So they'll be forced to practice the "the increase of mankind"  instead of "the procreation of children"  and it's OK for them to marry "to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding"  [censored in 1928]. And their delicate sensibilities won't suffer from hearing that marriage is "a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body."  [censored in 1928]
The 1662 Book of Common Prayer wedding service was used for hundreds of years but was a bit too earthy for 1928. The '28 prayer book was not adopted (Parliament voted it down) but its Form for the Solemnization of Matrimony later became the "conservative" service in the Alternative Service Book and later Common Worship of the Church of England. It's "conservative" because it mentions that the marriage is between a man and a woman.
For those who don't think Anglicans are funny, here's an excerpt from Busman's Honeymoon by Dorothy L. Sayers (1937) in which Lord Peter Whimsey and Miss Harriet Vane are engaged to be married and are fighting over the details of the service with his sister-in-law Helen. As his mother (the Dowager Dutchess of Denver) records in a letter:
16 SEPTEMBER Helen obligingly presented us with a copy of the new form of marriage service [the proposed 1928 prayer book], with all the vulgar bits left out--which was asking for trouble. Peter very funny about it--said he knew all about the "procreation of children" in theory though not in practice, but that the "increase of mankind" by any other method sounded too advanced for him, and that, if he ever did indulge in such dangerous amusements, he would, with his wife's permission, stick to the old-fashioned procedure. He also said that as for the "gift of continency," he wouldn't have it as a gift, and had no objection to admitting as much. At this point, Helen got up and left the house, leaving P. and Harriet to wrangle over the word "obey." P. said he would consider it a breach of manners to give orders to his wife, but H. said, Oh, no--he'd give orders fast enough if the place was on fire or a tree falling down and he wanted her to stand clear. P. said, in that case they ought both to say "obey," but it would be too much jam for the reporters. Left them to fight it out. When I came back, found Peter had consented to be obeyed on condition he might "endow" and not"share" his worldly goods. Shocking victory of sentiment over principle.