This article argues that marriage is a divine institution that pre-dates the state, and marriages are supernaturally effected by God consequent on the exchange of marital consent by the parties, whether or not the state recognises them as marriages. In fact, taking note of, and legislating about, marriage thus properly conceived is not within the state's remit. Despite this, the law in England and Wales is involved with the institution of marriage in three main ways: (1) it purports to define marriage, and its entry and exit conditions; (2) it passes laws affording or denying certain legal benefits or penalties on the basis of marital status; and (3) it registers marriages, and in practice imposes or denies the benefits or penalties just mentioned on the basis of registration of marriage, or lack of it. The supernatural action on God's part of creating marriages is not a fit subject for such involvement on the state's part. The underlying exchange of marital consent by the parties is, by contrast, within the state's sphere of competence, but it is argued that the state should be tracking a broader category of relationships than just those involving the exchange of marital consent. It is suggested that all marriage law should be repealed, and replaced by an Australian-style law of de facto relationships. If the law deals with de facto relationships there is no need for it to be involved with the institution of marriage as well, and that institution can be left to flourish outside the state's grasp. The article goes on to respond to some possible objections.

The Steinfeld and Keidan campaign for ‘equal civil partnerships’ is focussed on English domestic law. However, it also has profound implications from a private international law perspective. If the UK parliament extends civil partnership to include different-sex couples, this will close a long-standing gap in English private international law. If, on the other hand, it was decided to abolish civil partnership, this would extend the existing lacuna in English private international law, and might generate further collisions with human rights norms. This article explores these lacunae and associated human rights concerns—and suggests possible solutions.

This article will explore data obtained through interviews with UK family law practitioners and clients with experience of financial relief on formalised same-sex relationship breakdown. It will focus on questions around how solicitors have approached and argued their dissolution cases (and the extent to which they have drawn upon heteronormative arguments and case law), and whether both they and the clients believed that civil partnerships are, and should be, treated similarly to marriages. The discussion will examine the different understandings of ‘equality’ employed, and question the ways that the participants relied on ideas of sameness and difference. It will be argued that the solicitors placed particular stress on sameness, and that heteronormative constructs of gendered inequalities have been transplanted into same-sex cases, in a system where practitioners’ submissions are based on ‘what works.’ This is despite the fact that lesbian and gay couples do not map onto the ‘template’ under which the parties have been subjected to different gendered expectations. Conversely, the clients were less willing to take on the full legal implications associated with (heterosexual) marital breakdown and less receptive of the solicitors ‘translating’ their matters to pigeonhole them into the existing framework.

A critical conversation between the Church of England's response to the Government's consultation on Equal Civil Marriage 2012, questions arising from professional parish practice as a priest, and literature in this area of research. The article explores the theological significance of ‘equal marriage’ (equal access to marriage and equality within marriage) as a Christian possibility within the Church of England, with contemporary approaches to gender and sexuality.