legalise Humanist marriage #331
Conversation
|
I think this is part of a wider debate to legalise marriages for any groups/religions (again we shouldn't specifically name where we can avoid it). Proviso that they are registered in some way so it doesn't become a complete free-for-all that cannot be audited/traced! |
|
Legalising Humanist weddings is a specific issue that Downing Street On 14/04/2015 14:40, yellowgopher wrote:
|
|
Widen it out - allow any groups to marry - why focus on just one group? |
|
Agreed, we can probably widen the wording here and include humanist and others as examples. Would that work? |
|
Marriage is a legal contract that must be overseen by an official. Are On 14/04/2015 16:02, yellowgopher wrote:
|
|
Yes that would do. But there is a reason for mentioning Humanism, i.e. On 14/04/2015 16:04, James Smith wrote:
|
|
I think I said any group wishing to officiate should be registered/vetted in some way. I am happy for examples to be mentioned. |
|
How are those groups currently vetted? Is it just civil registrars and religious organisations only at the moment? |
|
Catholic weddings are not legal. But they have a special dispensation. On 14/04/2015 16:14, yellowgopher wrote:
Andrew Edmondson 079 3450 8671 |
|
I think they have to apply for a license so I guess they are vetted in some way! |
|
Can this be made more generic - i.e. allow any groups/organisations to apply for a license to carry out marriage ceremonies. I think I would be (generally) accepting of this! ;-) So, what do I do here guys, I am sort of accepting of this proposal but with a few modifications. Do I block (like people have tended to do to me... LOL) or do I just wait and see...? |
|
What would be the criteria for giving the license? On 15/04/2015 12:32, yellowgopher wrote:
Andrew Edmondson 079 3450 8671 |
|
What are the criteria now? |
|
I agree with the proposal wholeheartedly but the whole debate here seems kinda bizarre - why does the state have to sanction marriages? Why is it the state's business whether or not we marry, to who, and by whom? Why don't we just 'liberalise' marriage? |
|
Because a marriage is a legal contract. On 18/04/2015 20:28, philipjohn wrote:
|
Why do we need a legal contract to confirm our love for another? |
|
Many people have weddings without getting married. Marriage is a protection for both parties and any children they might Before you scrap legal marriage, you need to look at the implications to On 19/04/2015 21:28, philipjohn wrote:
Andrew Edmondson 079 3450 8671 |
|
Whilst I'm tempted by @philipjohn's libertarian argument that "who the hell is the state to say whether or not my marriage is legit" we have to accept that marriage does have implications for the legal status of each party. We're not here (on this proposal at least) to discuss the rights and wrongs of whether or not marriage is/should be a legal contract - at the moment it is. And I think anyone from any group or body or religion should be able to get a licence to marry people. Like other commenters I'm not in favour of specifying 'Humanist' or 'Catholic' or anyone else. Let's keep it generic and open. |
Because the state makes it so.
I'd contest that - this proposal is suggesting adding to a situation where the state is imposing conditions on people based on tradition. We can either add to that, or reject that as illiberal. I'm suggesting we should reject this proposal and instead do something far more liberal and radical. |
|
Can I suggest something here? There is clear support and no real reason to not make humanist marriage legal. We are falling into the same trap here that the government did that by aiming for the perfect redefinition of who can perform marriages, and deny the good and easy fix. I think we can accept this, and then work on a wider redefinition later. 👍 from me on that basis. |
|
Yep, on balance, I agree. 👍 Hopefully it can be redefined into a more "all emcompassing" policy later. |
|
This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted. How to voteVote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.
Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90. Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below. ChangesIf the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted. |
No description provided.