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.

The fundamental problem with the private Member's bill procedures as they currently operate is that it is too easy for a small number of Members—whether or not acting at the Government's behest—to prevent a bill from progressing without giving the House as a whole the chance to come to a decision on it. Few private Member's bills are defeated by a deliberate and open decision of the House. The overwhelming majority that fail—and the overwhelming majority do fail—do so because of lack of time. An opponent of a private Member's bill—whether representing the Government or operating independently of it—seldom has to assemble significant support for his or her point of view in the way that the promoter of a bill has to do. All they have to do is ensure—typically by tabling large numbers of amendments at report stage[14]—that there are opportunities to keep talking until time runs out.

Taken from here. An overwhelming majority fail.

Caroline Spellman's bill has been sponsored by Christina Rees (Labour) - yes the very same Christina Rees who's bill has been described in the Sunday Telegraph article!

So there is cross party support for this and it won't get talked out.

I will try to get some proper press in January for this and will do an update on the change.org/nameequality petition.

You can check my Twitter for more updates @nameequality (my recent ones are directed at the journalist that wrote that article).

I believe that the CoE's unique intertwining with the state/Parliament mean that they have a lot more power than some may imagine.

Originally the official Twitter of CofE would not support my campaign and now they do... (I suspect this is following the internal consultation and that there is now a clear way forward).

tribot - I think this is a private bill not a private members bill a subtle difference. It has been described to me as such in communications I have had. I will try to get clarification on this.

As an aside the Abortion Act was I think David Steel's private members bill.

I find it quite easy to believe some of the die-hard right wingers, esp those with a history of filibustering like Jacob Rees-Mogg, will oppose this even if it was introduced by a member of their own party. Of course I sincerely hope not, and well done on all your efforts so far. But I don't feel like we're home and dry on this issue.

I will check with my MP to make sure he's supporting it - if this is a cross-party support made up of women MPs that's not going to count for very much in this gender-imbalanced Parliament.

Thanks for taking the time to update us. It must be frustrating that progress is so slow - and I can already imagine the amount of time the IT changes are going to take, but the first hurdle is getting it made law.

Actually re reading the debate it may indeed be a private members bill.

I will have to mobilise people to ask their MPs to support it/not block it.

My gut reaction is that this is a way round the Home Office avoiding imposing something on CofE!

Also watch this David Cameron supporting this time in HoC>

www.tubechop.com/watch/7464619

Cross-posted. The Abortion Act was indeed, it's the legendary example of legislation that came through that route. Good old David Steel.

I don't think it can be a Private Bill as the scope would be too narrow.

Yes it is frustrating but I.will.not.give.up pushing for this.

The story of the length of this inequality and the time taken to sort it is illuminating. It is #everydaysexism in action. -Maybe I will write a book about it once it is sorted-.

As it is mainly female MPs who are pushing for this please can everyone consider supporting the change.org/5050Parliament petition and following them on Twitter @5050Parliament I think we need equal representation in Parliament.

Yes, I can imagine a book would be extremely interesting when the time is right! You would think this would fall into the camp of 'this doesn't affect you so why are you opposing it?' but as we know from the gay marriage debate, this apparent logic doesn't tend to go down too well.

I've tweeted and emailed my MP this morning - if he's working between Xmas and New Year he will be preoccupied with the ongoing flood situation here in West Yorkshire so I don't expect an immediate response, but will keep you updated.

We need to nobble Rees-Mogg and the odious Phillip Davies (lighthearted) to stop the bill being filibustered.

That's my concern, PlaysWell. Frankly I think Rees-Mogg might have gone along with it when it was only about putting mothers' names on (how can this possibly be controversial?) but opening it up to a wider definition of parent to include same sex parents is probably a dealbreaker for the very traditional elements in Parliament, even though I can see the point that they can't legislate this year on mothers' names and then again in 5 years to make it 'parent 1' and 'parent 2'.

Looks like we also need to be working to reduce the influence of the CofE in the Commons.

It's a Private Members' Bill and - alas - it will get talked out. It is at the end of the day's debate when any one Member - usually a Government Whip - can block it.

Thanks for your efforts NameEquality.

We could nobble the whole of the house.... (possibly lighthearted, possibly revolutionary)

It may come to that, PlaysWell! Either that or civil disobedience and everyone claims that their father is called Janet / Margaret etc and fills in the mother's details regardless. Not sure what would happen in that case.

tribpot, at everyone saying they have a father called Janet! I remember feeling quite indignant when I got married, that I couldn't put my mother's name on the certificate.
I've just written to my mp to ask for her support for this. Probably won't even get a reply, but have done it nonetheless!

I've been having a look at the legislation to see what the legal basis is for the current dataset. So far I've got as far as the 1856 Act to amend the Provisions of the Marriage and Registration Acts, obviously a thrilling read. Schedule B includes the form a marriage certificate should take and it does not include recording of the fathers' names and professions, so this inclusion doesn't date all the way back to the start of marriage registration in 1837 (at least I don't think).

I'm interested to know what a registrar would say if you literally refused to provide your father's information for the certificate. Or insisted your father was called Janet. Further digging on legislation.gov.uk clearly required!

I refused to provide my father's name. The registrar tried to persuade me to have it on the certificate for genealogy purposes but I refused again and she dropped it. On the day of the wedding the registrar filling in the certificate double checked that there wasn't supposed to be details for my father and just put a double line through that space.

Civil registration of marriage began in E&W in 1837, and I have a marriage certificate dated 1838 showing father's name and profession.

It's almost identical to a marriage certificate issued in 1965.

This is basically a continuation of pre-civil registration church practices, which sometimes record bride's father's name as a way of identifying her.

(Again, Scottish records are usually soooo much more detailed, even before civil registration came in there, in 1855.)

So we are governed by people too thick to visualise a box which says parent 1, name, M/F and parent 2, ditto?

And the answer is to continue a patriarchal sexist travesty , because that reflects modern Britain????

LOL Blu perhaps if we could have greater use of visual aids in Parliament :) I think they do appreciate what we want, e.g. a box that says 'parent', for example, but politics is getting in the way of common sense - hard to believe.

Fenyman, the certificate is interesting, but the position has been that to change it requires a change of legislation, I really wonder if this is true. The Church angle might be the clincher, I have been quite horrified to discover how much primary legislation explicitly mentions the CofE in this regard. But the 1856 act does not include father's name, so is this currently a legal requirement? I'm sure Ailsa, Caroline Spelman, Christina Rees et al have investigated this a lot more thoroughly than me pissing about on my Macbook but it's intriguing.

Stromba, I have found references to it being valid not to capture the father's details (not on legislation.gov.uk as I haven't found anywhere that requires it to be captured in the first place yet). I wonder if we need a test case where someone insists on having their mother's details captured.

Everyone should just supply their mother's details and insist that it is their father, until they cave.

I wish I'd had the foresight to do it Tribpot. We gave notice in April and at that point it seemed that things were about to change anyway - I really thought it would be in place by the time I got married in October. I suppose it would be easy enough to claim that your father was trans and was now called Janet.

I saw my MP in Asda this morning (holding a surgery, not just doing his shopping) - alas he was already with someone or I would have collared him then. I will make a note of where I can next have a chat with him.

I was going to post that both parents names are on marriage certificates in Scotland , but I see that another poster has already mentioned this.

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

If father is not known, the box is blank.

The parents' martial status is irrelevant , it doesn't matter if they are married or who they are married to. It's their relationship to the child that counts.

There is no separate protocol for adopted children because they have one or two legal parents just like everyone else.