Christians have reacted with caution towards government plans to liberalise marriage laws.
In one of his final acts as Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy announced a consultation on proposals that would allow weddings to take place in almost any location.
The stated aim of the policy is to incentivise marriage by bringing the costs of the ceremony down – at present the average cost of a wedding is £20,000 – a stark fact that puts many off tying the knot officially.
The policy is also aimed at providing greater legal recognition for religious minorities and those with no religion. At present the religious wedding ceremonies of most faiths are not recognised by the state, requiring many couples to hold two ceremonies.
Under the proposals the location of the wedding would be relatively unimportant and the key factor in confirming the official status of the ceremony would be the presence of a recognised officiant.
The government believes that its reforms would increase choice and so also bring down costs, leading – it believes – to a three per cent increase in the number of weddings.
Dave Greatorex of The Christian Institute said he welcomed any plans that would bring down the cost of weddings and incentivise marriage but added that such plans should also uphold the “seriousness and dignity of marriage”.
“The proposals include several troubling suggestions, such as abolishing the use of ‘prescribed words’ and scrapping the requirement for open doors. These provisions go to the very nature of marriage as a public exchange of solemn promises, so it would be very concerning if these ideas [were] written into law.
“To pull down perceived ‘barriers’, the Government is ditching important safeguards and introducing a multiplicity of permutations when it comes to officiants, ceremonies and venues. the Government runs the risk of tying itself knots.”
The Coalition for Marriage is even less keen on the plans. Responding to the proposal the group said, “Behind the castles-and-canal-boats headlines sits the real proposal – a bride could be married without saying a word, in the secrecy of a private home, on an officiant’s judgement of what her silence meant.”
C4M noted that even the government’s own paper suggested that forced marriage could be harder to prevent should its proposals become law.
The group also said the plans only required couples to accept each other as spouses and would no longer be required to pledge lifelong faithfulness. Furthermore it was noted that conscience provisions for those who do not wish to conduct same-sex weddings had been removed.
“Every minister of religion, but those in the Church of England, would face an undefined state ‘fit and proper’ test and five-yearly re-licensing. And you can guess what that fit and proper test will be looking for – a willingness to conduct same-sex weddings?” it said.
