pink weddings magazine » 27
r
eligion. always a controversial subject, one to
steer clear of at dinner partes i always think,
but nevertheless a subject that seems to
thread its bristly way through almost every
area of our lives, be it politcal, social or sexual.
and nowhere is this more apparent than in the business of
marriage. i say business because that’s exactly what it is for
many people, a business. indeed if we look back at history we
find that the concept of marriage developed from landowners
who wanted to ensure an even and fair distributon of property
and assets between family and neighbours.
interestngly, it was 16th century Protestant founder,
martn luther, who declared marriage to be ‘a worldly
thing… that belongs to the realm of government’. and
shortly afer that the English Puritans passed an act of
Parliament assertng ‘marriage to be no sacrament’ which
made it a purely secular deed, no longer to be performed by
a minister, but by a justce of the peace.
So why then, we wonder does the Church have the
responsibility today for the legal joining together of two
people?
Well, in 1563, in response to the Protestant challenge,
the Catholic Church took its stand in the Council of trent and
demanded that all marriages take place before a priest and
two witnesses. and it seems we have been enmeshed in this
religious mire ever since.
Of course things have moved on today and getng wed is
about much more than asset protecton and property sharing
for most couples. But stll, legal issues ofen play a major part
in the desire to te the knot. and the real danger with faith-
based organisatons is that they are ofen blinkered and
entrenched in outdated, insttutonalised thinking that our
modern progressive society has simply outlived.
i firmly believe we should take religion out of the
partnership equaton altogether. not only would this
eliminate the discriminaton that many same-sex couples
face from church venues and religious facilites when trying
to organise their wedding, but it would also render the act a
solely legal commitment and therefore totally equal for all.
Equality in marriagE
IMPEDIMENT?
Gino Meriano, gay rights campaigner and founder of PinkWeddings
puts forward his solution for truly equal partnerships for everyone
right now, thousands of couples in the uK are planning
their happy day. Of those, around 18% will be same sex
couples. But because they are the same sex – and only
because they are the same sex – they will be denied access
to around 25% of the venues and facilites offered to straight
couples. i don’t think that’s right – do you?
as a dedicated campaigner for equality for gay families it
never fails to irritate me how many areas of our lives are
subject to discriminaton.
and somewhere along the line, the issue of marriage
has become inextricably linked to the whole equality thing.
For we are contnually confronted with clear evidence that
faith-based organisatons can be as discriminatng as they
choose when it comes to same-sex couples.
So what’s the answer? interestngly, in 1792 during its
famous revoluton, France introduced the compulsory civil
marriage. germany followed suit in the 19th century which
diminished the influence of the Church. Eventually, marriage
before a magistrate or government official became the only
valid form of marriage in most of the Western world.
religious weddings were stll permited, but only afer the
civil ceremony had taken place.
Now how sensible is that?
my proposal, and i admit it’s a litle radical, is that we
remove the legal responsibility from religious organisatons,
keep the legal partnership of two people in the hands of the
civil authorites – that is – the law, and allow people to
choose whatever blessing they wish to have aferwards, be it
a full-on ‘white meringue’ day or skydiving over the andes.
With this in mind, the forthcoming bill in march 2012 could
well do this for both sides of the coin and finally open up civil
marriage to same sex couples and civil partnerships to opposite
sex couples. the bill starts in march 2012 and if all goes well,
could pass and be read in the queen’s speech in may 2012.
Can anyone tell me what’s wrong with that? it certainly
fits neatly within the government’s aims to simplify, modernise
and harmonise change.
www.ginomeriano.com