St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

What makes a wedding?

Following the "success" of civil marriages in stately homes and hotels, the government has published some ideas on further deregulation of weddings. Here's the flavour:

No marriage registers. A central database would replace them, containing everyone's "life history", starting with their birth and recording all details.
No certificates. If you wanted to prove you were married, you'd sign an authorisation so that the person who wanted to know could consult the database.
No set words. At present you either have to say the C of E's words (in church) or you have to say the registrar's statement that you take each other to be husband and wife. These would be abolished. You could write your own words, provided you "included a declaration that you were husband and wife". You could say, for instance, that you weren't going to share your possessions, or that you wouldn't keep sex only for each other.
No set place. You could get married wherever you wanted. Sky-diving, snorkelling in Windermere, in a racing car, down the pub ... you name it.
No set time. "Between 8am and 6pm" says the law at present: it aims to make sure you're able to see clearly enough to make sure you're marrying the right lady.
Sexes not recorded. Once the government's draft "gender recognition bill" is passed, a birth certificate could be retrospectively altered to say s/he was born the other sex. It would then be a short step to two people of the same sex getting "married".
Registrars to be employed by the local authority. Bradford Council could "sack" your vicar so that s/he couldn't do weddings in your local church.

What should you think? Here are two views: why don't you weigh them up for yourself?

A) Live & let live. If that's what folk want, why not let them have it? After all, society hasn't been very successful at getting people to live in faithful relationships. Maybe we ought to try a hands-off approach?

B) Marriage ought to be entered into "reverently, responsibly, and after serious thought". Some of these proposals trivialize the day and will only distract people from the nature of the commitment they're supposed to be making. By all means have a party afterwards, but let's keep the dignity and the content of the wedding itself.

John Hartley

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. November 2003, Page 1.
Home Page. Index of articles. Vicar's Letters: index, Resurrection, Who to vote for? Who's Jesus? Bruce Almighty, What's a wedding? Vicarage Christmas. In this issue: (November 2003) What's a wedding? Sorted, CAP, Christ the King.	What makes a wedding? Following the "success" of civil marriages in stately homes and hotels, the government has published some ideas on further deregulation of weddings. Here's the flavour: No marriage registers. A central database would replace them, containing everyone's "life history", starting with their birth and recording all details. No certificates. If you wanted to prove you were married, you'd sign an authorisation so that the person who wanted to know could consult the database. No set words. At present you either have to say the C of E's words (in church) or you have to say the registrar's statement that you take each other to be husband and wife. These would be abolished. You could write your own words, provided you "included a declaration that you were husband and wife". You could say, for instance, that you weren't going to share your possessions, or that you wouldn't keep sex only for each other. No set place. You could get married wherever you wanted. Sky-diving, snorkelling in Windermere, in a racing car, down the pub ... you name it. No set time. "Between 8am and 6pm" says the law at present: it aims to make sure you're able to see clearly enough to make sure you're marrying the right lady. Sexes not recorded. Once the government's draft "gender recognition bill" is passed, a birth certificate could be retrospectively altered to say s/he was born the other sex. It would then be a short step to two people of the same sex getting "married". Registrars to be employed by the local authority. Bradford Council could "sack" your vicar so that s/he couldn't do weddings in your local church. What should you think? Here are two views: why don't you weigh them up for yourself? A) Live & let live. If that's what folk want, why not let them have it? After all, society hasn't been very successful at getting people to live in faithful relationships. Maybe we ought to try a hands-off approach? B) Marriage ought to be entered into "reverently, responsibly, and after serious thought". Some of these proposals trivialize the day and will only distract people from the nature of the commitment they're supposed to be making. By all means have a party afterwards, but let's keep the dignity and the content of the wedding itself. John Hartley
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 4th November 2003.