tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post6905759055389544708..comments2024-03-29T08:05:56.264+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: Domestic Law and the European Convention on Human Rights - Part 3ObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-51078055421969686132014-12-04T07:02:45.690+00:002014-12-04T07:02:45.690+00:00Keep the balls rolling!! Nice posts you have given...Keep the balls rolling!! Nice posts you have given for us.<a href="http://www.dominionbusinesslaw.com/" rel="nofollow">business law attorney</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-60905828971750564392013-05-15T17:46:05.134+01:002013-05-15T17:46:05.134+01:00Government documents these days never use "tr...Government documents these days never use "transexual" as a noun, except when quoting non-government documents which do or older government documents which did. That is correct, and the same should apply to the word "homosexual" - and indeed the offensive synonyms; if you have to quote a document which calls them queers or poofters or - well, let's leave it there - you must quote it accurately.Andrew Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17273362558325263161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-5059069497896424992013-05-15T11:45:28.161+01:002013-05-15T11:45:28.161+01:00Thanks for your comment.
In using the word 'h...Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />In using the word 'homosexual' the post was reflecting the language used in Wilkinson v Kitzinger (link in the post). Also, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 refers to a civil partnership being between 'same sex couples' and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples)Bill clearly does the same. I accept that some of the terminology used in this area is not entirely acceptable to everyone but, as far as possible, I try to stick to the wording used in legislation or decided cases.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-72957527787641233102013-05-15T09:43:25.173+01:002013-05-15T09:43:25.173+01:00Thanks for this interesting and important article....Thanks for this interesting and important article. I hope you'll forgive a stylistic niggle, however:<br /><br />"It followed that there was no obligation on States to recognise in law marriages or civil partnerships between homosexuals"<br /><br />You refer (quite rightly) to transexual people as people; is there any reason that when referring to gay people you call them simply homosexuals?<br /><br />Also, it's not only gay people who might have their same-sex marriages or civil partnerships recognised: it's rather tiresome to see bisexual people consistently erased in these discussions.casus fortuitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01274553377087837627noreply@blogger.com