Unlike a civil partnership, which therefore ought not to be restricted to unrelated same-sex couples, a marriage has to be consummated. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith (the present title is not the one conferred by the Pope on Henry VIII, but the one conferred by a Protestant Parliament on his son, Edward VI) could not have signed a Bill which, for the first time, actually required, in order to receive some legal benefit or privilege, engagement in sexual relations other than those between one man and one woman in marriage. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith still cannot do so.
But now that this debate is wide open, we should seize the opportunity to propose something better. The extension to relatives of the right to contract civil partnerships, which in that case, though not otherwise, might indeed be blessed liturgically, and might indeed be contracted in church. The entitlement of each divorcing spouse to one per cent of the other's estate for each year of marriage, up to 50 per cent, and the disentitlement of the petitioning spouse unless fault be proved, thereby restoring the situation whereby, by recognising adultery and desertion as faults in divorce cases, society declared in law its disapproval of them even though they were not in themselves criminal offences.
The entitlement of any marrying couple to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 as regards grounds and procedures for divorce, and to enable any religious organisation to specify that any marriage which it conducts shall be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly. And the statutory specification that the Church of England be such a body unless the General Synod specifically resolve the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses, with something similar for the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy.
That would be a start, anyway. The marital union of one man and one woman is a public good uniquely and in itself, and the taxation system, among so very many other instruments of public policy, should recognise that fact. It should recognise marriage as a unique public good, to which civil partnerships are not comparable. And it should recognise marriage as a public good in itself, whether or not there are children, a related but different public good of which other forms of recognition rightly exist. But will any Party Leader say this, as once they would all have done? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith still cannot do so."
ReplyDeleteReally? So how come the Queen through her representatives in Canada has given consent to same-sex marriage there. A bit odd innit?
And what about same-sex marriage in Norway. Who signed that bill. The Supreme Governor of the Church of Norway, King Harald, that is who.
Wriggle your way out of those!
The Crowns of Britain and Canada are two entirely distinct entities, which merely happen to be occupied by the same person.
ReplyDeleteThe Church of Norway is not the Church of England, and vice versa.
You don't have to take my word on this: this really is why the Blair Government, which wanted to legislate for same-sex "marriage", realised that it simply could not do so, and instead devised civil partnerships, which, since they do not need to be consummated, ought not to be restricted to unrelated same-sex couples.