Call for change in marriage law

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

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.

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.

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

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.

jingleplease don't.

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.

Crikey!!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the church needs undermining. Why should it have any say in legality?

So what's your problem, jings? If people who want a church wedding can still have one, surely you've nothing to complain about? There is a need for a change in the law for some civil partnerships. It's about time that was addressed. It's not going to cause any trouble for anyone so why moan about it.

What is the point in taking the 'civil' legality out of church weddings. It's just another way to undermine the church on the part of some narrow minded, self serving (votes) bigots.

Greatnan have you read my post?! That's what I said.

And yes, I have read the link. #stupidquestion

Seems OK to me.

Yes, all they're saying is that there's one marriage ceremony for everyone (including, I presume, same sex couples) and then anyone who feels the need for a religious ceremony, of the religion of their choice, can go ahead and do that as well. So anyone who values a church wedding can have a church wedding. Where's the problem?

Jingle - have you read the link? They are not suggesting that people do not have a religious ceremony, only that they first have a short civil marriage. It works in many European countries. I still see huge, costly marriages taking place at churches in France.

That should be (civil and religious)

I don't know how long religious church weddings have been a valued institution in this country, but who cares? Society's needs are changing so it makes sense for the rules to change too.

I think the two (civil) and religious are separate in France as well as Switzerland. Possibly in other European countries too.

Not only is there no mention of any religion in a register office wedding, but it is expressly forbidden. That includes hymns and any religious music.

Actually, jingle, marriage for the masses is comparatively recent. People used to live 'over the brush' as they could not afford to get married.
Most marriages were business arrangements and the bride, in particular, would have little choice. It doesn't do to get too starry-eyed about marriage!

I think it means religious couples would have to get married twice. Once in the church and once in the registry office. Thy would take the 'civil' out of the church ceremony.

How long has marriage in church been a valued institution in this country?

Idiots! They want to do away with everything that is good.