Paul Foster-Bell

University of Otago

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare @K1w127 Or an actual murder, of the bystander who was killed.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare I still sometimes make a marmite, cheese and potato chip sandwich. For nostalgia.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare I wonder if there are other drivers? A couple I have done have involved one or more partner born overseas. So may be doing it for ease of visa application?

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare So most people see little difference.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare And the proportion that are civil/registrar vs church weddings are ever increasing

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare It may have already done. Noting that half of marriages end in divorce is not the full picture - numbers getting married are way down. From about 30k in the 70s to 15k in recent years. Despite the higher population base.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare So is marriage.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare Just coming back to this, maybe the revision to the marriage act needs to be more significant. It might need to spell out why the state registers marriages, and spell out that no judgment is made about the nature, quality or duration of the marriage.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare People taking responsibility for themselves, planning ahead, and facing facts

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare I’d be happier if the lawyers were doing well out of prenups

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare On reflection the state should butt out altogether. But if that is a bridge too far a quick amendment would at least minimise lawyers’ earnings from divorce. I’d be all for retrospective dissolution if the couple agree.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare I imagine secret marriages were more of a problem in the 18th century. Though the issue of forced marriage and underage marriage is still a real one…

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare Actually originally after divorce was first moved into the courts (from requiring a private act of parliament) one of the few grounds was desertion due to being in a mental asylum for 10 out of previous 12 years…

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare The stand down period has been shortening for over a century - from ten years, to seven, to four, to two. I’m surprised it has lasted this long tbh.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare I agree. The only reason civil unions have the two year stand down is because that act basically copied the marriage act. And the latter has it for mostly historical reasons.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare If the state is going to register marriages and regulate who can perform them, it behoves it to do it efficiently and accept the reality that a large proportion end in dissolution.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare Do you think the two year stand down should also apply to civil unions? (Appreciating not many are done since full marriage equality came into force).

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare Yes but the minimum requirements for the solemnisation do not include any reference to being married for all eternity, in sickness and in health, or “as long as you both shall live”. Simple consent from each party.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare An inconvenient, unnecessary, overweening, and archaic “but.” Could be easily changed - a member’s bill could do it. Change years to weeks, or days in the act.

[Paul Foster-Bell @PARFosterBell]

@PronouncedHare I think they should be able to marry with the knowledge that, if they are among the 7,500 couples who choose to divorce for whatever reason, the state isn’t going to put up arbitrary stand down periods.