Cruelty was grounds for divorce long before no-fault.
Cruetly, yes, but beating? Not necessarily. If you only do it a little, it's not cruel, is it? There are a multitude of cases where a woman was prevented from leaving her abusive husband because the court, or crown, didn't consider what he did to be cruel. Spousal rape wasn't criminalized in all 50 states until 1993. You think a little beating now and then would be grounds for divorce?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you grasp what the religious whackadoodles want.
They absolutely want that and will happily back whoever they think will do it. Look at them all backig trump, for example. Stay what your want about him, but multiple divorces, affairs, kids all over the place, etc doesn't fit with that they profess to want, but he was able to deliver them an end to roe v Wade.
Re: (Score:2)
What issues? Japan is one of the most prosperous countries on the planet
In general, there is a very high correlation between prosperity and low birthrates. People often talk about the population pyramid and state as fact that high birthrates are good to care more for the elderly, but then neglect the simple argument that in general, people who do not have children substantially out-earn those that do, and thus pay more taxes to, among other things, support those elderly. Less people paying taxes is of cours
Re: (Score:2)
This crisis https://edition.cnn.com/2023/0... [cnn.com]
Well it doesn't seem to be growing its GDP for the last 3 decades https://data.worldbank.org/ind... [worldbank.org]
Like it or not in order for society to survive it needs children, without children it will die and you can rationalize it as much as you want, it will not change that. Having children is a significant financial burden, why do you thing childless people earn less because they give up their time and energy raise children, its not measured in GDP but it is there.
Unless
Growing GDP is fucked up. (Score:2)
>> Well it doesn't seem to be growing its GDP for the last 3 decades
Growing GDP is not an indicator of wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
What issues? Japan is one of the most prosperous countries on the planet
At the moment. But meanwhile they're having problems with elderly being forgotten, only found mummified in their homes long later, people aren't retiring in the country until extremely late, if at all, entire towns are being abandoned, there's a real problem with keeping up with all the elderly's care needs, to the point that they're looking at using companionship robots, etc...
Duh.... (Score:4, Informative)
Taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just restating the question though. Why would married couples pay less taxes than for instance those unmarried but living together?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, and depends where. I pay more taxes, well OK the exact same but because my wife does not work she gets less benefits because I earn too much. So combined we give more to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you live, but in the USA you would pay less taxes filing jointly rather than singly. You get an extra $12k deduction when filing jointly, sheltering your income from taxation. Additionally, the tax brackets are higher when filing jointly so you'll end up paying a lower tax rate overall. If your wife filed her own tax return she would have no tax liability (since she has no income) but your single return would have much higher taxes. Really, this is the exact situation the filing joint
Re: (Score:2)
Married persons don't pay less taxes where I live in the Netherlands and generally keep their own separate property. I never quite understood jurisdictions that give them unified property without even an option for separate property and on top of that simply free money. That seems awfully much like the government directing social life. It's like giving out money for government-approved hairstyles.
Giving people money for marrying is no different from fining people for not being married in the end.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. The default result of a marriage is that one person continues to work and the other stays home and takes care of it. That means that one income is now supporting two people, and that's what the tax break is intended to address.
Re:Duh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The default result? Dude, in what century are you living?
Re: (Score:3)
People are barely scraping by....that is the result
In the above mentioned Netherlands I have never seen a middle class couple (I am in STEM) that continues to work full time once they have kids. Usually both switch to 4-day week (shifted), so the kids are without them for 3 days per week.
All in all, it is a poor system that deprives children from the irreplaceable personal contact with parents, particularity in the first 10-12 years.
This blind robbery is being justified by "female empowerment". As if the wh
Re: (Score:2)
Most couples need 2 working adults to just pay the bills.
Marriage has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
It goes both ways - at least where I live.
A married couple is to some extent considered a single economic unit (to use a dehumanising term). On the one hand they can share their tax credits/exemptions, to reduce the taxes they pay. On the other hand their combined incomes are considered when evaluating state benefits etc. If one of the pair are out of work, they don't automatically qualify for state benefits if the other has a good income.
I guess if we want to treat them as individuals we should allow a sta
Re: (Score:3)
people that merely live together have higher divorce rates
I think you'll find that people who don't get married in the first place have the lowest divorce rates.
It's like how just the other day I thought about quitting smoking, but then it dawned on me that I'd never started in the first place!
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find that people who don't get married in the first place have the lowest divorce rates.
But their kids tend to grow up to knock over liquor stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious? You don't think there's any evidence that suggests that married couples are more stable financially, socially, and emotionally? Plus, they are generally happier than people who simply cohabitate. [pewresearch.org]
There is a vested interest, in the stability of the state and society, to encourage marriage.
It is odd, to me, that so many people seem to not understand that some of our oldest institutions have survived the passage of time because they work. Marriage dates back at least 4,300 years. [theweek.com]
They have been taught that deconstruction of the present system is right and proper.
They have been taught that all problems are the result of those who wield penises.
They have been taught that other than providing sperm, the male is useless
They have been taught that in all cases, they are right - they are blameless
How does this happen? One of the first things is understanding that most humans have a deep seated need to hate something.
So part of the modern womanist ideology taps into that need. So a
Re: (Score:2)
"but you have a biological drive to have children"
Talk for yourself. I'm a female and have 0 desire to have children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a civil matter of a marriage being a contract. Like a domestic partnership.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a civil matter of a marriage being a contract. Like a domestic partnership.
That's why I think they should be separate entities. A Civil Union for the legal/tax part and a Marriage for the religious part, if there is one -- and they could both be applied at the same time if desired. Maybe this would cut down on the pedantic "marriage is between ..." arguments.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why I think they should be separate entities. A Civil Union for the legal/tax part and a Marriage for the religious part, if there is one -- and they could both be applied at the same time if desired. Maybe this would cut down on the pedantic "marriage is between ..." arguments.
In the USA, it basically is separate. You can get married at a church if you want the religious sort of marriage, or just go down to your local clerk of the court and sign some paperwork if you want a secular marriage. The arguments against same-sex marriage are because some people actually aren't too big on the concept of a separation between church and state, and anything that reminds them that it's still mostly a thing, gets under their skin.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar in the UK.
you can get married or civil partnered religiously or non religiously at any approved location or the registry office.
The weird state of affairs is because of the homophobic crowd, gay marriage wasn't allowed, so they invented civil partnerships. Then that inequality was rectified. Then a straight couple sued the government because they weren't allowed to get civil partnered and won, so now anyone can do either and there is little practical difference. Marriage has verbal vows in addition
Re:Real question (Score:4)
I used to be "civil unions for all, if you want to be married, find a priest/religious official to do the ceremony", but I've moderated over the years.
Marriage is the most complicated contract most people enter into their entire lives. It's entwined with various government benefits, rights, privileges, duties, etc... As the government is the ultimate arbiter of contracts, the ending of a marriage (which is a big messy contract) generally involves some government work, because among other things, government is the ultimate recorder of marriage contracts.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to be "civil unions for all, if you want to be married, find a priest/religious official to do the ceremony", but I've moderated over the years.
As I noted elsewhere, before I saw your post, I think there should be two entities. A Civil Union for the legal/tax part and a marriage for the religious part, if desired and/or there is one. The first is a contract with The State and the second is with your Religion. Maybe that would make things clearer/simpler.
Re: (Score:2)
That’s already the case in the US although in the EU/UK state and church don’t have such separation. You can be religiously married without such being recognized by the state and vice versa (and in all states you can have multiple wives, despite the state not recognizing it, whereas in Europe this would be illegal).
In many European kingdoms, only the royally observed church, depending on the state, that could be the Catholic or Anglican or Protestant (although in the recent history, others can a
Re: (Score:2)
Then good thing kingdoms in Europe are a minority. In my backwater (East) European country religious marriage is (still) totally optional and has no legal standing.
Re: (Score:2)
That’s already the case in the US although in the EU/UK state and church don’t have such separation.
Not true. The USA is loaded with literally countless examples of "marriage" in its legal texts. For what the GP says to apply, all legal references to marriage need to be changed to "civil union". Until then you can't separate the terms and cordon off the word marriage for religion.
Re: (Score:3)
"Many"? There are seven kingdoms in Europe. In Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands no church wedding is legally binding. In Denmark it seems that any registered church can con
In many European kingdoms... (Score:2)
How many "Kingdoms" are there in Europe these days?
(Britain doesn't count, they are no longer in Europe.)
France and Germany are republics (and don't have a state religion)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to be "civil unions for all, if you want to be married, find a priest/religious official to do the ceremony", but I've moderated over the years.
Marriage is the most complicated contract most people enter into their entire lives. It's entwined with various government benefits, rights, privileges, duties, etc... As the government is the ultimate arbiter of contracts, the ending of a marriage (which is a big messy contract) generally involves some government work, because among other things, government is the ultimate recorder of marriage contracts.
A marriage is essentially a business partnership. And that's where the asme sex marriage ended up being legalized, because same sex couples did not enjoy the same protections. Mainly because if two men or two women couldn't enter into that partnership state as a marriage, they would be restricted in business as well.
Re: (Score:3)
This is super extra true in the USA, because marriage as recognized by the state is based on religious assumptions, and not just that, but a specific religion.
Uh, as guruevi [slashdot.org] noted in another reply, this isn't actually "super extra true" in the USA. MANY other countries are even more explicit about having marriage based on a specific religion. For example, many countries in Europe have actual literal state religions. The Church of England, for example.
In comparison, the USA is actually fairly distanced, to the point that a US civil marriage is compatible with something like 90% of people's religions, maybe with a little nitpick here and there, mostly to deal wi
Re: (Score:2)
This marriage started and ended in the UK ..
Divorce in the UK has never involved religion, except in banning it before Henry VIII
Marriage in the UK didn't involve religion until 1694 when the requirement for the marriage to be witnessed by two people and a priest, and to be announced in church (the place in the village/town/city where people gathered)
It no longer needs to be anything to do with religion since 1836
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a British Jewish atheist. I got married in the local registry office, and the church was not involved in any way and there was nothing in the ceremony or vows about the church.
Religion comes in inasmuch as civil registrars are full time jobs, but various priests can also do it part time, and you can't just found a 1 person religion just so you can perform a ceremony.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd argue that civil marriage in the USA isn't particularly religious though? It's mostly designed around property management and custody of children.
You're having to try to spell it out, I think, because it's not actually particularly true. You can get married in the USA without ever going to church, seeing a priest, having a ceremony beyond signing some paperwork in front of a clerk, etc...
Sure, you can do the whole religious wedding thing, but the state isn't going to recognize that unless it gets its
Re: (Score:2)
It's the usual trap that the civil union and the religious union are both called marriage so they get conflated. In Europe and the US/Canada it is possible to be in a civil union called "marriage" and not be in a religious union called "marriage". From the civil perspective, it's irrelevant if you are married in a religious ceremony, "marriage" is a civil contract. The involvement of the State is as the ultimate arbiter of contracts, which is the most basic form of government. In Ireland, for instance, reli
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, as guruevi noted in another reply, this isn't actually "super extra true" in the USA.
Sorry, I didn't think I had to spell this out, because we're talking about the USA. In this country, the nation is allegedly based in large part upon the separation of church and state, and so it is especially egregious for it to have a notion of marriage which has a religious basis.
Marriage the partnership is secular, and that is because it is a legal partnership.
Weddings are a religious function, and allowing priests and ship captains to perform them is simply a courtesy. But try getting married in a church with no marriage license and you'll see where the line is.
Re: (Score:2)
"Marriage is the most complicated contract most people enter into their entire lives. It's entwined with various government benefits, rights, privileges, duties, etc..."
Yes, that is the problem, not sufficient justification. Governments should not give one tenth of one shit whether or not anyone is married. It should not confer any special status. This is super extra true in the USA, because marriage as recognized by the state is based on religious assumptions, and not just that, but a specific religion.
Right away there is a problem. If equal property is to be enforced where each partner has 50 percent of the assets upon dissolution, there has a be a business framework. Full of the accounting and distribution process.
Indeed, as these things go before the courts, the woman my end up with quite a bit more than 50 percent if there are children involved. She might end up with the house and the car, in addition to all of the standard split down the middle things.
As well, since she is also entitled to half
Re:Real question (Score:4, Insightful)
Because law and culture are connected.
Contract is not superstition (Score:2)
The utility of government recognizing and enforcing civil contracts has been recognized in law by most societies.
Superstitious marriage rituals are NOT the same thing which is why they are separated.
Anyone unware of why and how in 2024 is shamefully ignorant or trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Ctrl+Y's nemesis!
Or the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Ctrl-Z was to suspend a process.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Ctrl-Z was to suspend a process.
While that is the end product, CTRL-Z sends a SIGTSTP signal (Terminal Stop) which in turn suspends the process.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm glad you got the reference. I do know how termios works. You can change the key for this with an ioctl() to update the c_cc array and pick a different suspend character for the terminal driver (the suspend character causes the terminal driver to send a TSTP to the current terminal owner). This setup works roughly the same on most SysV style Unixes (not just Linux).
From the command-line, you could do something like:
stty susp ^K
And this will make well-behaved interactive programs use
Re: (Score:2)
^Z for undo predates Microsoft and Windows, harkening back to Apple's imitation of PARC's GUI in 1984.
Re: (Score:2)
Job Control [wikipedia.org] was a feature of the 4.1BSD [wikipedia.org] Kernel, released in June 1981. Csh, first released in 1978, was (I believe) the first application to incorporate it to suspend a running job using Ctrl-Z. That job could then be either restart in the foreground using the command "fg" or restarted in the background using "bg". Running jobs could be monitored using the "jobs" command.
Re: (Score:2)
I am familiar with UNIX shell job control, and I was not stating that undo came first... only that your insinuation it was some ("modern") Windows-centric thing was in error.
However I will say, it hardly matters if there was an alternate shortcut assignment in some other context a few years beforehand. Particularly when the earlier form has been used by many fewer people in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
I am familiar with UNIX shell job control, and I was not stating that undo came first... only that your insinuation it was some ("modern") Windows-centric thing was in error.
Got it, thanks! I've never been an Apple/Mac/iOS, etc... user -- though I did use, and develop on, a Xerox 1108 Dandelion from 1985-87 using InterLISP-D (still have that LISP manual), but I was first raised on BSD...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple never used Ctrl-z for undo, it was Command-z (command being denoted by the 4-lobe clover icon).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)