I'm not accusing anyone here of this, just trying to explain why I may come across as a bit tetchy on this issue.
Angus, I've revised and deleted too many messages on this subject to criticize you on this point.
Couple other logical fallacies in the "procreation" argument:
Adultery doesn't automatically nullify heterosexual marriages.
Heterosexual couples engage in certain sexual practices that are no more likely to result in pregnancy than anything same-sex couples do.
Plus, see the arguments I mentioned yesterday (heterosexual couples allowed to marry before having children, allowed to remain married after the children are grown).
Are Australia and Canada still mostly bound by English common law, or did you sit down and do a rewrite when you gained independence?
Canada has its own Criminal Code, and Quebec follows the Civil Law tradition of France (though uses the Canadian Criminal Code). Canada has its own written constitution, while the British constitution is unwritten.
while the British constitution is unwritten
This has me thinking it's a part of the oral tradition, that there are bards who travel all over the nation, and are always present for meetings in the parliament to recite the constitution, using all those ancient memory keys like interior rhymes and refrains and couplets. It'd be like Homer performing the Illiad and the Odyssey, but with less plot, and extremely repetitous.
That would be fun. Sort of like singing the Preamble to the Constitution.
Sort of like singing the Preamble to the Constitution.
And Betsy earworms me with Schoolhouse rock. Not that that's the worst earworm in the world.
I may still know all the words from that song.
This actually raises a question for me: Are Australia and Canada still mostly bound by English common law, or did you sit down and do a rewrite when you gained independence?
Australia still operates under a common law system, and where they haven't been superseded by statute or Australian case law, British case law is still applicable.
Among other things, this means that the law regarding the jurisdiction under which a contract is deemed to fall depends on the splendidly named Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft.
Until the 1980s, cases heard under State law could still be appealed to the (British) Privy Council. (Federal cases had been refused appeal to the Privy Council since 1975.) Since then, the highest court of appeal has been the Australian High Court.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft.
WHOA. What's the customary abbreviation?
WHOA. What's the customary abbreviation?
In polite company I refer to it as "the Brinkibon case". I've seen it appear as "Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl" on occasion too.
