Call for change in marriage law

Agreed, Bags, but when did common sense ever come into matters that involve the authority and influence of the CofE?

Makes perfect sense so has no chance of making it into law. Modern marriage is a civil partnership whether it's in Church or Registry Office. Church just adds the rituals of religion (not mean to sound anti religion).

That makes sense to me too, I do hope it comes about someday.

I don't really understand it - can someone explain please?

I think this paragraph from the article explains it clearly, eloe. (BTW, how should I pronounce your name?)

"The way to deliver both is a proper separation of civil and religious marriage, so it is clear that civil recognition of relationships is a matter for the state, defined in law, and this should be the same for all couples, but at the same time then allowing belief-based organisations to marry whoever they want according to what they believe marriage to mean."

So, in a nutshell, marriage will be a civil partnership, but if anyone wants to add on a religious aspect/ceremony, that's up to them and separate. An addition to the legality, if you like.

Here in Switzerland they have always been separate. Everyone has to have the official, legal, civil ceremony - and can then add a religious one if they wish- which has absolutely no legal status at all.

I think the problem here (UK) might have something to do with us supposedly being a Christian country - Queen being head of C of E. Am no expert - just a thought.

If you marry in a Catholic Church in UK you have a second short ceremony with a registrar as well ( done when the register is signed and often in a small room off the main church) - at least that is how it used to be - so you were both married in the Church and a Civil Partnership. It was only the C of E vicars who had the authority to perform both the civil and religious parts of the ceremony together.

I got married in a registry office and can't really recall any of the ceremony. Is there a C of E element to registry office weddings? There was something in the link about non-consummation and adultery. I must be a bit dim but I'm confused. Does this new proposal affect people marrying in registry offices or just in churches?

For God's sake! Why can't they apply their minds to something important.

Leave marriage just as it is. For those who truly believe in it. And who want to raise a family in happiness and security for their children.

Why can't a same sex couple just promise each other they will be faithful and loving. It's only ever going to be between the two of them. And they have civil partnerships.

It's all vote chasing anyway.

There is no mention of any religion in a Register Office 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.

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!

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.

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.

That should be (civil and religious)

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.

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?

Seems OK to me.

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

And yes, I have read the link. #stupidquestion

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.

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.

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