https://thecritic.co.uk/the-mistakes-of-marriage-reform/
The consultation begins with a foreword from David Lammy, written in the syrupy idiom of the life coach rather than the legislator: “Every couple deserves to start their journey together with an unforgettable day that reflects their beliefs, their personalities and the lives they plan to build together.” Yuck. Some of the problems identified are laughably exaggerated, such as the idea that couples are abandoning marriage because wedding venues are expensive. Others are far more sinister. Beneath the veil of religious tolerance sits a proposal that would, for the first time, make a woman’s own voice legally unnecessary at her wedding. The consultation argues that “dignity is to some extent subjective” and that marriage ceremonies should reflect different cultural and religious traditions. It suggests that requiring spoken consent is, for some faiths, “an imposition” that conflicts with established practice. Its answer is to redefine consent itself. Rather than insisting that both parties verbally agree to the marriage, the Government proposes that consent may instead be expressed “through actions”, so long as the officiant and witnesses “share an understanding” of what those actions mean. The Family Education Trust highlights these and other flaws. A briefing from the charity explains a Muslim girl whose marriage has been arranged by her family could, in principle, remain veiled and silent throughout a ceremony held in her family home, yet leave it legally married because the officiant and witnesses interpreted her gestures as consent.
The Government itself accepts that allowing weddings in private homes “could make it harder to identify forced, predatory, sham marriages or wider abuse”. The consultation acknowledges that six in ten women married in Islamic ceremonies in Britain have no legal marriage at all. When those relationships collapse, it is overwhelmingly women who discover they have no matrimonial rights, no financial remedies and none of the legal protections marriage is supposed to confer. Their children pay the price too.........................................................
https://archive.ph/uJ4gl
The consultation begins with a foreword from David Lammy, written in the syrupy idiom of the life coach rather than the legislator: “Every couple deserves to start their journey together with an unforgettable day that reflects their beliefs, their personalities and the lives they plan to build together.” Yuck. Some of the problems identified are laughably exaggerated, such as the idea that couples are abandoning marriage because wedding venues are expensive. Others are far more sinister. Beneath the veil of religious tolerance sits a proposal that would, for the first time, make a woman’s own voice legally unnecessary at her wedding. The consultation argues that “dignity is to some extent subjective” and that marriage ceremonies should reflect different cultural and religious traditions. It suggests that requiring spoken consent is, for some faiths, “an imposition” that conflicts with established practice. Its answer is to redefine consent itself. Rather than insisting that both parties verbally agree to the marriage, the Government proposes that consent may instead be expressed “through actions”, so long as the officiant and witnesses “share an understanding” of what those actions mean. The Family Education Trust highlights these and other flaws. A briefing from the charity explains a Muslim girl whose marriage has been arranged by her family could, in principle, remain veiled and silent throughout a ceremony held in her family home, yet leave it legally married because the officiant and witnesses interpreted her gestures as consent.
The Government itself accepts that allowing weddings in private homes “could make it harder to identify forced, predatory, sham marriages or wider abuse”. The consultation acknowledges that six in ten women married in Islamic ceremonies in Britain have no legal marriage at all. When those relationships collapse, it is overwhelmingly women who discover they have no matrimonial rights, no financial remedies and none of the legal protections marriage is supposed to confer. Their children pay the price too.........................................................
https://archive.ph/uJ4gl
1
