• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British appeals court blocks same-sex marriage for Bermuda, Cayman Islands

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
61,937
Reaction score
19,052
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From United Press International


March 14 (UPI) -- A top appeals court in Britain on Monday blocked same-sex marriage in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands after siding with the governments of the two self-governing overseas territories in two landmark rulings.

The Cayman Islands case stems from two women, Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush, who were refused an application to marry in 2018 because local marriage law defined marriage as "the union between a man and a woman as husband and wife," according to court documents.

Day and Bush successfully sued the government in a case heard before Chief Justice Anthony Smellie on the grounds that the marriage law conflicted with the Cayman Islands Constitution.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands found that the law violated the rights of Day and Bush to private and family life and their freedoms including the freedom to manifest their belief in marriage, according to court documents. The Grand Court then modified the marriage law to define "marriage" as "the union between two people as one another's spouses."

However, the case was successfully appealed by the government to the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, which ruled that the right to marriage under the constitution did not extend to same-sex couples but that Day and Bush were entitled to legal protection functionally equivalent to marriage.

COMMENT:-

(emphasis added to the C&P)
Sounds a bit like they are headed toward the same solution as France has arrived at. You have to get a "civil marriage" before you are actually married - the "clerical marriage" is both optional and has no legal significance.​
 
From United Press International


March 14 (UPI) -- A top appeals court in Britain on Monday blocked same-sex marriage in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands after siding with the governments of the two self-governing overseas territories in two landmark rulings.

The Cayman Islands case stems from two women, Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush, who were refused an application to marry in 2018 because local marriage law defined marriage as "the union between a man and a woman as husband and wife," according to court documents.

Day and Bush successfully sued the government in a case heard before Chief Justice Anthony Smellie on the grounds that the marriage law conflicted with the Cayman Islands Constitution.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands found that the law violated the rights of Day and Bush to private and family life and their freedoms including the freedom to manifest their belief in marriage, according to court documents. The Grand Court then modified the marriage law to define "marriage" as "the union between two people as one another's spouses."

However, the case was successfully appealed by the government to the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, which ruled that the right to marriage under the constitution did not extend to same-sex couples but that Day and Bush were entitled to legal protection functionally equivalent to marriage.

COMMENT:-
(emphasis added to the C&P)​
Sounds a bit like they are headed toward the same solution as France has arrived at. You have to get a "civil marriage" before you are actually married - the "clerical marriage" is both optional and has no legal significance.
Which is where the push really ought to have been here.
 
Yes, the fight (and I might be misremembering) was over the word 'marriage' in lieu of union.
Some states would not even allow a union
 
That is US law too

Clerical marriage has no legal standing
Not quite true.

Actual clergy are "licensed to perform marriages" due to the fact of their ordination in a recognized religious group.

Therefore, when you have a "church marriage" that is performed by a recognized member of the clergy you are actually getting a "Twofer" - a "clerical marriage" and a "civil marriage" at the same time and for which you only have to pay one fee.
 
Not quite true.

Actual clergy are "licensed to perform marriages" due to the fact of their ordination in a recognized religious group.

Therefore, when you have a "church marriage" that is performed by a recognized member of the clergy you are actually getting a "Twofer" - a "clerical marriage" and a "civil marriage" at the same time and for which you only have to pay one fee.
Licensed to perform.....but not to sign the marriage license in the us. A government official does that
 
From United Press International


March 14 (UPI) -- A top appeals court in Britain on Monday blocked same-sex marriage in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands after siding with the governments of the two self-governing overseas territories in two landmark rulings.

The Cayman Islands case stems from two women, Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush, who were refused an application to marry in 2018 because local marriage law defined marriage as "the union between a man and a woman as husband and wife," according to court documents.

Day and Bush successfully sued the government in a case heard before Chief Justice Anthony Smellie on the grounds that the marriage law conflicted with the Cayman Islands Constitution.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands found that the law violated the rights of Day and Bush to private and family life and their freedoms including the freedom to manifest their belief in marriage, according to court documents. The Grand Court then modified the marriage law to define "marriage" as "the union between two people as one another's spouses."

However, the case was successfully appealed by the government to the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, which ruled that the right to marriage under the constitution did not extend to same-sex couples but that Day and Bush were entitled to legal protection functionally equivalent to marriage.

COMMENT:-
(emphasis added to the C&P)​
Sounds a bit like they are headed toward the same solution as France has arrived at. You have to get a "civil marriage" before you are actually married - the "clerical marriage" is both optional and has no legal significance.​
the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands. With a population of 66,000. Mostly lawyers and accountants and service industry. Where there are more companies than people.
What an interesting government that would be.
 
Licensed to perform.....but not to sign the marriage license in the us. A government official does that
Signing a marriage license does NOT constitute a "marriage". The license is merely the state's permission to enter into a marriage. If you never take the next step (having a person licensed to perform a marriage actually perform one) then you are NOT "married" - no matter what you tell people.

On the other hand, it IS quite possible to find yourself "married" even if you didn't get a marriage license.

There was an amusing case here in BC where the "husband" and "wife" had been living together for years "without benefit of clergy". The "wife" had been pressuring the "husband" to regularize the situation for quite some time but the "husband" was reluctant to do so. (He was a cheap SOB and didn't want his "wife" to get any part of his property if they separated.) The "husband" persuaded a friend to impersonate a clergyman and perform a "marriage ceremony" - which they told everyone who thought that they were already married was a "renewal of vows ceremony".​
Well, the inevitable did happen and they separated.​
The "wife" filed for divorce and claimed for a property division under both the "Divorce Act" and the "Family Relations Act" (both provided similar property division standards) and the "husband" contested that filing on the grounds that people who were not married couldn't be divorced.​
At trial, the hearing judge listened to the evidence and determined that (using the proper legal definition of "common law marriage") that the two WERE "legally married", dismissed the husband's counter-petition summarily, divorced the couple, and granted the wife's claims under the "Divorce Act".​

So, you see, you CAN find yourself "married" even if you skip over both the "marriage license" and "registered clergyman" steps.
 
Last edited:
No dirt in British overseas territories sounds good .

Thanks for that info , OP .

Will be looking at Villa prices tomorrow .

Would like our children brought up with some decent morals .
 
I’m surprised but always happy when the alphabet people have to take the L
 
No dirt in British overseas territories sounds good .

Thanks for that info , OP .

Will be looking at Villa prices tomorrow .

Would like our children brought up with some decent morals .
Too late. Lol
 
Licensed to perform.....but not to sign the marriage license in the us. A government official does that
That is a jurisdictional determination. Each State has separate laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom