Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Mothers not to be on marriage certificates after all

98 replies

grimbletart · 27/12/2015 12:02

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.

OP posts:
JeanneDeMontbaston · 29/12/2015 11:06

This annoys me.

Yes, it would be very nice if gay men (and those women-type things, I forgot about them cos we tend to, you know?) could have both names on marriage certs for their children.

But this campaign was started and run by a woman who put a shitload of effort in, and it's been piggybacked. Again.

I also think these are things with different significances. Throughout history people have raised children in all sorts of relationship situations and it would be lovely to acknowledge those. Sure. And that would include putting your gran down because she brought you up, or putting down your two dads, or whatever.

But, women's contribution to children is consistently, and historically, overlooked and minimised. It's coming into something of a conflict with the desires of gay men at the moment - if you look at the rhetoric of gay parenting, an awful lot of it assumes that women are just there to incubate a baby for gay men, and TBH it's fairly exploitative. This seems to be a step in a similar direction to me - don't worry about the women, who did the work here, worry about us, we're men, we matter more.

NormaStanleyFletcher · 29/12/2015 15:04

I got married in Scotland. Might have to dig out the certificate to see what is on it.

SpecialistSnowflake · 29/12/2015 16:10

Bizarre. I didn't know about this, and it doesn't make much sense - especially as there are so many people with loser absent fathers (hand raise).

If having to register myself as 'mr deadbeats daughter' is a condition of marriage I just won't get married!

QueenStromba · 29/12/2015 16:39

You don't need to put your father on the certificate Snowflake - I got married a couple of months ago and I just said that I didn't want to have his name on the certificate.

VestalVirgin · 29/12/2015 16:40

Specialist, just not getting married would be a good reaction to a lot of things.

No right to get an abortion? No marriage. Marital rape is legal? No marriage. Stupid sexism on documents? No marriage.

I think the main problem is that people women cannot financially afford to not marry. (I know people who married explicitly for the tax benefits and to make inheritance easier, etc.)

There's also some nostalgia about weddings, but feminists would be able to throw those overboard a lot easier than financial concerns.

Andrewofgg · 29/12/2015 17:57

This is the wrong time of the year for this announcement.

It should have been kept for Easter.

Because MN is going to crucify all concerned.

PlaysWellWithOthers · 29/12/2015 18:08
thegiddylimit · 29/12/2015 18:10

Norma Scottish marriage certificates have all four parents of the couple on a wedding certificate and has done for years.

Maybe Nicola Sturgeon should start advertising Scotland as the destination of choice for marriage for feminists as well as runaway young couples.

NormaStanleyFletcher · 29/12/2015 18:20

Thanks Giddy

Apart from the family ties, we chose Scotland as we could have a humanist wedding with no other ceremony.

nameequality · 29/12/2015 22:45

Hi Ailsa here - I set up the www.change.org/nameequality petition which I know lots of MNers signed.

The Sunday Telegraph article is completely misleading and I will explain why below.

Angry
nameequality · 29/12/2015 22:50

The bill the Sunday Telegraph is talking about is a Private Members Bill tabled by Labour MP Christina Rees.

This bill proposers a 'simple' change to the law and the main Home Office objection is around practicalities and the fact that a Conservative MP has a bill they do approve of...

Opposition MPs private member bills are typically not supported by Governments for a variety of reasons.

A couple of weeks ago Conservative MP, Caroline Spellman organised a debate for MPs in Westminster Hall on #MothersOnMarriageCerts.

This debate lasted 90 mins and I will post a link to the video and to Hansard.

nameequality · 29/12/2015 22:53

Link in my tweet to video:

twitter.com/nameequality/status/681162381993492480?s=09

nameequality · 29/12/2015 22:56

wp.me/p4n3Qk-16O

Link to write up by churchinparliament website ^

Trills · 29/12/2015 22:56

Oh FFS.

nameequality · 29/12/2015 23:00

Caroline Spellman MP has a role liaising between Parliament and the Church of England.

Caroline Spellman explained in the debate that she will table a private bill which will resolve the #MothersOnMarriageCerts issue.

Why this will be a private bill and not Government I am not sure. ( It may be to do with th politics of the Church of England where the majority of religious marriages are conducted).

However Richard Harrington strongly indicated that the Home Office support this. David Cameron has reiterated his support for this in an answer in PMQs just a few weeks ago.

Trills · 29/12/2015 23:01

nameequality thank you for the explanation - could I trouble you for some more?

I thought that we had been told by David Cameron that adding mothers to the certificates was going to happen.

If that's the case, that the Prime Minister had said it would happen, then why would a member of the opposition bother raising a private members bill about it?

Is it to try to claim the change for Labour rather than the Conservatives?

Is it because the Conservatives are not really going to do it?

nameequality · 29/12/2015 23:02

Trills?

but a very very slow internet connection

Theydontknowweknowtheyknow · 29/12/2015 23:07

Waiting with bated breath...!

nameequality · 29/12/2015 23:07

Labour have introduced as they had seen no evidence of progress.

Caroline Spellman has now also introduced here bill. A fact conveniently left out of the Sunday Telegraph article.

It is now clear to me from listening to the debate that discussions have been happening in the Home Office and the Church of England.

What the are planning is a modernising of marriage registrations to be electronic which is how it is done in Scotland and for civil partnerships. This modernisation WILL lead to #MothersOnMarriageCerts.

I do not know how quickly yet.

Caroline Spellman, Christina Rees and Caroline Lucas have had a cross party meeting about this since the debate.

nameequality · 29/12/2015 23:10

Taken from Hansard - Caroline Spellman

^The Church of England recently held an internal consultation exercise of archdeacons and legal officials to gauge the views of the clergy about changing the way we do marriage registration. It received an overwhelmingly positive response. It cannot be that difficult to change the format of marriage certificates so that the mothers’ details can be captured, can it?

I understand that the problem lies with the practicalities of the current system of marriage registration, which has not changed since 1837. Marriages are registered in register books, which are held in churches and other religious premises as well as in register offices. There are around 84,000 open register books in more than 30,000 churches and religious buildings. Marriage certificates are simply an exact copy of the marriage register entry, so under the current registration system changing the content of the marriage certificate would mean first changing the content of the register books. In order to do that, all 84,000 books currently in circulation would need to be replaced, at a cost of around £3 million.^

Trills · 29/12/2015 23:10

Very good news - thank you :)

nameequality · 29/12/2015 23:11

And then:

Under the alternative system, known as the schedule system, marriages are registered in a single electronic register instead of in marriage register books. Changes to the form of the register entry can be made easily without the need to replace all the register books. Instead of signing a register book at the ceremony, the newlyweds sign a document that is then returned to the register office to be entered in the existing electronic register so that a marriage certificate can be issued.

Having all marriages registered online would create a central database without the need for any further administrative processes, but changing the way we register marriages requires a change to primary legislation. Depending how this debate goes, it is my intention to introduce a marriage registration Bill, which may look remarkably like the one that the hon. Member for Neath proposes to introduce. I would be very happy to make copies of that as soon as possible. There is a great desire across the House to find the best possible vehicle to make the change

nameequality · 29/12/2015 23:15

Richard Harrington (Home Office Minister speaking at conclusion of the debate).

I cannot pledge to work with the hon. Lady on the Bill, because I am not convinced that it is the right way to deal with the matter, although many of the points and sentiments in it are right. What we need—I assure her that this will be progressed quickly—is a vehicle that will transform the whole system of marriage registration for the digital age, so that all the points and everything that is changing in society can be taken into consideration. I assure her that that is not in any way meant to be disrespectful to what she is trying to do. I am not against any of the sentiments or saying that anything within the Bill is wrong, but we need a comprehensive solution. I assure her that this is not Government waffle. We have to deal with the matter for once and for all, quickly and properly. I would like to be able to say that her Bill is the vehicle for that, but I do not believe that it could be. A combination of the hon. Lady, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and some of our discussions could get to a vehicle that could deal with things quickly—I have every reason to believe that.

I would like to say that it makes sense to have a simple amendment of the current marriage register. Like so many of the things that we get involved in—I find this when speaking to constituents—we think that the matter is simple and that we know the solution, but this matter is much more complex than that. We do not want to have to change the system again and again. We want a comprehensive solution with a framework for the modern digital economy, where—we hope everything will be transformed in this way—people will get a certificate quickly with all the relevant details and where there will be no need for replacement certificate stock to be sent to thousands of different churches and other institutions.

Also, the solution should minimise the public protection risk of marriage registers being held in some 30,000 different religious buildings. Every year criminal gangs steal registers and certificate stock for all sorts of different purposes, and it is time that the system was modernised for once and for all. It would cost up to £3 million simply to replace the materials. A simple solution of just filling in the empty box was suggested, but that would lead to all sorts of mistakes and inaccuracies. While the suggestion is perfectly well-intentioned, I do not think it is very practical.

As the shadow Minister mentioned, we have to make the necessary IT changes with the correct resources. It is not a question of trying to save money with the new system, although once it was set up, it would probably save a lot of money and be much more efficient over the decades. Costs would be incurred. It is not just about making the system more cost-effective, although it will be over the longer term.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) talked about a constituent and what form the marriage certificate should take, but it is not a simple matter. At the moment, our officials at the Home Office are working with key stakeholders to ensure that the needs of all different types of families are met. It is not simply a case of making a one-off change to include the mother. The matter affects different types of families, and the change needs to be done properly.

The serious point to make is that the Government are not simply playing with the issue in order to kick it into the long grass and say, “Well, it is one of those things.” It is very serious. It is absolutely absurd that the law has not been changed before. It is absurd, whether under a Conservative, coalition or Labour Government, that it has taken from the 1830s to today to even look at the matter. I know that people like the tradition of the marriage certificate. I have one, as have many people in this room, but we should keep the best bits of tradition and amend accordingly.

I ask for the brief patience of hon. Members. The issues are sometimes personal to us and our constituents, as highlighted in the debate, but I ask for brief patience because the Government are determined to get this right.

tribpot · 29/12/2015 23:16

I'm glad there's more to this story than the Telegraph decided to print. But a private member's bill means it doesn't have the full weight of the party behind it / could be talked out before it ever gets to a vote?

I can imagine the current proposal has failed equality assessment for the reasons the Telegraph give but let's hope they just get the hell on with this. Can the CofE really object to a mother's name being recorded on a marriage certificate? As we keep coming back to with issues around marriage equality, these are civil matters that have bugger all to do with the church. I am not expecting to get a phone call from the PM asking me to take on the role of liaising between the government and the CofE, although I would make the role not very taxing (pun intended) by saying 'sit in your corner and stay there'.

nameequality · 29/12/2015 23:19

Am very happy to post a link here to a description of the bill which will lead to #MothersOnMarriageCerts

churchinparliament.org/2015/12/17/marriage-registration-bill-introduced-by-caroline-spelman-mp/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=4266&relatedposts_position=0

Swipe left for the next trending thread