I write as the proud father of a Gay daughter who delights in joy she finds in relationships, who outwardly laughs in the face of the adversities she faces: and secretly cry at the discrimination she faces. That she can not marry in the eyes of the state and in the context of our a Gathered Meeting seems just as wrong as the situation faced by Friends in 1653 when the State did not allow marriage within Meetings.
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
