{"title":"非宗教婚姻","authors":"Russell Sandberg","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv1rxdqpz.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the other main concern that has arisen in recent years: the exclusion of non-religious marriages under the Marriage Act 1949. This chapter will fall into three sections. The first will introduce the issue while the second will examine how this issue has arisen in the public debate, exploring the campaign of Humanists UK during the Parliamentary passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and subsequent legal and political developments. The final section will then discuss the High Court challenge of the current law in R (On Application of Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice that concluded that the law interfered with the applicant’s human rights but that this was justified by the fact that the law was currently under review by the Law Commission.","PeriodicalId":250688,"journal":{"name":"Religion and Marriage Law","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-Religious Marriages\",\"authors\":\"Russell Sandberg\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctv1rxdqpz.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter explores the other main concern that has arisen in recent years: the exclusion of non-religious marriages under the Marriage Act 1949. This chapter will fall into three sections. The first will introduce the issue while the second will examine how this issue has arisen in the public debate, exploring the campaign of Humanists UK during the Parliamentary passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and subsequent legal and political developments. The final section will then discuss the High Court challenge of the current law in R (On Application of Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice that concluded that the law interfered with the applicant’s human rights but that this was justified by the fact that the law was currently under review by the Law Commission.\",\"PeriodicalId\":250688,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Religion and Marriage Law\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Religion and Marriage Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1rxdqpz.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion and Marriage Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1rxdqpz.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本章探讨了近年来出现的另一个主要问题:1949年《婚姻法》将非宗教婚姻排除在外。本章将分为三个部分。第一部分将介绍这个问题，而第二部分将研究这个问题是如何在公众辩论中出现的，探索英国人文主义者在议会通过《2013年婚姻(同性伴侣)法案》期间的运动以及随后的法律和政治发展。最后一节将讨论高等法院在R (On Application of Harrison)诉司法大臣案中对现行法律的质疑，该案件的结论是，该法律干涉了申请人的人权，但由于法律委员会目前正在审查该法律，因此这是合理的。
This chapter explores the other main concern that has arisen in recent years: the exclusion of non-religious marriages under the Marriage Act 1949. This chapter will fall into three sections. The first will introduce the issue while the second will examine how this issue has arisen in the public debate, exploring the campaign of Humanists UK during the Parliamentary passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and subsequent legal and political developments. The final section will then discuss the High Court challenge of the current law in R (On Application of Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice that concluded that the law interfered with the applicant’s human rights but that this was justified by the fact that the law was currently under review by the Law Commission.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
