Privilege, what privilege?
Diane Brewster queries how our marriages differ from others
I read Sylvia Hilken’s article (Same-sex marriage,12 February) suggesting Friends give up any marriage privilege that we are allowed with both interest and some initial sympathy for her position. I do feel the need to comment on her view of non-Quaker marriages, however, as I have often found myself bemused and amused by the apparent belief among Friends that our marriage practice is actually that much different from everyone else’s. I got married twenty-four years ago in the Roman Catholic Church. Contrary to what many Friends seem to believe I did not have to have a civil ceremony before the religious one (nor was I ‘given away’ or wearing a wedding dress!). All that was required during the actual ceremony was that the building was registered for marriages, the legal form of declaratory words was used, along with the legal form of the contracting words, and had to be said in the presence of a registrar (while we could, and did, change many of the words of the RC ceremony, the state legal bits couldn’t be messed with). In our case the registrar was the parish priest (who was not the priest carrying out the ceremony but was in the congregation and then oversaw the signing of the registry book). These very short legal bits were fully integrated into the ceremony, and they really are very short!
Declaratory words
I declare that I know of no legal reason why I, [your full name], may not be joined in marriage to [your partner’s full name].
or
by replying ‘I am’ to the question
‘Are you, [your full name], free lawfully to marry [your partner’s full name]’.
Contracting words
I, [your full name], take you, [your partner’s full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband].
or
I, [your full name], take thee, [your partner’s full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband].
Looking at the legal formalities for marriages in the UK the only Quaker privilege I can see is that we do not have to register our buildings or include this form of words in our ceremonies and our registering officers are not civil registrars. I used to know a number of RC priests who did not want to be registrars as they did not want to combine their religious role with a civil one. I think that attitude is less common now, but only where it does persist is where separate ceremonies are needed. Roman Catholic Canon law, which I studied for many years, is also very clear that the priest does not ‘marry’ the couple, they marry each other with him as the church’s witness, not that different to the position of Friends.
Were we to follow Sylvia Hilken’s suggestion, the key practical changes would be the need to ensure buildings were registered as venues, and to include in the ceremony the statutory words in the presence of a registrar (who may or may not be the registering officer). No separate ceremony would be required as the civil and religious requirements would both be being met at the same time, as they were with my RC wedding, and as they currently are with the wedding of Friends and anyone else who has a religious ceremony in a registered building following UK law. No real change then, just a few more hoops to jump through.
It may well be that as an act of witness to our belief in the need for a change in the law with regard to same-sex marriage that we should be jumping through these hoops – but we need to make sure we know what hoops and how big and high they are. To be honest, as no-one I have met outside of Friends thinks that Quaker marriage is any different to anyone else’s, I personally don’t see that it would be an effective act of witness to tinker with largely invisible technicalities about building and words. Far better to push ahead with the changes to Quaker faith & practice and use these to challenge the status quo and argue for changes in the law – allowing any religious group to legally marry same-sex couples should they choose to do so.
See comment on page 7.
