The state should not seek to incentivise marriage through the tax system. But it should recognise family household units whether married, unmarried or in a civil partnership. It is therefore proposed that a non-working adult's personal income tax allowance may be transferred in full to another working adult residing in the same household. Only one transfer would be allowed per household.
Humanist marriage to be made legal.
Under all devolved jurisdications each party to the civil partnership must be of the same sex. This option should be extended to heterosexual couples who may not wish to partake in the institution of marriage.
@yellowgopher - about 9 years ago
I think this is part of a wider debate to legalise marriages for any groups/religions (again we shouldn't specifically name where we can avoid it). Proviso that they are registered in some way so it doesn't become a complete free-for-all that cannot be audited/traced!
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago
Legalising Humanist weddings is a specific issue that Downing Street blocked despite 95% of those consulted wanting them. So I think it is valid.
On 14/04/2015 14:40, yellowgopher wrote:
I think this is part of a wider debate to legalise marriages for any groups/religions (again we shouldn't specifically name where we can avoid it). Proviso that they are registered in some way so it doesn't become a complete free-for-all that cannot be audited/traced!
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/331#issuecomment-92846462.
@yellowgopher - about 9 years ago
Widen it out - allow any groups to marry - why focus on just one group?
Agreed, we can probably widen the wording here and include humanist and others as examples. Would that work?
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago
Marriage is a legal contract that must be overseen by an official. Are you saying that anyone should be able to officiate?
On 14/04/2015 16:02, yellowgopher wrote:
Widen it out - allow any groups to marry - why focus on just one group?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/331#issuecomment-92893381.
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago
Yes that would do. But there is a reason for mentioning Humanism, i.e. the 95% of those consulted in favour.
On 14/04/2015 16:04, James Smith wrote:
Agreed, we can probably widen the wording here and include humanist and others as examples. Would that work?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/331#issuecomment-92893937.
@yellowgopher - about 9 years ago
I think I said any group wishing to officiate should be registered/vetted in some way. I am happy for examples to be mentioned. Lol! Just thought. We could have an independent committee that reviews groups that can apply to officiate their own weddings. Welcome to the new world of quangos!
How are those groups currently vetted? Is it just civil registrars and religious organisations only at the moment?
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago
Catholic weddings are not legal. But they have a special dispensation. Two registrars hang around in the back of the church for the happy couple to be married proper.
On 14/04/2015 16:14, yellowgopher wrote:
I think I said any group wishing to officiate should be registered/vetted in some way. I am happy for examples to be mentioned. Lol! Just thought. We could have an independent committee that reviews groups that can apply to officiate their own weddings. Welcome to the new world of quangos!
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/331#issuecomment-92898354.
Andrew Edmondson
079 3450 8671 West Sussex Humanists http://www.westsussexhumanists.org.uk BHA logo http://www.humanism.org.uk/
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago
Looks like Catholic marriages are legal. My mistake. Someone told me they weren't. Here's Wikipedia:
From the Marriage Act 1753 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageAct1753http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageAct1753 until 1837, only marriages conducted by the Church of England, Quakers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers, or under Jewish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew law, were recognised in England and Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnglandandWaleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnglandandWales. This was changed by the Marriage Act 1836 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageAct1836http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageAct1836 which, in addition to introducing civil marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilmarriagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilmarriage, also allowed ministers of other faiths (Nonconformists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist and Roman Catholics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RomanCatholichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RomanCatholic) to act as registrars.
On 14/04/2015 16:15, James Smith wrote:
How are those groups currently vetted? Is it just civil registrars and religious organisations only at the moment?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/331#issuecomment-92899733.
Andrew Edmondson
079 3450 8671 West Sussex Humanists http://www.westsussexhumanists.org.uk BHA logo http://www.humanism.org.uk/
@yellowgopher - about 9 years ago
I think they have to apply for a license so I guess they are vetted in some way!
@yellowgopher - about 9 years ago
Can this be made more generic - i.e. allow any groups/organisations to apply for a license to carry out marriage ceremonies. I think I would be (generally) accepting of this! ;-)
So, what do I do here guys, I am sort of accepting of this proposal but with a few modifications. Do I block (like people have tended to do to me... LOL) or do I just wait and see...?
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago
What would be the criteria for giving the license?
On 15/04/2015 12:32, yellowgopher wrote:
Can this be made more generic - i.e. allow any groups/organisations to apply for a license to carry out marriage ceremonies. I think I would be (generally) accepting of this! ;-)
So, what do I do here guys, I am sort of accepting of this proposal but with a few modifications. Do I block (like people have tended to do to me... LOL) or do I just wait and see...?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/331#issuecomment-93338502.
Andrew Edmondson
079 3450 8671 West Sussex Humanists http://www.westsussexhumanists.org.uk BHA logo http://www.humanism.org.uk/
@philipjohn - about 9 years ago
I agree with the proposal wholeheartedly but the whole debate here seems kinda bizarre - why does the state have to sanction marriages? Why is it the state's business whether or not we marry, to who, and by whom?
Why don't we just 'liberalise' marriage?
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago
Because a marriage is a legal contract.
On 18/04/2015 20:28, philipjohn wrote:
I agree with the proposal wholeheartedly but the whole debate here seems kinda bizarre - why does the state have to sanction marriages? Why is it the state's business whether or not we marry, to who, and by whom?
Why don't we just 'liberalise' marriage?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/331#issuecomment-94194468.
@philipjohn - about 9 years ago
Because a marriage is a legal contract.
Why do we need a legal contract to confirm our love for another?
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago
Many people have weddings without getting married.
Marriage is a protection for both parties and any children they might have. It has many implications, e.g. tax, inheritance.
Before you scrap legal marriage, you need to look at the implications to society.
On 19/04/2015 21:28, philipjohn wrote:
Because a marriage is a legal contract.Why do we need a legal contract to confirm our love for another?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/331#issuecomment-94310686.
Andrew Edmondson
079 3450 8671 West Sussex Humanists http://www.westsussexhumanists.org.uk BHA logo http://www.humanism.org.uk/
@PaulJRobinson - about 9 years ago
Whilst I'm tempted by @philipjohn's libertarian argument that "who the hell is the state to say whether or not my marriage is legit" we have to accept that marriage does have implications for the legal status of each party. We're not here (on this proposal at least) to discuss the rights and wrongs of whether or not marriage is/should be a legal contract - at the moment it is. And I think anyone from any group or body or religion should be able to get a licence to marry people. Like other commenters I'm not in favour of specifying 'Humanist' or 'Catholic' or anyone else. Let's keep it generic and open.
@philipjohn - almost 9 years ago
It has many implications, e.g. tax, inheritance.
marriage does have implications for the legal status of each party
Because the state makes it so.
We're not here (on this proposal at least) to discuss the rights and wrongs of whether or not marriage is/should be a legal contract.
I'd contest that - this proposal is suggesting adding to a situation where the state is imposing conditions on people based on tradition. We can either add to that, or reject that as illiberal. I'm suggesting we should reject this proposal and instead do something far more liberal and radical.
Can I suggest something here? There is clear support and no real reason to not make humanist marriage legal. We are falling into the same trap here that the government did that by aiming for the perfect redefinition of who can perform marriages, and deny the good and easy fix. I think we can accept this, and then work on a wider redefinition later. 👍 from me on that basis.
@yellowgopher - almost 9 years ago
Yep, on balance, I agree. 👍 Hopefully it can be redefined into a more "all emcompassing" policy later.
The OpenPolitics Manifesto
@andrewedmondson - about 9 years ago