can we let trans people get married too without jumpin through a million hoops
callsignhotdog on
>Believed to be the biggest overhaul of marriage law since the 19th century, the reforms will allow couples to marry in a wider range of locations, including beaches and castles, provided venues “meet strict standards of being appropriate and dignified”.
>The Ministry of Justice said that the changes will “reflect modern Britain” since, for the first time, non-religious groups such as [Humanists](https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/topics/humanism) will be permitted to conduct legally binding ceremonies.
Sounds a lot like how it works in Scotland now.
ZX52 on
>provided venues “meet strict standards of being appropriate and dignified”.
Nah, we should have the right to get married in undignified locations as well.
Kit-Tobermory on
**Good!** I hope this includes a *formal requirement* for ALL religious marriages to either include a civil (legal) marriage within the main ceremony or shortly after.
Some women in the UK are finding out, much too late, that without a civil marriage, they and their children do not have the many legal protections it provides. This must change.
francisdavey on
WHY do we need a “ceremony” for something that sensible nations let you do by filling in forms?
5 Comments
can we let trans people get married too without jumpin through a million hoops
>Believed to be the biggest overhaul of marriage law since the 19th century, the reforms will allow couples to marry in a wider range of locations, including beaches and castles, provided venues “meet strict standards of being appropriate and dignified”.
>The reforms will allow officiants greater autonomy over [weddings](https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/topics/weddings), shifting regulation away from buildings.
>The Ministry of Justice said that the changes will “reflect modern Britain” since, for the first time, non-religious groups such as [Humanists](https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/topics/humanism) will be permitted to conduct legally binding ceremonies.
Sounds a lot like how it works in Scotland now.
>provided venues “meet strict standards of being appropriate and dignified”.
Nah, we should have the right to get married in undignified locations as well.
**Good!** I hope this includes a *formal requirement* for ALL religious marriages to either include a civil (legal) marriage within the main ceremony or shortly after.
Some women in the UK are finding out, much too late, that without a civil marriage, they and their children do not have the many legal protections it provides. This must change.
WHY do we need a “ceremony” for something that sensible nations let you do by filling in forms?