• Can you backdate a marriage?

    Marriage Register

    How interesting to learn about the new rules that will govern couples in England and Wales who have been in a Civil Partnership who wish to change (upgrade?) their relationship status to a marriage.

    It seems that they are going to be able to do so easily and will receive a “backdated” marriage certificate which will state that their marriage began when they entered into their Civil Partnership.

    I’ve some reservations about this but I know it will be warmly welcomed by many and it would be churlish to oppose it.

    It is interesting though and there will be pressure now in Scotland for the Scottish Government to do the same.

    Here are some obvious issues.

    • It is quite odd to think that some might find themselves to have been married without their, at the time they entered into their marriage, believing that they wanted to be married.
    • People who have been blessing Civil Partnerships are going to find that they’ve been blessing marriages all along.
    • People will be able, I think, to find themselves married who never went through any ceremony at all – they may simply have signed the papers. (This is a new thing).
    • There’s no doubt going to be some grumpiness from those who trusted the politicians who said that Civil Partnerships were definately not marriages and that it had been invented in order to do something different to marriage.
    • In a sense, it is rewriting history. People are going to have marriage certificates that date from a time when they were not in fact married at all.
    • The Bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords might feel that the Government has pulled the rug out from under them.
    • I think, that people can end up married whose proposal to marry has never been published either by banns on in a registrar’s office. I’ll be interested to see whether the registrars publish the names of those converting their status. My guess is that they won’t and thus people will end up married in law who have never had their intent to enter marriage advertised to anyone.
    • It is quite odd to think that a status like marriage can be backdated. Is there any comparable status that can be changed like that?

    Personally, I would have preferred the solution to be that people would get new full marriage certificates when they requested to change their relationship status into a marriage. I think this because I think that marriage ought to require a clear statement of consent at the time it is entered into. (Indeed, many of the rules surrounding marriage are about getting unambiguous consent from both parties, freely given).

    Interesting times. Uncomfortable times for the churches, particularly the Church of England.

    Photo Credit – Dale Gillard Copyright: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

     

15 responses to “Listening. Talking. Discussing. LGBT”

  1. Kimberly Avatar

    Ryan, I think you are right on principle, and I know lots of churches that have made the switch in the States. It’s easy enough to do on paper, too. But somehow it is just so much easier to say LGBT than GLBT (though GBTL would be OK verbally).

  2. Kimberly Avatar

    p.s. — Kelvin, I find it a really helpful list. It seems like something that should be circulated beyond the readership of your blog (wide though that is). Clergy mailing, perhaps? Inspires? MU newsletters? My Weekly and The People’s Friend?

  3. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    I agree with Kimberley. It’s a very good list and has wide applicability for a number of justice issues I think. Six is a nice round number and the bolded captions are memorable with the resulting explanation clear and direct. I wonder if it could be re-worded to make a handy acrostic or is that just too kitschy? Will think more when my brain recovers from current struggle (marking).

  4. kelvin Avatar

    Thanks for all comments. (Particularly to Gina, who points us to an organisation that I previously did not know about).

    Kimberly – I’m happy for this to be reproduced with acknowledgement and happy for others to point towards it from other blogs.

    I’ve not been clever enough to make an acrostic. Personally, I think that I use chiasma more frequently when speaking in public than I use acrostics.

  5. Kimberly Avatar

    and presumably chiasm is the correct form for this discussion anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 11 October 2009 – Job

    Here is this morning’s sermon. There is a short hiatus near the beginning whilst microphones were sorted out. Fortunately one member of the congregation decided that she did want to hear me preach rather than just see me preach and waved her arms until it was sorted out. Many thanks Peggy. In the name of…

  • Sermon for St Francis 4 October 2009

    Here is the sermon preached yesterday for St Francis That Gospel reading is our jumping off point this week because it was a jumping off point for St Francis himself. It was on hearing this gospel that his manner of life was changed. He heard it and believed it was a call directly to him…

  • Here is a sermon I prepared earlier

    Preached in St Mary’s on 6 September 2009. I can’t remember why I didn’t put it online ealier. This morning I want to talk about the Syrophoenician woman whom we have just heard about in the gospel reading. This woman, whose name is unknown, is an intriguing character. She was an outsider for a number…

  • Twenty Years On

    It is funny how anniversaries creep up on you. It is twenty years ago this week since I went to read theology at the University of St Andrews. I can remember Freshers’ Week very clearly all these years later. Inevitably, some of those whom I met in the first few days there, I have lost…