Yes but that is nothing to do with marriage imo, that was fixing the rape law.

Ok, so a hypothetical scenario (I don’t have time to try and find any case law)

Let’s say a marriage in the 1980s was going through some difficulties. The couple were in ‘separate beds’ and ‘not speaking’. Things reach a head when the husband come home drunk and forces his wife to have sex. i.e. without her ‘consent’. The law at that time however deemed that by being married the wife had by default given consent. In other words she did not have the legal right to choice what to do with her own body and that by being married, she was in effect a ‘possession’ of her husband’s

My point being that the historical legacy of marriage until recently had negative connotations in law that a wife did not have ‘body autonomy’

That’s ostensibly how it works here. The ceremony has nothing to do with conferring the legal status. You’re not married in a church until you sign the registry.

Nevertheless, clergy are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. In a discussion about cultural/ historical baggage I would argue that it’s an important difference with some other European countries.

Nevertheless, clergy are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies. In a discussion about cultural/ historical baggage I would argue that it’s an important difference with some other European countries.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just ‘get over it’?

Still don’t get it. What on earth has previous forms of marriage got to do with how things are today, and why would anyone let such an irrelevance affect their decision making?
It’s like not drinking coke because it used to have cocaine in it.

I suppose in part it’s because of the attitudes of the older generations and how marriage is still viewed by many as a very traditional institution. I just know that if we got married now, my gran (87) and his parents (60 going on 80) would be thoroughly relieved – and that really pisses me off.

I’ve been to quite a few weddings in the last three years, church and non-church, and there’s such a range of services I understand why you might think there should be an option somewhere. Was a bit surprised by the Devon vicar who did a sermon mostly about the fact that the couple could have children now they were married. The ‘obey’ vow seems to have gone but not the ownership aspect, entirely – ‘you may now kiss your bride’ is still popular but always seems properly anachronistic.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just ‘get over it’?

It doesn’t particularly bother me: I was married by a vicar who happens to be a family friend.

But I can see why people might object to it, given its history.

So is it the act of ceremony that is problematic? You can always just have the requisite witnesses and no one else. I don’t know, but I am pretty sure a CP would still also require witnesses and given you have to travel somewhere to do it (i.e. sign into the agreement), that’s still a ceremony. The only difference is that you wouldn’t be exchanging vows.

I just know that if we got married now, my gran (87) and his parents (60 going on 80) would be thoroughly relieved – and that really pisses me off.

That’s a very good point – I’ve frequently been asked by older and elderly relatives ‘when are you going to make an honest woman of her?’

The subtext being that if a woman is ‘living over the brush’ then she is somehow a ‘fallen woman’ i.e. dishonorable and tainted as she is having sexual relations outside of marriage and therefore ‘living in sin’ – the only solution being to marry her and make her honorable.

Old fashion views perhaps, but they are still perpetuated today as a way of men trying to control, label and demean a woman’s sexuality.

I am pretty sure a CP would still also require witnesses and given you have to travel somewhere to do it (i.e. sign into the agreement), that’s still a ceremony.

Yep, you still need to sign the register, still need two witnesses, and still need to go to an “approved place” to do it.

https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/weddings-and-civil-partnership-ceremonies

So as you say the only apparent difference (in process) between a civil partnership and a civil marriage seems to be that for some bizarre reason “You must exchange some formal wording if you’re getting married” but apparently not if you are entering civil partnership.

So some people are allowed to perform marriages. Maybe people should just ‘get over it’?

You are clearly one of the great thinkers of our age 😕

You are clearly one of the great thinkers of our age

It has been said before.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of how a CofE marriage fits in. As the CofE is the established church, you, subject to the church’s rules re divorce etc., have the right to get married (and have a funeral) in Church and that ceremony is recognised by the state as a marriage. This contrasts with the continent where those countries whose law is based on the Napoleanic code only recognise a state wedding. You can have a marriage ceremony in a church but the state only recognises it when you go through the civil ceremony. (Note this is not a civil partnership but a marriage under civil law so equivalent to getting married before a registrar here).

@Digby, I’m curious as to why you think marriage is chaning for the better, divorce is at an all time record high or is the fact that its easier to get out of a bad marriage your point ?

Actually the divorce rate is at a 40 year low so quite the reverse – see here

He is never wrong and now wrong twice on the same thread 😯
~is excited to see the reason given by Mr “only ever wrong three or four times”

Because by doing so they would require the clergy to perform the ceremony

You are either misinformed or just lying.

Dont want to get into a big debate but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church. Why can my family not have the same protections as another without having to get married. Now I’ll be honest its not something I will ever lose sleep over but it does bug me. Why should our societies values think that marriage is so valuable as to gain a tax break? Its bizare to me. To think I cannot have a positive family life without a pseudo religious but of paper and a worthless promise..

Dont want to get into a big debate but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church.

Registrar & two witnesses…

Of course they do – because it can be.

Explain? I cannot see it as anything other than a religous construct

Why was gay marriage such a big deal for people if marriage is not religious?

Because it excluded people for no reason.

It was illogical and discriminatory to prevent people from participating in a marriage.

The religious element is optional for everyone.

I too think civil partnerships are an irrelevance, now civil marriage is open to all.

but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church

why on earth couldn’t you?

I got married last year, not in a church, not a religious ceremony, we’re both Atheists, we are married, how is that in any way not separate from the church?

I’m not well informed enough to know the answers to the below to this so hopefully someone can explain and educate me….

Is this discussion specifically about Christian marriage in this country?
How does it work if you are Jewish/Hindu/Sikh/Pastafarian/Muslim/$INSERTRELIGIONHERE?

Presumably there are not several different kinds of married (for each religion) in the eyes of the law/state so I was under the impression you get married, but you can choose to have the ceremony performed by a person of your choice, who may or may not also have some religious standing, but the end result is still a (non-religion specific) ‘Marriage’ ?

In which case I find it hard to work out why there is such a thing as Civil Partnership and Marriage, if the Marriage is not tied to a religion then surely they are the same thing in all but word? (or should be!)

I also can’t see how there can or should be any restriction* based on gender, sexuality, family, or requirement to reproduce on either a Marriage or a Civil Partnership, if we must have both then they should both be open to anyone?

*obviously you can’t compel a religious person to perform a ceremony if it’s against their beliefs but since you have the option of getting married in a non-religious way then is that a non-issue?

Because it excluded people for no reason.

I get that and would stand up for equality. But the sky fariests didnt want gay marriage because marriage is a religious construct surely?

Why was gay marriage such a big deal for people if marriage is not religious?

The religious folk like to claim everything comes from them – see also morality, Christmas, Easter, great art, paintings , the messiah[ music Handle] – they are wrong as marriage massively predates religion and iirc it was the 17 th C that we first had religious marriages in the UK

Basically it was just another thing they like to say was there and only they could decide what we did with it. As usual the evidence doesn’t support this view but that doesn’t bother them

But the sky fariests didnt want gay marriage because marriage is a religious construct surely?

wasn’t the issue that they didn’t want to be compelled to perform a ceremony that was against their belief?

which is rather different to saying that people cant ‘get married’ as otherwise would they not be laying claim to the entire concept of ‘marriage’ which is a bit big headed being that other religions also have ‘marriage’ and it also pre-dates current organised religions.

I can understand them objecting to being force to perform their ceremony, but not objection to the entire concept.

^ I guess that is the nub of the issue isn’t it, that they treid to claim ownership of the concept of marriage in general?

EDIT – cross post with what Junky said I think

because marriage is a religious construct surely?

afaik marriage was around before but then the religious hijacked it and it has been accepted as a religious construct for a long time. Now it’s getting dragged back away from them and they don’t like it.
And many people don’t like the historical (some, as said, still quite recent) religious/cultural connotations which I can understand.

I can understand them objecting to being force to perform their ceremony, but not objection to the entire concept.

I think they were aiming for the latter but realised they could only insist on the former.

The civil partnership for all is an interesting question. Why should people who a shagging each other get tax breaks (and other faff reduction policies) that platonic friends don’t?

The civil partnership for all is an interesting question. Why should people who a shagging each other get tax breaks (and other faff reduction policies) that platonic friends don’t?

I thought we’d agreed there was no requirement for sexy-fun-times?

which makes your point even more valid!

I think there is a requirement for potential sexy-fun time, hence no brother sister CPs.

(I con’t know the actual rules so could be wrong on some/all of this)

Clarity on that would be interesting, does that mean certain people in biological or traumatically induced situations would be genuinely not allowed to either get Married or form a Civil Partnership?

I certainly wasn’t asked at any point if I was intending to get squelchy with Mrs A before being allowed to marry.

Why stop at two folk? Make it three/four/many. If there’s no link to sex/procreation then why stop at siblings and not include offspring? I can see an issue with tax-collection etc though. Maybe it would just be more sensible to do away with these altogether.

Why stop at two folk? Make it three/four/many. If there’s no link to sex/procreation then why stop at siblings and not include offspring?

Why stop at humans? 😕

Well, from a tax/benefits point of view we currently exclude non-human species.

Why stop at humans?

consent

All of this just continues to highlight some of the oddities of some social constructs and law doesn’t it!

consent

What if your cat really loves you?

I mean… someone.

What if someone‘s cat really loves them.

I, and i think I speak for us all here, always saw you as some sort of pussy magnet

I thought we’d agreed there was no requirement for sexy-fun-times?

Many marriages would fail this test- ie there is no longer sexy-fun-times

I, and i think I speak for us all here, always saw you as some sort of pussy magnet

That’s twice in this thread I’ve had people poking fun at my attractiveness to women.

A man could get a complex 😀

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

Plenty of other animals stick with a partner to raise infants (most birds for example) and some form life-long bonds (e.g. swans, gibbons, wolves, penguins).

It seems quite possible that early humans were doing the same long before they had the mental faculties to start pondering about existence or gods.

^^^

Meow 😉

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

In numerous patriarchal cultures, both ancient and modern the concept of marriage [between a man and woman] is tied to the concepts of virtue and paternity. i.e. a man does not wish to spend time and resources helping to rear offspring that are not his own and will not therefore perpetuate his genes. Religion(s) came along later and built upon these ideals, hence the prevalence in history of virgin brides and white dresses etc.

My understanding of the original concept of marriage i.e. ‘pair-bonding’ was that the public ceremony was both a celebration, affirmation and confirmation of the two people in the presence of their community. i.e. a man should not covet his neighbour’s wife as he knows that she ‘belongs’ to another.

A man could get a complex

is that when they flock to you and ignore them? 😉

would imagine with marriage that in small communities people paor binded way before we had religion – it sems self evident we had children before we had religion whether we pair bonded is just conjecture but it seems likely as it clearly gives the offspring an advantage as two would be providing for it and not one.