Call for change in marriage law

Well in theory lol

Nor would I!

I wouldn't!

The Pope was more scared of Catherine of Aragon's nephew then he was of her husband. If it had been the other way round we'd still all be Catholic.

And, jings, I chose the word 'progress' carefully

Same here, nelliem. It's really quite ironic that a church founded on changing the rules of marriage makes such a fuss about others wanting to make some progress on the same front.

It never fails to amuse me that the Church of England, who are being high handed at present about gay marriage was largely founded not so much on the ideas of the rising protestant movement, but the pragmatism of King Henry Vlll who wanted to Divorce and remarry.
He had no doubt found it impossible at that time to bribe or otherwise influence the Pope in his favour.

Thinking about the cost of church weddings, apparently there is a problem with bell ringers now this new system of tax has come in because they are usually paid for ringing the bells at a wedding. Apparently, if HMRC continues to insist that they are employed by the church or the parish council, it will just be too much hassle to record real-time tax so brides will have to do without the bells.

Not really relevant but another example of unintended consequences in George Osborne's incompetent plans government policy.

Bags I meant to address the "don't you care" question to Micelf.

Wouldn't' dream of asking you that.

It costs £440 to get married in a C of E church - perhaps they would prefer not to lose the revenue?

If you're worried about the undermining of religious marriage maybe you should consider how many weddings are performed in church for couples who have no religious faith but fancy a big wedding with all the trimmings.

Surely treating the church as part of the day's entertainment undermines the religious aspect far more than having a civil ceremony first. Perhaps the church should restrict it's blessings for those who truly believe and refuse to simply act as a pretty setting and ritual.

I agree, Bags, but it looks as if it is doing a pretty good job of imploding anyway. It has been quite unable to settle the questions of women bishops or gay marriage. There may soon be a parting of the ways - modernisers in the UK one way, and traditionalists in Africa going another.

BTW, since you asked, I care very much about the disestablishment of the C of E. I think it needs to happen. That does not reduce the religious importance of the church to its members, only its political importance and political privileges, which it shouldn't have anyway – not in the 21st century.

The ridiculous link comment is just childish.

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.

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.

Surely it is only the Church of England.

So be it Micelf.

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.

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.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend, jings

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)"

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

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.

commenter