Prositution In New Zealand

I don't have a source accurate enough, someone might want to try some search engines, but AFAIK, New Zealand had a hilariously sexist prostituion law. Men could offer a woman money for sex, but women couldn't offer a man sex for money. I think this has been repealed since (or is currently in the process of being repealed) with full legalisation.

[Serendipity]

Welcome to Dumblaws, Dog. Well, most lawmakers are men...

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

Nowadays woman hold plenty of sway politically here, and we've got something really odd. I don't know if this has ever been done overseas.

If you are in a relationship with someone for over three years (I think it is), when you break up, there is a 50/50 property split. This isn't marriage, this is just a relationship. You can opt out with a contract, but by default you are subjected to this, without doing anything but being in a relationship!

Marriage is becomming less popular here (like a lot of European countries and our neighbour Australia, the country has roughly half the Christian infulence the USA has), many couples forego the whole thing and have and raise children regardless, and when the relationships break up, if the woman goes with the children, they can be significantly less off financially than if it was a marriage and they would be entitled to something. This is the reasoning. I can't fault the sentiment, but I think there are better ways to go about solving the problem, like making it easier (and free if it currently costs antying) for defacto couples who think they are in it for the long run, to enter into a contract, maybe with an advertising campaign drilling into the public that this should be the done thing. Making people in a contract by default based on such a gray area as to what constitutes a relationship and when it started, uggh.

Though there is nothing sexist about this law, it could work in favour of a male (and gay couples are included).

[ogb]

This prefering of marriage to "usual long term relationships" comes from the former point of view that you only have sex within a marriage. Obviously any democratic state is built upon the generation principle that lots of babies have to be born to keep the social system alive. Admittedly this view is old-fashioned, but I think it is odd to have an automatical property split after a certain period (but this surely gives lots of work for lawyers, so I'd actually better prefer it http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif). This is even more strange than the German marrying contract with which you exclude the legal consequences of a divorce (lawyers all recommend to sign these contracts, but somehow I always have the nice scene in my mind: you fall on your knees in front of your partner, take her hand and say: "honey, do you want to marry me?" She is overwhelmed and almost wheeping and you turn to her "you only have to sign this contract" http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif)
Somehow I lost the topic, but I return: In fact marrying is currently booming in Germany, but divorcing as well (40% of young marriages). Anyhow, there are plenty of systems I know to rule the consequences after marriage, but any system has its advantages and disadvantages.
Btw: you suggested to make the system easier by signing a contract, but concerning the legal side a marriage is a contract, otherwise you couldn't establish any system to pay someone out.

[paulgro]

Here in the U.S. after 7 years it's considered a common law marrage even tho you never formally got married...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)

[Serendipity]

Is that marriage contract thing being worked out in NZ, Dog? I know it is in France, it's called PACS there (Pacte Civile de Contract Sociale, I believe...), and has split the nation. Half are oposed to the idea of a "sub-marriage" arrangement and half can see that the divorce rate is rising, and that such an arangement would make it easier for couples to spit without all that complication. It would be open to gay couples there, too. Since marriage is patently not working as well as it used to, I think it's good that governments are looking for alternatives.

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

I don't think this has found it's way into law yet. It's passed it's first hearing in parliament, then it went to a committee, and then I think it has to go back to the house. I don't think there is going to be anything to stop it. It hasn't split the nation, NZ isn't the sort of country that would let itself get divided by something like this.

[ogb]

The number of people using this marriage contract in Germany is very low because of the lacking romantic note. I don't think it is that bad as you know that not everything in marriage is sunshine and the possibility of divorce is always existent. And in these situations it is better to clearly know what you have regulated. When it comes to divorce without it you have the quarrels for every single knife and plate. For homosexuals it doesn't work, but what keeps them away from setting up a usual contract that rules all these matters!?

[Ada_Doom]

It sounds sensible in theory certainly. Further to what Dippy said about the PACS, it applies to any two people living together with a shared interest in the property, including siblings, and I assume unrelated people who are just sharing a house. I think most of the opposition came from the Church and the far right who saw it as an endorsement of homosexuality.
Oh yeah, and somewhere in my head, something tells me it is actually Pact Civile de Solidarite.

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

[This message has been edited by Ada_Doom (edited May 21, 2001).]

[Serendipity]

I stand corrected, Solidarité it is, and I should know because I did a small project on it at university. So did you, Ada?

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

[Ada_Doom]

I do remember having to discuss it many, many times in Personal Oral Expression. And interpret it in interpreting. And translate it in translation. And waffle about it in WEFL. And so on. And so on......

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

[Scotslaw]

Originally posted by dog:
I don't know if this has ever been done overseas.

In Scotland we have "marriage by cohabitation and repute" (kind of similar to common law marriage), but its very vague, bloody difficult to establish and only really comes into play when one partner dies intestate, but nothing similar for relationships that just end.

Paulgro, you mentioned that in the US after 7 years its considered a common law marriage. Are you treated as if you were married when the relationship ends, or is it only when one partner dies? If it only comes into operation on death, then it sounds like New Zealand and France are trailblazing in this area.

So, anything interesting happen whilst I was away?

[paulgro]

Originally posted by Scotslaw:


Paulgro, you mentioned that in the US after 7 years its considered a common law marriage. Are you treated as if you were married when the relationship ends, or is it only when one partner dies?
It becomes a legal marriage and you're entitled to whatever the settlement is. Some states are community property, some aren't.
That's when the relationship ends...


------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)

[This message has been edited by paulgro (edited June 03, 2001).]

I thought that it was 7 years of living together (man and women). Which is an old law that doesnt even really apply anymore. I know of two poeple who have lived together (man and women) for 9 years and been in a relationship (however not married). And they aren't considered married in the legal sense. However, I wonder if they could do it if they filed taxes together... hmmm any US lawyers wanna clarify this whole deal?