In 1853 the NSW Parliament was debating the introduction of a new Marriage Act which would set up a civil registry to oversee and register religious marriages and to allow non-religious civil marriages to be celebrated by a registrar, superseding the previously dominant Church of England. A similar system had been legislated in England and Wales in 1836 and had been operating for sixteen years.
The proposal was vigorously opposed by most of the churches in NSW, but at least one minster supported the change and gave his reasons in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald. The cleric was a member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, one of the more progressive churches of the time. See below for an extract from the letter. The minister (who was probably either the Rev John Dunmore Lang or one of his associates) was influenced by American ideas of the separation of church and state.
He emphasised that marriage can be viewed as a secular contract for civil purposes which could be separate from its role as a ceremony for members of particular religions.
Extract from letter to the editor, Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesday 18 October 1853, p 3:
It is certainly not from us that any demand has arisen for marriages without a religious ceremony; no true Presbyterian, I am satisfied, desires such a thing for himself.
But marriage, Sir, is the right of man, not as a Presbyterian, or an Episcopalian, or a Papist, or anything else, but simply as a man; and therefore when the civil government legislates on marriage, the legislation must be applicable to all, without the slightest recognition of religious distinctions, which have no more concern with the legal validity of marriages than with the legal validity of promissory notes or conveyances.
If, therefore, the civil Government of this colony deems it necessary, for civil purposes, to introduce an uniform system of registration, not only for marriages, but also for births and deaths, I confess I see no reasonable objection to it; I shall continue to keep my Church register just the same as before.
And if the civil government deems it necessary, for civil purposes, to require parties desirous of contracting marriage to give notice of their intention to a civil officer, to impose on that officer the duty of making enquiries as to the existence of any impediment, and to require the parties to present a certificate from such civil officer to the minister by whom the marriage is solemnized, before the ceremony, I see no reasonable objection to it; I shall continue to make my own enquiries, and publish banns, or grant licenses, all the same as before, just as if there were no Registrar in existence.
And still farther, if the civil government deems it necessary to provide for the lawful marrying of persons who do not belong to any Christian denomination, or who repudiate a religious ceremony, I confess I see no reasonable objection to such a provision.
I believe that a Mahometan man and woman, or an infidel man and woman, have a perfectly natural right to be married, and that the State ought to recognize their marriage as honorable and legal. But at the same time, as marriage in reality concerns not only the contracting parties themselves, but also their issue, and the public also, I think the State ought to provide a method for the public contracting of such marriages, and would even be warranted in declaring that marriages, contracted otherwise than according to the statute, should be null and void for civil purposes.
I cannot sympathise, Sir, with the outcry which has emanated from certain quarters against the present Bill, as though its only object were to legalize civil marriages. The real object, as announced in the speech of the Attorney-General is to do away with the obnoxious test; the provision for marriages by a registrar is a mere adjunct, though it appears to occupy so prominent a place in the Bill.
And why, Sir, so much clamour about civil marriages? It is only with marriages as civil contracts that the legislature has anything to do: in the eye of the public every marriage is a civil contract, and nothing else. If the parties are themselves truly religious persons, then marriage will be a religious contract, even though a minister of religion were not present; but if, on the contrary, the parties have no true religion in their hearts, then the contract between them cannot be made a religious ceremony whatsoever.
But do those who join in the outcry against the Bill seriously believe that members of Christian churches will, unless under very peculiar circumstances indeed, have recourse to a civil officer? If I thought so, I should say, the sooner we are rid of such unworthy members the better. But the experience of England during the last few years proves the vanity of such an alarm.
I cordially wish success to the Bill, and shall be sorry if any factious opposition be suffered to defeat it.
I remain. Sir,
Yours, &c,
A MINISTER OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
