by Josephine Bartosch, The Critic
New reforms to wedding laws are actually dangerously regressive
In 1995, Fred Bartosch married Patrick Swayze. Fred was my mother. Later that same year, she married a man with the middle name Caesar IIV. Yet she herself remained wedded to my dad from the age of 17 until her death at 62. She spent her career in the registration service, recording births and deaths and conducting wedding ceremonies. When couples came to marry, she made sure they understood that marriage is not just a declaration of love, but a legal contract, entered into freely and carrying rights and responsibilities. And on the rare occasions when something seemed amiss, she asked the difficult questions. It is precisely that safeguarding principle the Government now proposes to weaken in its consultation, Tying the Knot: Reforming Weddings Law in England and Wales.
The consultation begins with a foreword from David Lammy, written in the syrupy idiom of the life coach rather than the legislator: “Every couple deserves to start their journey together with an unforgettable day that reflects their beliefs, their personalities and the lives they plan to build together.” Yuck.
Some of the problems identified are laughably exaggerated, such as the idea that couples are abandoning marriage because wedding venues are expensive. Others are far more sinister. Beneath the veil of religious tolerance sits a proposal that would, for the first time, make a woman’s own voice legally unnecessary at her wedding.