Non story of the month: Marriage-with-baptism

I am frankly a little surprised about the legs that this story grew. Mainly for all the reasons that the various reports have outlined. The CT report is here: Church Times - Marriage-with-baptism defended. And of course, the most salient facts summarised thusly: "WEDDINGS at which the couple’s children are also baptised have been legal for years, a Church House spokesman said this week. An initiative promoting such services had been criticised for giving tacit approval to sex outside marriage." So it should have been a case of 'move along folks, nothing to see here', but somehow it wasn't. Of course, the sticking point is that it seems to licence extra-marital sex; but hang on let's get over the tut-tut reaction and engage our brains a moment: do we really want to be heard to say, in effect: "We'd rather you just didn't bother us if you have made life-choices we don't like". It does seem to me that we want to be heard saying: "It's never too late to try to get things back on track". Now that's the PR angle.

The other angle is a little more tricky.
The sacramental thing.
Marriage is one thing: it's 'a gift of God in creation' and as such is something the church solemnises as part of celebrating Gods common grace. Baptism is a gift of God in the order of redemption. Unfortunately the CofE has inherited a situation it partly created, unwittingly, where baptism is used in popular culture as a creation-rite (ie to celebrate the birth of a child etc) on a par with marriage, in that sense. So the real rub is not the marriage but the confusion about baptism and that is only a problem in situations where both are contemplated togethr where the couple concerned are not really in a position psychologically or spiritually to attempt to make good on the very explicit promises required of them in the baptism service. It's a different matter if the couple concerned have come to a point where they are starting to respond actively to the gospel: in that case it is very appropriate for wedding and baptism to be held together. However, if that is not the situation it really would be better for churches to have a policy of using a very first rate non-baptismal 'christening' (a suitably well-done Thanksgiving is actually more appropriate to the needs, see my research and various church policies being operated up and down the land without any serious problem).
But then I would say that; I'm on the exec of Baptismal Integrity ...