Mothers not to be on marriage certificates after all

[grimbletart]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12067271/Ministers-reject-simple-change-to-marriage-certificates-to-include-mothers-name-as-unfair-to-gay-couples.html

So much for the attempts to accord mothers equal status on marriage certificates.

Seems that not only are women expected to budge over not to offend transgender activists according to posters on recent threads her, we now have to budge over not to (hypothetically) offend those in same sex relationships.

You'd think it would be enough budging over to minorities that straight women cannot even have a civil partnership with their male partner wouldn't you? But no.

Can't they just have two boxes for your parents ie a mother and father or two fathers or two mothers.. ?

And the choice to leave one or both boxes blank if you have no relationship with any parent?

I agree with 5madthings, why can't there just be two boxes per person saying "parents names" instead of being so specific? We're having our mums as our witnesses when we get married next September as otherwise their names won't be on the certificate at all.

And yet Scotland has managed to have both names since 1855.

And coped perfectly well with things like parents not being married, or father not known, or parent married to someone else by the time the child marries. And there must also be a protocol for adopted children.

So I really don't see how same-sex spouse isn't covered by the above. It's really not going to be a struggle to word the boxes appropriately.

Disappointing and very strange.

The giveaway that this is diversionary bollocks is this line:

'He said the Bill "does not reform the whole registration process. It would simply require the replacement of tens of thousands of books at a cost of £3 million.'

Registration books have to be replaced anyway, because they fill up.

Looks more like an excuse than a reason.
What would be so hard about having space on the certificate to name parent 1 and parent 2 if having sex specific labels is not acceptable?

What they are essentially asserting is that some people don't have a mother but that everyone has a father. Which is clearly errant piffle and takes no account whatsoever of people whose parents are a lesbian couple.

So they are citing gay men as their excuse and entirely ignoring gay women (and others). Bright bunch of boys, aren't they?

What about lesbian couples? Any provision for them. I agree with five mad things.

Indeed.

Historically England & Wales marriage certificates often have no entry for a parent at all, because father is not known or acknowledged. And mother of course doesn't count.

Random question, but why do we have to have any parents named on the marriage certificate?

My marriage had nothing to do with my parents. I don't see why they should be on it at all.

Family relationships, address and occupation used to be the only ways of identifying someone.

And are still the best ways of identifying someone if you don't have access to their National Insurance number or the like.

We still use such things today in conversation - "You know, Steve's sister, from Harwich, the one who's the vet."

Would there be situation when someone getting married wouldn't have access to a more formal way of identifying them?

I can see why we had it in the past when people generally stayed in the same place, but in a time when people move all the time knowing that my dad is called John Smith doesn't really mean much.

The whole concept of having any parents on a marriage cert seems rather old fashioned, without even getting into which parents it should be.

So they are citing gay men as their excuse and entirely ignoring gay women

I wonder why they aren't embarrassed to say such utter bullshit in public.

Hopefully, gay men will protest against being used to oppress women ... but probably not.

When we met the registrar to book our wedding, she asked my dad's name, occupation and job. I automatically started blurting my mums out straight after and and was told "that doesn't matter"

She then asked only dhs dad details.

Wondered what it was all about, dh said it's probably to check people are not accidentally marrying their siblings. That a woman would know how many children she's given birth to, but a man could have unknown ones. But I'm not so sure, a woman could have given up a child for adoption and not know where they are, so it's possible siblings could end up together when they share the same mother. Plus, they may be told their mum is someone else so how could they check? Dh thinks computers? But I can't see a registration checking history of family of everyone getting married? Took my brother fucking years to do a family tree, our poor registrar would have her work cut out with us.

If it was to prevent accidental incest, they'd ask for both names, wouldn't they?
If they only ask for one, then the mother's would be safer to make sure it's not, you know, intentional incest. Lots of women have children from several different men, who grow up together. Besides, children get more DNA from the mother, so incest between half-siblings who share a mother would probably be worse.

Also, if a man doesn't know a child is his, then probably the child doesn't know, either.

Anyway, that justification is utter nonsense, and I hope some gay men will start a petition to protest against being used as a lazy excuse for misogyny.

Don't disappoint me, guys!

I can't see that accidental incest thing making sense. It relies on them both knowing who their father is and yet never having noticed they have the same one! Or is it further back incest? I really don't think they do an exhaustive check of everyone's family history.

Having recently got married it was weird to give our fathers' names when neither was at the wedding. DH's dad died in 2011 and I'm estranged from mine for over a decade. Both of our mothers were there and were witnesses but apparently not as important.

Really disappointed by this decision.

Weird decision. The gay male parents reasoning is bizarre. What if both your parents are women?

Egypt is almost last in every gender equality survey going and we have our mums on our marriage certificates.

Besides, children get more DNA from the mother, so incest between half-siblings who share a mother would probably be worse.

If you have a couple of hours go and read about mitochondria - bacteria with which we have a symbiotic relationship.

I'd have thought you're more likely to know your mother than your father. And in terms of same sex couples, almost more lesbian couples have kids than gay men.

If it's all about the 3million quid then I'm sure we can meet a compromise that we'll wait for the change in the next print run. Minimal cost - just got to make a change to whatever form it is that's being filled in. I'm sure it's happened before, I'm sure there are new print runs frequently.

Perhaps I should just go to Scotland to get married in protest.

utterly bizarre reasoning.

What a ridiculous debate! What's wrong with them?! 'Parent 1' and 'Parent 2' would make perfect sense and includes same-sex relationships. And a really interesting insight that "same sex" has to mean two men to some of them.

Just realised its marriage not birth! But 'person 1' and 'person 2' or whatever would work.

And isn't it discriminatory for gay or lesbian couples to have to designate one of them as 'father'?