Australian Woman Shares Heartbreaking Status About Same-Sex Marriage After Wife Dies In Car Accident

First topic message reminder :

Marriage equality is still a distant dream for many people around the world, as Lara Ryan truly realised when her wife, Elise, died in a tragic car accident. The pair, from Sydney, had a wedding ceremony and have two children together, but as same-sex marriage is not legally recognised in Australia, they could never be officially married. On Facebook, Lara said the pair had "never been political" and didn't really think too much about their official marital status in the past. But after Elise died when a car drove into her on the pavement, Lara felt the full burden of injustice.

"Having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was 'allowed' to write spouse on incident reports," she said. "I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby's birth certificate (both on the same day)."



Try It


Change your profile picture to show support forAustralian Marriage Equality.





Lara Ryan
on Monday
This is why.
Because having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was 'allowed' to write Spouse on incident reports.
I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby's birth certificate (both on the same day).
I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room "She is my wife, I know it's not legal but she is my wife!"
Because we were never political, we just did our thing, did our life our way and tried to live by example to shift peoples hearts rather than pushing agendas. BUT the amount of freaking paper work I am having to do to secure mine and my children's future welfare is just ridiculous when all it would take is one marriage certificate.
And most of all because I love her, and she has been my every day for ten years, She is the mother of our two girls, she is the future I dreamed of and she is my safe place to land.
Because love is love and we should celebrate it and encourage it always.
The world is harsh enough.
Feel free to share widely - ‪#‎thisiswhy‬#


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/02/lara-ryan-facebook-status-on-same-sex-marriage_n_9364322.html

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's you who's failing to grasp the legality. Marriage is a commitment, yes, a legal commitment. This couple were not legally married. They had a ceremony, but they were not legally married. Why can't you grasp that?

Not rocket science is it !!!

Ahh the cowards way out, talk to the other poster when you have been made to look very inept

Didge wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable at law as a binding legal agreement.


your wrong
get over it

bye

Answer the question as its you been utterly immature

So to you what you are claiming is that before the legal system of Australia any aboriginal married couple were not  married?


Marriage is only recently in a matter of centuries a legal contract. It is a contract that has been cooperated into the legal system, based solely to protect the rights of each person, if they divorce, one dies etc


A law is nothing more than something invented and then agreed by a majority of people



Laws are forever changing, they are not set in stone, hence the absurdity of people who think they are smart but as seen not very smart

Try again

aboriginal married DID HAVE A CONTRACT YOU IDIOT

Aboriginal Marriages and Family Structures
defined four key elements as follows:

1. The couple should be eligible to marry according to local rules defining ‘ideal preferences and accepted authorities’.

2. Appropriate betrothal arrangements should have been made between the two kin groups concerned. An exchange of gifts ratifies the contract.

3. Actual marriage may be distinguished from the betrothal when the parties cohabit publicly and take on ‘marital responsibilities including sexual relations’.

4. The union is considered to be strengthened by the birth of the first child.



so in conclusion

your wrong AGAIN

So what difference has it actually made to this lady?

It doesn't seem that doctors refused to speak to her because they weren't legally married. Nobody refused to let her have the ashes because they weren't married. She didn't like the format of the forms she had to fill in, but it doesn't seem that anyone stopped her from altering them.

People can call others what they like. A married man can call his wife his "girlfriend" if he likes. An unmarried couple can refer to each other as wife or husband if they like. You can refer to eddie as your "wife" if you like Didge - although she probably wouldn't like it much, and it might confuse people.

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


Answer the question as its you been utterly immature

So to you what you are claiming is that before the legal system of Australia any aboriginal married couple were not  married?


Marriage is only recently in a matter of centuries a legal contract. It is a contract that has been cooperated into the legal system, based solely to protect the rights of each person, if they divorce, one dies etc


A law is nothing more than something invented and then agreed by a majority of people



Laws are forever changing, they are not set in stone, hence the absurdity of people who think they are smart but as seen not very smart

Try again

aboriginal married DID HAVE A CONTRACT YOU IDIOT

Aboriginal Marriages and Family Structures
defined four key elements as follows:

1. The couple should be eligible to marry according to local rules defining ‘ideal preferences and accepted authorities’.

2. Appropriate betrothal arrangements should have been made between the two kin groups concerned. An exchange of gifts ratifies the contract.

3. Actual marriage may be distinguished from the betrothal when the parties cohabit publicly and take on ‘marital responsibilities including sexual relations’.

4. The union is considered to be strengthened by the birth of the first child.



so in conclusion

your wrong AGAIN

lol so a verbal agreement

Hilarious, thank you for proving my point even if you did omit the link


So the legal aspect is something later incoorporated as I stated to protect the rights of husband and wife in law.

You see its easy to show up an idiot

So not wrong again, your view would deny marital status based on modern Australian law or previous Australian law, which is forever changing

marriage started out as a commitment between two people

Raggamuffin wrote:So what difference has it actually made to this lady?

It doesn't seem that doctors refused to speak to her because they weren't legally married. Nobody refused to let her have the ashes because they weren't married. She didn't like the format of the forms she had to fill in, but it doesn't seem that anyone stopped her from altering them.

People can call others what they like. A married man can call his wife his "girlfriend" if he likes. An unmarried couple can refer to each other as wife or husband if they like. You can refer to eddie as your "wife" if you like Didge - although she probably wouldn't like it much, and it might confuse people.

I am not marries to Eddie as neither of us made a commitment

That was quite an idiotic thing to say Rags to be honest
]
This is about being denied the commitment she had between her wife through inequality within the law

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So what difference has it actually made to this lady?

It doesn't seem that doctors refused to speak to her because they weren't legally married. Nobody refused to let her have the ashes because they weren't married. She didn't like the format of the forms she had to fill in, but it doesn't seem that anyone stopped her from altering them.

People can call others what they like. A married man can call his wife his "girlfriend" if he likes. An unmarried couple can refer to each other as wife or husband if they like. You can refer to eddie as your "wife" if you like Didge - although she probably wouldn't like it much, and it might confuse people.

I am not marries to Eddie as neither of us made a commitment

That was quite an idiotic thing to say Rags to be honest
]
This is about being denied the commitment she had between her wife through inequality within the law

The point is that nobody was stopping this lady from calling her partner her "wife".

Are you now saying that you need a marriage certificate to make an emotional commitment to someone?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am not marries to Eddie as neither of us made a commitment

That was quite an idiotic thing to say Rags to be honest
]
This is about being denied the commitment she had between her wife through inequality within the law

The point is that nobody was stopping this lady from calling her partner her "wife".

Are you now saying that you need a marriage certificate to make an emotional commitment to someone?

Yes the Government of Australia has denied her marriage status due to an equality within the law system

Laws forever change, once they would have been hanged, showing how to argue off a legal system was the first and biggest mistake you and korben both argued off

If a system has inequality, its a poor legal system

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that nobody was stopping this lady from calling her partner her "wife".

Are you now saying that you need a marriage certificate to make an emotional commitment to someone?

Yes the Government of Australia has denied her marriage status due to an equality within the law system

Laws forever change, once they would have been hanged, showing how to argue off a legal system was the first and biggest mistake you and korben both argued off

If a system has inequality, its a poor legal system

It's not long since gay people here couldn't get married either, and it's not much longer since they couldn't have a civil partnership.

Heterosexual people couldn't have a civil partnership, so that was discrimination, although I'm not sure what the actual difference is.

And like I say, laws can be adapted and changed

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/21/briton-who-died-on-honeymoon-in-australia-to-have-same-sex-marriage-recognised

Didge wrote:And like I say, laws can be adapted and changed

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/21/briton-who-died-on-honeymoon-in-australia-to-have-same-sex-marriage-recognised

That chap was British though, and they were just on holiday.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:And like I say, laws can be adapted and changed

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/21/briton-who-died-on-honeymoon-in-australia-to-have-same-sex-marriage-recognised

That chap was British though, and they were just on holiday.

Does not matter, what it shows is how a system is adaptable as the law systems have forever changed

Its like Korben, he thinks I am wrong, when how can I be

For me to be wrong, the legal system of Australia has to be right and its not discriminating

If I am right, then the legal system is prejudiced and is denying equality within the law

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That chap was British though, and they were just on holiday.

Does not matter, what it shows is how a system is adaptable as the law systems have forever changed

Its like Korben, he thinks I am wrong, when how can I be

For me to be wrong, the legal system of Australia has to be right and its not discriminating

If I am right, then the legal system is prejudiced and is denying equality within the law

Of course it matters - they were British citizens on holiday, not Australian citizens.

Do you disapprove of non-married couples here having less legal rights than married couples?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Does not matter, what it shows is how a system is adaptable as the law systems have forever changed

Its like Korben, he thinks I am wrong, when how can I be

For me to be wrong, the legal system of Australia has to be right and its not discriminating

If I am right, then the legal system is prejudiced and is denying equality within the law

Of course it matters - they were British citizens on holiday, not Australian citizens.

Do you disapprove of non-married couples here having less legal rights than married couples?

It should not matter as the issue is with how the Austrian system is prejudiced, the point yet again you miss

If they live together longer than a year or engaged for a year say for example then yes I disprove, as they should have the same rights

For example, where they may well be engaged and were going to marry and one partner dies, they are being denied the same rights where they had committed to each other through an engagement

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course it matters - they were British citizens on holiday, not Australian citizens.

Do you disapprove of non-married couples here having less legal rights than married couples?

It should not matter as the issue is with how the Austrian system is prejudiced, the point yet again you miss

If they live together longer than a year or engaged for a year say for example then yes I disprove, as they should have the same rights

For example, where they may well be engaged and were going to marry and one partner dies, they are being denied the same rights where they had committed to each other through an engagement

Well then you must disapprove of British law and think it backward. They do have this de facto thing in Australia for unmarried couples.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

It should not matter as the issue is with how the Austrian system is prejudiced, the point yet again you miss

If they live together longer than a year or engaged for a year say for example then yes I disprove, as they should have the same rights

For example, where they may well be engaged and were going to marry and one partner dies, they are being denied the same rights where they had committed to each other through an engagement

Well then you must disapprove of British law then and think it backward. They do have this de facto thing in Australia for unmarried couples.

I do disprove of an "aspect" of British law, so poor attempt Rags.

You should know better by now

It has one of the most progressive legal systems, but its not quite there yet

Anyway its Friday and home time

Have fun

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not missing any point. If the woman wants to say she was her wife, she can. If it only matters what she can fill in on a form, I don't see why it's a big issue really. If it affects her legally in other ways, there might be more to discuss.

Have you been married in love and then lost your husband?

Then how on earth can you say whether its a big deal or not

My mother lost my dad, he meant the world to her and she would have been devastated as much as she already was if she was denied being stated as his wife.

I bet Eddie will say the same

Yes didge, my mum would've been heartbroken tbh and it's added stress to an already stressful situation

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Have you been married in love and then lost your husband?

Then how on earth can you say whether its a big deal or not

My mother lost my dad, he meant the world to her and she would have been devastated as much as she already was if she was denied being stated as his wife.

I bet Eddie will say the same

Yes didge, my mum would've been heartbroken tbh and it's added stress to an already stressful situation

Thanks Eddie

I don't think some people appreciate who absolutely devastating it is, for a partner to lose the other.
It's like losing a part of yourself.

My mum totally changed, even physically....she seemed to shrink when my dad died.
She has never been the same since he died 13 years ago.

eddie wrote:I don't think some people appreciate who absolutely devastating it is, for a partner to lose the other.
It's like losing a part of yourself.

My mum totally changed, even physically....she seemed to shrink when my dad died.
She has never been the same since he died 13 years ago.

Sorry to hear Eddie

Its like i say, someone can be engaged set to marry being together for 10 years, then lose their love through a tragic death. To me they should honour that by elevating them to a married status, as they were set to marry.

Why would there be a need to elevated an engaged person to a married status?

Sorry about your mum eddie. A lot of bereaved people do get over it though, and maybe remarry or whatever, or just get a new life on their own.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would there be a need to elevated an engaged person to a married status?

Sorry about your mum eddie. A lot of bereaved people do get over it though, and maybe remarry or whatever, or just get a new life on their own.

Bloody hell Rags, you are a cold fish.  You think people ever get over it, even if they manage to move on?  And your remark was crass in the extreme.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would there be a need to elevated an engaged person to a married status?

Sorry about your mum eddie. A lot of bereaved people do get over it though, and maybe remarry or whatever, or just get a new life on their own.

Bloody hell Rags, you are a cold fish.  You think people ever get over it, even if they manage to move on?  And your remark was crass in the extreme.

Well many do get over it.

eddie wrote:I don't think some people appreciate who absolutely devastating it is, for a partner to lose the other.
It's like losing a part of yourself.

My mum totally changed, even physically....she seemed to shrink when my dad died.
She has never been the same since he died 13 years ago.

My Nan the same and I know I'm a totally different person compared with the me 5 years ago.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would there be a need to elevated an engaged person to a married status?

Sorry about your mum eddie. A lot of bereaved people do get over it though, and maybe remarry or whatever, or just get a new life on their own.

Because death denied them being able to have that day to commit

Well in Eddies mums case, all again I can say is I doubt you have ever been very close to someone, because it can shatter peoples lives, when they love that much.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would there be a need to elevated an engaged person to a married status?

Sorry about your mum eddie. A lot of bereaved people do get over it though, and maybe remarry or whatever, or just get a new life on their own.

Because death denied them being able to have that day to commit

Well in Eddies mums case, all again I can say is I doubt you have ever been very close to someone, because it can shatter peoples lives, when they love that much.

Well that's unfortunate, but they can't have that day anyway.

All I'm saying is that a lot of people do get over bereavement.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Because death denied them being able to have that day to commit

Well in Eddies mums case, all again I can say is I doubt you have ever been very close to someone, because it can shatter peoples lives, when they love that much.

Well that's unfortunate, but they can't have that day anyway.

All I'm saying is that a lot of people do get over bereavement.

NO RAGS YOU DON'T, YOU JUST LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's unfortunate, but they can't have that day anyway.

All I'm saying is that a lot of people do get over bereavement.

NO RAGS YOU DON'T, YOU JUST LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Same thing really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Because death denied them being able to have that day to commit

Well in Eddies mums case, all again I can say is I doubt you have ever been very close to someone, because it can shatter peoples lives, when they love that much.

Well that's unfortunate, but they can't have that day anyway.

All I'm saying is that a lot of people do get over bereavement.

Some get over, some actually die from that broken heart, because the loss is that much

They may not have that day, but again the system should allow them that status based on they would have been married, if not for death cheating them

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's unfortunate, but they can't have that day anyway.

All I'm saying is that a lot of people do get over bereavement.

Some get over, some actually die from that broken heart, because the loss is that much

They may not have that day, but again the system should allow them that status based on they would have been married, if not for death cheating them

Well there you are then - you're agreeing with me that some get over it.

I don't get the second bit at all. There's no reason for them to be given an honorary marriage certificate.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Some get over, some actually die from that broken heart, because the loss is that much

They may not have that day, but again the system should allow them that status based on they would have been married, if not for death cheating them

Well there you are then - you're agreeing with me that some get over it.

I don't get the second bit at all. There's no reason for them to be given an honorary marriage certificate.

Its not there you are then, as you are making a flawed association as if then all should get over it
Many cannot
There is every reason to elevate that for those set to marry to give them rights that they would have had if not for death cheating them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


NO RAGS YOU DON'T, YOU JUST LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Same thing really.

I don't think cold fish actually covers it does it.   It's NOT THE SAME THING.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there you are then - you're agreeing with me that some get over it.

I don't get the second bit at all. There's no reason for them to be given an honorary marriage certificate.

Its not there you are then, as you are making a flawed association as if then all should get over it
Many cannot
There is every reason to elevate that for those set to marry to give them rights that they would have had if not for death cheating them.

I didn't say they all get over it, and you have just said that some get over it, which is what I said, so you're agreeing.

What rights? The person is dead. If you mean things like inheritance, they should have made a will anyway.

Anyone could say they were engaged to someone before they died, so it's a stupid idea.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Same thing really.

I don't think cold fish actually covers it does it.   It's NOT THE SAME THING.

So someone who is bereaved and who then marries someone else is going to spend all their time pining for their first spouse? I don't think so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its not there you are then, as you are making a flawed association as if then all should get over it
Many cannot
There is every reason to elevate that for those set to marry to give them rights that they would have had if not for death cheating them.

I didn't say they all get over it, and you have just said that some get over it, which is what I said, so you're agreeing.

What rights? The person is dead. If you mean things like inheritance, they should have made a will anyway.

Anyone could say they were engaged to someone before they died, so it's a stupid idea.

No I am not in agreement as you make the view that they should get over it as you did earlier

I mean that that person should be able to state that they were married as they already were married emotionally inside.

Seriously, if you have not experienced this kind of love, then its no surprise you would not understand

Its not a stupid idea and again it would help people cope better at that loss, with the system recognising they were married

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say they all get over it, and you have just said that some get over it, which is what I said, so you're agreeing.

What rights? The person is dead. If you mean things like inheritance, they should have made a will anyway.

Anyone could say they were engaged to someone before they died, so it's a stupid idea.

No I am not in agreement as you make the view that they should get over it as you did earlier

I mean that that person should be able to state that they were married as they already were married emotionally inside.

Seriously, if you have not experienced this kind of love, then its no surprise you would not understand

Its not a stupid idea and again it would help people cope better at that loss, with the system recognising they were married

I didn't say they should get over it. Learn to read.

If someone wants to say they were married, they can do so - there's no need for fake marriage certificates.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


No I am not in agreement as you make the view that they should get over it as you did earlier

I mean that that person should be able to state that they were married as they already were married emotionally inside.

Seriously, if you have not experienced this kind of love, then its no surprise you would not understand

Its not a stupid idea and again it would help people cope better at that loss, with the system recognising they were married

I didn't say they should get over it. Learn to read.

If someone wants to say they were married, they can do so - there's no need for fake marriage certificates.

Why keep stating it if not for the fact you are insinuating that they should?

Its not fake if the system recognises that they were denied being married through death, if they had a planned wedding.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


I don't think cold fish actually covers it does it.   It's NOT THE SAME THING.

So someone who is bereaved and who then marries someone else is going to spend all their time pining for their first spouse? I don't think so.

Then you really know absolutely nothing.   Pining has nothing to do with 'getting over it'.

Even when 'getting on with your life' and doing other things, you still have a hole in your soul that will never be filled.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say they should get over it. Learn to read.

If someone wants to say they were married, they can do so - there's no need for fake marriage certificates.

Why keep stating it if not for the fact you are insinuating that they should?

Its not fake if the system recognises that they were denied being married through death, if they had a planned wedding.

I didn't insinuate that at all. I know several people who have been bereaved, and have got new partners or remarried fairly quickly, and they're fine.

Of course it would be fake. You can't have a marriage between a living and a dead person. That's just silly.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So someone who is bereaved and who then marries someone else is going to spend all their time pining for their first spouse? I don't think so.

Then you really know absolutely nothing.   Pining has nothing to do with 'getting over it'.

Even when 'getting on with your life' and doing other things, you still have a hole in your soul that will never be filled.

You can't speak for others though - only yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


Then you really know absolutely nothing.   Pining has nothing to do with 'getting over it'.

Even when 'getting on with your life' and doing other things, you still have a hole in your soul that will never be filled.

You can't speak for others though - only yourself.

You don't think bereaved people get together to support each other, knowing that we all feel the same.  I belong to a group called 'Compassionate Friends' and the two things we have learnt is that there is no set way to grieve and the grief never goes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why keep stating it if not for the fact you are insinuating that they should?

Its not fake if the system recognises that they were denied being married through death, if they had a planned wedding.

I didn't insinuate that at all. I know several people who have been bereaved, and have got new partners or remarried fairly quickly, and they're fine.

Of course it would be fake. You can't have a marriage between a living and a dead person. That's just silly.

Good for them, so how does that help the ones so in love they are unable to do so?

It does not, because each individual situation is different

As to marriage, with a wedding planned, death denied them only the day to celebrate their marriage, when they were already married inside.,
The only reason people do not do them sooner is because they have to save up money to afford the day, but they have committed the moment they have become engaged and set a date

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't insinuate that at all. I know several people who have been bereaved, and have got new partners or remarried fairly quickly, and they're fine.

Of course it would be fake. You can't have a marriage between a living and a dead person. That's just silly.

Good for them, so how does that help the ones so in love they are unable to do so?

It does not, because each individual situation is different

As to marriage, with a wedding planned, death denied them only the day to celebrate their marriage, when they were already married inside.,
The only reason people do not do them sooner is because they have to save up money to afford the day, but they have committed the moment they have become engaged and set a date

Well no - because some people break their engagements.

Why can't they just say that their fiance/fiancee died? I really don't understand your point at all.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can't speak for others though - only yourself.

You don't think bereaved people get together to support each other, knowing that we all feel the same.  I belong to a group called 'Compassionate Friends' and the two things we have learnt is that there is no set way to grieve and the grief never goes.

You can only say that about the ones in that group though. Some people do manage OK. Some might not even have been that bothered. It all depends doesn't it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Good for them, so how does that help the ones so in love they are unable to do so?

It does not, because each individual situation is different

As to marriage, with a wedding planned, death denied them only the day to celebrate their marriage, when they were already married inside.,
The only reason people do not do them sooner is because they have to save up money to afford the day, but they have committed the moment they have become engaged and set a date

Well no - because some people break their engagements.

Why can't they just say that their fiance/fiancee died? I really don't understand your point at all.

What part did you fail to understand in regards to setting a date to celebrate their marriage?

Well to people who were set to marry, death has cheated them of the day to celebrate being married, as again people set to marry are already married inside

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no - because some people break their engagements.

Why can't they just say that their fiance/fiancee died? I really don't understand your point at all.

What part did you fail to understand in regards to setting a date to celebrate their marriage?

Well to people who were set to marry, death has cheated them of the day to celebrate being married, as again people set to marry are already married inside

Some people cancel their weddings. Some even make a run for it at the altar.

Life isn't always "fair" Didge - didn't you know that? You can't sue "Death".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


What part did you fail to understand in regards to setting a date to celebrate their marriage?

Well to people who were set to marry, death has cheated them of the day to celebrate being married, as again people set to marry are already married inside

Some people cancel their weddings. Some even make a run for it at the altar.

Life isn't always "fair" Didge - didn't you know that? You can't sue "Death".

Some do indeed, but again this is about people who are set to marry

Not sure why you fail to grasp that point, as someone who has cancelled is then not set to marry

Its about at the time of death whether they were set to marry

Life is not fair, but we can certainly make it fairer for those who have suffered rags

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some people cancel their weddings. Some even make a run for it at the altar.

Life isn't always "fair" Didge - didn't you know that? You can't sue "Death".

Some do indeed, but again this is about people who are set to marry

Not sure why you fail to grasp that point, as someone who has cancelled is then not set to marry

Its about at the time of death whether they were set to marry

Life is not fair, but we can certainly make it fairer for those who have suffered rags

What sort of gap between the death and the wedding are you talking about?

So someone died before they got married. It happens. I don't see what difference it would make for them to be called "married" by the Government.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Some do indeed, but again this is about people who are set to marry

Not sure why you fail to grasp that point, as someone who has cancelled is then not set to marry

Its about at the time of death whether they were set to marry

Life is not fair, but we can certainly make it fairer for those who have suffered rags

What sort of gap between the death and the wedding are you talking about?

So someone died before they got married. It happens. I don't see what difference it would make for them to be called "married" by the Government.

The gap is-irrelevant is the wedding is set

It would make every difference to the person who has lost their loved one

Again this shows to me you have no conception of love or loss

Not having a go either

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What sort of gap between the death and the wedding are you talking about?

So someone died before they got married. It happens. I don't see what difference it would make for them to be called "married" by the Government.

The gap is-irrelevant is the wedding is set

It would make every difference to the person who has lost their loved one

Again this shows to me you have no conception of love or loss

Not having a go either

I just told you - some people cancel weddings after they've been set.

I think you need to understand that not everyone is as histrionic or gushingly sentimental as you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

The gap is-irrelevant is the wedding is set

It would make every difference to the person who has lost their loved one

Again this shows to me you have no conception of love or loss

Not having a go either

I just told you - some people cancel weddings after they've been set.

I think you need to understand that not everyone is as histrionic or gushingly sentimental as you.

Irrelevant if some cancel if at the time of death they were set to marry

I think someone has done a right number on you as it would explain a great many things and for that I am sorry that you were hurt