Call for change in marriage law

Bez that isn't the case in the Catholic Church in Scotland. The couple, their witnesses and the priest go into another room to sign the register, I'm not sure why, but there isn't anyone else involved.

I was married in a Catholic church and had to have the Registrar there to perform a civil ceremony just after. Didn't bother me at all. I think MiceElf has explained it very clearly.

I mean I'm not sure why the register isn't signed in the church itself.

No registrar needed then baubles but quite a few things in Scotland have been different for along time.

Ooh I rather like Mince! Perhaps I should change to being MincePie or MinnSpy.

Better start taking notes or I'll forget who you are!

Jingle, I take it you are aware that we have members of other religions, apart from the C of E.
Stop making vague accusations about people , nobody has attacked you.

My daughter legally married in a civil ceremony at the registry office on a Wednesday and on the following Saturday we had the wedding in a marquee with a humanist celebrant. She and her partner made their vows to each other and facing friends and family. It was a moving ceremony.
If she had been religious she could have had an equally lovely ceremony in a church facing the alter as her promises would have been to God too.

Have no probs with separating CE from legal aspects of marriage. Possibly makes them more special as people would be making a conscious choice to make vows in front of their God. Though probably still won't resolve the issue of Christian gay couples who might still want to make vows in front of their God.
Is it too out of the box to think that the CE could devise a special ceremony for gay couples?

They exist! Check The Marriage of Likeness by Professor John Boswell of Yale University. He was a philologist and mediaevalist who extensively researched these liturgies.

16.50.19

See above post Greatnan

Yes. Storm in a teacup. Just one, slightly unusual mp, trying to push forward his own agenda.

Hardly worth a thread. #suckedin

Yes. Storm in a teacup. Just one, slightly unusual mp, trying to push forward his own agenda.

Hardly worth a thread. #suckedin

I think you're the only sommenter making waves, jings. The rest of us seem to have accepted the idea as fair and straight forward, not a problem at all.

commenter

The late Mr.G and I were married in a Registry office because he was divorced and the Church didn't want to know. We wanted to have a C of E service of blessing both of us, at that time, being members of it, but the vicar was only prepared to perform the blessing if both of us stood in front of the altar and admitted 'our guilt' and would not allow any music or hymns. Well, I certainly wasn't a guilty party and he was only divorced because my predecessor had gone off with her fancy-man! I told the Vicar that it was a marriage not a b* * * y funeral . My Mum who had been a lifelong, committed member of the CofE never went back to Church after that, she was so, so upset by the whole episode. Some years later I was telling the tale to my then Vicar and he offered to perform a blessing there and then - I was 9 months pregnant so declined his kind offer.
Anyway, I felt it was a bit late in the day. I had wanted to have all my friends and family there with lots of music and happiness and the moment had most definitely past. I think, for what it's worth, this marriage business is a complete mess.

Sorry 4 repeat. Time of that post was wrong too. #nevermind

As it is important, I feel l should repeat my previous post.

"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)"

Enjoy the rest of the weekend, jings

You gave a general command to a previous poster to 'go and worship your own gods'. You now say that those gods are concern for themselves and what they want.

I find that assumption that those who disagree with you, Christian and other, worship these things, extremely offensive.

Especially as that isn't what this proposal is about anyway. It's about removing an anomaly and making the law the same for everyone, and therefore better.

So be it Micelf.

Surely it is only the Church of England.

It was a ridiculous link. The small article doesn't tell you what it is about at all.

"would radically change the institution of marriage and would also be seen as a step towards the disestablishment of the Church of England."

" allowing belief-based organisations to marry whoever they want according to what they believe marriage to mean." WTF

And the legalities? No mention.

If you understand better than I do, please don't attempt to explain it to me.

jings, if you really don't understand what the proposal is about, why are you getting hot under the collar about it? You could be misinterpreting things.

As for disestablishment of the C of E, well, I think that will happen sooner or later anyhow, possiblt bit by bit, possibly not, but whether this change, should it happen, has much to do with that is arguable.

But the idea about the change in the marriage law makes perfect sense to me, and apparently to plenty of others. mice has already explained it clearly, though I thought the article quite clear too.

The ridiculous link comment is just childish.