My understanding of origins of the Quaker marriage certificate were that all signed because this made it administratively difficult to imprison those officiating at an illegal marriage. So my first point is that we have been here before and we have achieved successful outcomes in contention with a State that may well have been more intransigent than today.
For my second point: I am in little doubt in my own mind that we could and should marry couples in Gathered Meeting just as we have always done, regardless of mortal laws. This is our established custom and generally in the Meetings where I have listened this seems very much to be the mind of the Meeting. However there is not complete unity in this and I know some Friends in the UK and many many Friends overseas find this difficult.
One of my concerns is that this voice needs to be heard: it is our way to listen, but we can not listen properly or carefully if voices are swept under the carpet as it were. This surely stops the Light from shining.
My third point is that we are asked to consider whether we should abandon our current links with state in the case of hetro marriages in the name of equality. It would seem to be strange and not our way to force others into a position and abandoning Quaker marriage (with a Registrar) would be doing exactly this.
Individual Friends may decide of their own volition to Marry without a registrar, and we should consider allowing this. Friends may also consider abandoning the word 'wife' or 'husband' in their day to day usage, using partner or life partner instead. However is see little value in relinquishing the position that Early Friends worked hard to establish. Particularly so since, if we used a civil procedure for a hetro relationship it would still be termed marriage.
So 2 concerns:
First that there a voices of Ffriends that need to be heard and
Secondly that we should not abandon the gains we have made thus far. What do you think?
Thine Les
I have read and enjoyed your blog. I tried to post a comment but my blog-smithing skills were unequal to the task.
ReplyDeleteI copy my comment below. (now pasted in by me) Can anyone tell me what magical incantation I need to recite in order to post a comment?
Comment:
A lot of thanks for keeping us so well informed.
Regarding committed relationships I have 2 points.
I had the great good fortune to be married in FMH Brighton some years ago. Gay friends from within the Meeting and from outside the Meeting celebrated with us. If they could celebrate with me why am I not permitted to celebrate with them on equal terms? My life is diminished by this inequality and I believe that we should contend with the state over this matter.
That marriage was not successful. It is the second unsuccessful marriage I have had. I shall not try another. On both occasions I made a promise (not unlike an oath), to a lot of people I cared a great deal for, concerning a future I could not possibly foresee; which I then broke. On both occassions that promise eventually diminished me. When we celebrate a committed relationship we should not require people to make promises about a lifelong future neither we nor they can foresee. In the wonder and joy of the moment the implication of such a promise is easily overlooked. It is only in the misery following the disintegration of a relationship that such a promise hunches over ones soul like a feeding raven. Perhaps a couple could promise their intent, e.g. "I promise that I intend to be a good and faithful ...."
I am sorry if this appears to have strayed from the subject. However I feel that the marriage of committed couples - gay or straight - should be an unrelenting joy.
Be cheerful strive to be happy
David Amos - Wandsworth
Thank you David: Yes there are many issues around marriage, and Friend's Marriage. Several times the Meeting spent time thinking about those not in any relationship, including all those harmed or hurt by them.
ReplyDelete