Report comment

To Anonymous without a ‘p’ | 24 December 2015 at 04:48 pm

Apology accepted, naturally ~ it’s been the story of my life!

I think it would be better to have a situation where all marriages, whatever the religion, can be accommodated and registered without any couple having to go through two ceremonies only one of which is legally recognised. Only last week the Law Commission scoping report on “Getting Married” ( http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/marriage-law ), after noting that: “Our law of marriage was designed in and for another age. The current Marriage Act, passed in 1949, was merely a consolidating measure and the structure of the current law remains essentially that of the Marriage Act 1836 …”, concluded: “The current law governing the solemnization of marriages is outdated, uncertain and needlessly complex. It does not cater adequately for the many faiths and non-religious beliefs that make up 21st century society and is perceived to be unfair. We take the view that the solution lies in full-scale reform …”

2. I think that the deception and betrayal of trust which are usually involved in acts of adultery are far more reprehensible than a man’s openly shouldering the responsibility of maintaining two families concurrently – and yet the law currently tolerates adultery and criminalises bigamy.

I am simply advocating that honesty and transparency between men and women should be encouraged and accepted.

In George Bernard Shaw’s “Getting Married”, written some 70 years after the Marriage Act 1836, he states (with Mormon practice in mind) : “Experience shews that women do not object to polygyny when it is customary: on the contrary, they are its most ardent supporters. The reason is obvious. The question, as it presents itself in practice to a woman, is whether it is better to have, say, a whole share in a tenth-rate man or a tenth share in a first-rate man. Substitute the word Income for the word Man, and you will have the question as it presents itself economically to the dependent woman.”

Since many couples today do not bother to go through any form of either legally or religiously recognized marriage – “We don’t need no piece of paper from the city hall keeping us tied and true,” (Joni Mitchell), the Law Commission report on “Cohabitation” ( http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/cohabitation ) – which makes recommendations concerning the need for laws to govern key issues which concern cohabitees just as much as legally married couples – is well worth considering in conjunction with its scoping report on “Getting Married”. The issues which these two reports consider (in addition to the issues which its awaited report on reforming the law of “Divorce” must also inevitably consider) are inextricably interrelated.

3. The prohibited degrees of consanguinity as currently defined by English law are derived mainly from the Bible and possibly the Qur’an. The rare exception which you cite is also not permitted by the Shari’a of Islam (Qur’an: 4.23) – which, like English law, does permit marriage between cousins.

4. Please don’t put words into my mouth. I did not say that Jewish inheritance law is “sexist and unfair” – you did!

I simply observed that although there might on the face of it appear to be inequality in its provisions, in fact as long as the Jewish menfolk fulfill their religious duty of care towards their womenfolk, then the result is in fact balance and equity and mutual appreciation.

English law does not concern itself with mutual trust, respect and love between husband and wife, whereas in reality these are elements which characterize a healthy marriage and a healthy family. They cannot be legally imposed, but they can be protected and nurtured.