Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

Mojisola

BarryBlue wrote: »

The idea of a "purely religious" wedding is preposterous.

CofE vicars are permitted to act as registrars in order to conduct weddings under the law.

Quite right. Some people do have a 'purely religious' ceremony in their place of worship but it isn't a legal marriage. They have to have another ceremony at the RO in order to be legally married.

Gloomendoom

Mojisola wrote: »

Quite right. Some people do have a 'purely religious' ceremony in their place of worship but it isn't a legal marriage. They have to have another ceremony at the RO in order to be legally married.

Exactly. The legal bit is just an add-on to satisfy the requirements of the state.

BarryBlue

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

You do know what the purpose of a church is don't you? If so, then read the above again and tell me how that makes any sense at all.

I have said that I would never wish to use a church for anything as religion is a worthless pastime to me. However, we often hear (not least from some MSE members) that they are community resources for everyone, religious or not. Locally to me some community activities such as residents' associations meet in the church with no religious angle whatsoever. Family history research also requires consultation of parish records. Again, nothing to do with religion.

BarryBlue

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Exactly. The legal bit is just an add-on to satisfy the requirements of the state.

Absolutely not. The "legal bit" is the bit that counts, and without which you are not married. The religious (or other) content is the add-on, whether people like it or not.

Gloomendoom

BarryBlue wrote: »

Absolutely not. The "legal bit" is the bit that counts, and without which you are not married. The religious (or other) content is the add-on, whether people like it or not.

You are wrong, whether you like it or not.

Secondly, it is important to realise that the 'wedding' means different things too. For many Muslims, it is the Islamic ceremony that counts as the actual wedding, and not the confirmation of that wedding in a registry office.

Source

Newly_retired

In France I believe that it is obligatory to have a civil ceremony even if you have a church wedding afterwards. I think this makes good sense, and only those who really want the religious ceremony will opt for it as well.

However in England the C of E is the established church, and its clergy are able to conduct a ceremony which is a legal marriage as well as a Christian one. Some non- conformist ministers are also licensed as registrars, but not all. Those that aren't need to have a Registrar present.

missbiggles1

BarryBlue wrote: »

Some ceremonies may have a religious content. However, there is only one status of marriage. It is covered by civil registration and has been since 1837. The wording of the ceremony makes no difference as long as the legal (civil) parts are covered. The idea of a "purely religious" wedding is preposterous. CofE vicars are permitted to act as registrars in order to conduct weddings under the law.


Look at the recent budget. Osborne allocated £40m in additional funds to repair churches. So that looks like taxpayers' money to me.

Outside the Christian Church that certainly isn't the case.

Mojisola

Gloomendoom wrote: »

You are wrong, whether you like it or not.

From the source you quote -
"In Islam, a person should be properly married, and this should include both the religious ceremony and the legal requirements of the law of the land - something not of prime concern to certain Muslims."

Just because it's not of prime concern to some individuals doesn't mean that the religious marriage gives them the same rights as civilly married couples.

Gloomendoom

Mojisola wrote: »

From the source you quote -
"In Islam, a person should be properly married, and this should include both the religious ceremony and the legal requirements of the law of the land - something not of prime concern to certain Muslims."

Just because it's not of prime concern to some individuals doesn't mean that the religious marriage gives them the same rights as civilly married couples.

I don't think anybody is saying that it gives them the same rights, certainly not me, just that, to them, the religious part of the ceremony is far more important and takes precedence over the state wedding.

My sister-in-law was married in religious ceremony six months before she legally tied the knot in a registry office. To her and her husband, the religious ceremony was more important because it meant that they were considered man and wife by their (actually only his) family and the local community. This meant that they were free to live together and have children. The civil wedding was an add-on felt necessary for the financial protection that it bestows.

Mojisola

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I don't think anybody is saying that it gives them the same rights, certainly not me, just that, to them, the religious part of the ceremony is far more important and takes precedence over the state wedding.

My sister-in-law was married in religious ceremony six months before she legally tied the knot in a registry office. To her and her husband, the religious ceremony was more important because it meant that they were considered man and wife by their (actually only his) family and the local community. This meant that they were free to live together and have children. The civil wedding was an add-on felt necessary for the financial protection that it bestows.

A 'religious wedding' without the legal means the couple aren't married - they might feel it's more important to them but their legal status hasn't changed.

The only way to be legally married in this country is to fulfill the legal requirements.