Trouble and Strife

At least Sir Nicholas Mostyn has initiated the debate.

Never having needed to be consummated, civil partnerships ought not to be confined to unrelated same-sex couples, or even to unrelated couples generally.

Furthermore, any marrying couple should be entitled to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 with regard to grounds and procedures for divorce, and any religious organisation should be enabled to specify that any marriage that it conducted should be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly.

Statute should specify that the Church of England and the Church in Wales each be such a body unless, respectively, the General Synod and the Governing Body specifically resolved the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses.

There should be similar provision relating to 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.

Entitlement upon divorce should be fixed by Statute at one per cent of the other party’s estate for each year of marriage, up to 50 per cent, with no entitlement for the petitioning party unless the other party’s fault were proved.

That would be a start, anyway.

This would all have passed, if anyone had bothered to propose it, as  part of the same-sex marriage legislation that was mandated by the outcome of the 2010 referendum on whether or not Gordon Brown ought to remain as Prime Minister. He had explicitly ruled out the introduction of any such legislation.

Whereas Cameron and Clegg both said that they would at least look at this, which could only have meant one thing. If you voted for either of what became the Coalition parties, then you voted for same-sex marriage. The Conservatives are already campaigning specifically as the party that introduced it.

As an aside, it was also UKIP policy at the time, as it is again now. But none of the above is, or ever has been.