Call for change in marriage law

And I don't think for one moment it will happen.

So go back as and worship your false Gods in peace.

Nothing bogoted about treating everyone the same in law. Quite the reverse.

'false Gods' would probably mean yourselves. For some people on this forum.

Marriage is marriage. Created firstly for the procreation of children.

Leave it alone. Done properly it's excellent for the children involved.

Oh, dear, jingle, please stop these insults before you breach forum etiquette. If you have not already. You will be giving Christians a bad name.

Crikey!!

Hmmm. Two ceremonies. In my view an excellent idea. Those who wish to make their marriage commitment in a church or Gurudwara or synagogue or other place can have their wedding uncluttered by the signing of a register and the official from the town hall having intruded on a little bit of the occasion for form filling.

And those who are happy with a civil proceding can go ahead with it. It works, as others have said, in France and elsewhere.

And that would avoid all that discord about marriages that the present muddle has given rise to.

jingleplease don't.

But they wouldn't be able to just get married in church as is the case now. They would have to have another ceremony at the registry office. And that would, on the surface, undermine the church ceremony.

It's ridiculous.

They would as they do now because c of e clergy are also registrars as are the registrars in registry offices.

Of course it doesn't. If you get married in any church or or other place of worship apart from the C of E you have to pay either for the registrar to come to the ceremony or have a registry office wedding anyway.

This proposal would simply iron out that anomaly.

jings I'm an atheist. I most certainly do not worship a false god. I also consider myself to be as worthy as those that worship your god.

Soop, I found that comment offensive too. Surely whatever our beliefs are we should be able to respect the integrity of those who differ.

You do not have to have a registrar present at a church wedding.

A vicar is the legal representative of the state. They want to take that away. Thereby undermining the Church.

No you don't. Unless it is in the C of E who is a registrar by right. But then, although the marriage will be valid in religious law, it won't be in civil law.

And a vicar is not the legal representative of the state. And I think every single one them would be appalled by that description. Ministers ordained in the C of E are registrars by virtue of the C of E being the established church of this country. That's all.

You must know what I mean! Vicars in the c of e can marry couples withhout a registrar present.

And they are trying to undermine the established church! Don't you care about that?

Nobody is trying to 'undermine' the established church. It's a (in my view) sensible proposal which will separate the functions of the state from the functions of the church or other religious institutions.

There are arguments for and against disestablishment but this not about that. And it would also put other religions and denominations on an equal footing with the C of E. and it would get the C of E out of the unholy mess it has got itself into over who can and who can't get married.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

And when I said ' false god's' I did n' t mean any kind of religious ones. I meant the things people/society seem to worship today. (mostly concern for themselves and what they want)

Neither do I Eloethan! But I am trying to explain why....

I agree with mice about the new marriage law idea (sorry, mouse, I wrote mince! Luckily I spotted it!), but I also think disestablishment of the C of E would be a good thing for other reasons. These have to do with fairness to all people of any religion or none.

I don't understand what the fuss is about either. Possibly only one person does.