The matter had already come before the Assembly in December, but was withdrawn, and, introducing the policy letter for the second time, Policy & Resources member Deputy Jane Stephens said that since then there had been more time for consideration of the proposals.
While an amendment last time had sought to have people allowed to write their own vows, this was not placed again and Deputy Stephens said that legal advice had meant that certain words had to be said, and so that part of the policy letter remained the same.
Concerns had been raised about the notification of the marriages being placed online, particularly with people who were having a same-sex marriage but planned to return to or work in a country where homosexuality was illegal, or those escaping from an abusive relationship.
This would be given further consideration, she said, and while the law required notifications to be placed online it could be that the people involved would be referred to by initials or surname only.
Deputy Peter Roffey placed an amendment which called for a proposed bar on civil ceremonies taking place in places of worship to be removed from the proposals.
He said it should be left to the owners of the buildings to decide if they wanted to allow a ceremony to go ahead, and should not be for the States to dictate.
He could envisage a situation where one member of a couple with religious beliefs wished to marry in a church, while the other was not a believer and did not wish to appear hypocritical by having a religious ceremony: ‘It is simply permissive,’ he said.
Deputy Stephens said that P&R had no objection to the amendment, although there could be some issue with St Tugual’s Chapel in Herm, which did not appear to be a consecrated site but was used by the Church of England.
It could require people to seek permission from the States to get hold a civil ceremony there.
Fear that a ‘chink’ would be opened up in protections that were already enshrined in law was expressed by Deputy Jeremy Smithies, even though Church of England ministers could not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages.
Amendment seconder Deputy Peter Ferbrache said he did not wish to impose his will on anybody, and was concerned that an element of intolerance had been brought into the debate, albeit gently.
The amendment was passed by 35 votes to three. The proposals, as amended, were passed unanimously.
You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.