I think that it is time to reform the way that we do marriages in Britain. Take this letter in the Church Times where the correspondent tells of his daughter's wedding, in a stately home with state registrars, where a poem deemed to have religious content was banned from the main ceremony and not allowed until the registrars had left the building.
She says: "I understand that a ceremony conducted by the registrar is not a “religious” ceremony — although some of the choices of vows were “I do solemnly declare” and “I take thee . . .”, taken directly from the Book of Common Prayer. We were under the impression, however, that, as the letter included with the pack from Somerset Registration Services states, “the choice is yours” to “personalise your marriage ceremony”. This is incorrect. It should read: “the choice is only yours as long as you don’t mention God.”"
Of course, it's a hard thing: if the state registrars start 'doing' religion; where might things end? Would they end up encroaching on the rites of religious bodies? And would we have to let traffic go the other way; 'religious' registrars would have to be able to do 'non-religious' ceremonies? And would that situation be a problem any way?
I'm inclined to think that we should do one of three things. One: registrars are licensed to conduct marriages wherever (the situation in many USAmerican States, and in Australia, for example) and it is up to the families and the registrar concerned just where and by what rites the ceremony is conducted (subject to a set of standards to allow it to be a marriage or a civil partnership). Two: the state should only register civil partnerships and then religious, or other bodies would conduct blessings of the same according to their own polity and policies (which would be similar to the French, Belgian and Dutch systems). Or Three: a comination of these two: the state registers partnerships as in scenario two, but it does so either via registrars who would attend a ceremony and register it regardless of its religious content, or via making the 'celebrants' into registrars.
Personally, whatever scenario we went for, I would just like to be able to conduct a marriage ceremony anywhere acceptable. For now, I'd love it if the CofE would allow us to conduct services elsewhere than a licensed church building. I would love to conduct a marriage service in a forest or on a hilltop or even amidst standing stones ... But that would be a further battle not with state legislation but with church canon law. At the moment the two coincide, under any of the alternative scenarios, the CofE would have to decide its own terms of engagement and that would be another story.
Church Times - ‘Are you here for your banns?’ Marriage matters:
05 August 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
6 comments:
The registrar receives his or her power from the Queen, via Her Majesty's Government; and it is the sworn duty and obligation of that very same Queen at coronation to uphold "the reformed protestant faith". Therefore, to refuse to allow mention of God whilst acting on behalf of the Queen is to act against the sworn and declared interest and duty of the crown.
Thanks Vincent. You'd think so but ...
The registration of marriages in anything but a Church of England context is a Victorian reform and the registry office option was to offer those who had decided against religion a way to be married without perjuring themselves, so to speak. Thus it was set up to very clearly NOT have references to God and not to encroach on the domain of the churches in this respect. The recent change in law enables places other than a registry office to be the setting and for some material to be included that goes beyond the constrained previously official ceremony. However, since religious ceremonies are effectively covered elsewhere, the clear 'atheist' basis remains in place. This is all within the law and so the issue of the general constitutional settlement is not at issue.
I think my solution is simpler: Notes from underground: The State should get out of the marriage business.
The Registrar doesn't have to be present at a birth or death -- why should he/she/it have to be present at a marriage?
In many ways I would agree Steve. However, I think that there is a value in the state registering 'partnerships' because this would be a shortcut to a raft of benefits such as inheritance rights, joint property ownership etc etc (according to state 'taste'). The question then becomes what form that registration should take in order to be sufficiently legally binding for the purposes just mentioned. If it were a certificate presented by a duly recognised official of a religious body or of a society set up to perform ceremonies (for example), then that would be rather like one of my solutions. If it was that a registration had to take place first (which I understood to be the French system), then how would this not be a civil 'marriage' followed by a church wedding?
I'm concerned we don't end up having to many 'major' occasions. If registering a partnership were analogous to a birth or a death; then what documentation is deemed sufficient? (cf a death certificate?)
I must say I like the direction Andii is taking. It does make good sense to split marriage from state benefit structures.
As the Book of Common Prayer states, "so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful".
Therefore, we should not use the word 'marriage' for those not joined according to God's word, nor should we withhold the word 'marriage' from those who are married according to God's word but are in breach of state registration obligations.
I would therefore suggest the state only register and recognise civil partnerships; which it can regulate according to contract law, and the Church cease linking marriage to this legal partnership contract.
For so long as the Church views those who have undergone civil marriage alone as married and hence no longer living in sin, it devalues marriage itself.
@ Vincent: I'm quite sympathetic with what I take to be the thrust of your suggestion here.
I have a question about what we might mean when talking about 'according to God's law' -is this something we view as a gift of God in creation (to echo prayer book language) or whether there is some kind of quasi-sacramentalist approach where a marriage is only such if a priest has conducted it. I tend towards the former and would regard, in principle, a number of people as 'married' apart from state registration and even apart from church recognition.
In that case, it might be hard to identify just what might be meant by 'living in sin'. To me that would have to mean living in such a way as to 'institutionalise' fornication or injustice of some kind and might well cover a number of relationships previously thought of as 'marriage' -including biblical relationships such as either Jacob's relationship with Leah or with Rachel, for example. I'd also want to ask questions on this basis about the relationship of Augustine of Hippo to his 'concubine', by whom he had a son, and a number of dynastic marriages in European history ... makes you think, eh?
Post a Comment