Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

Gloomendoom

Mojisola wrote: »

This is how it's done in some mainland European countries. I would like to see the same system brought in here.

Why? What would be the advantage? It just introduces another level of needless bureaucracy and expense... two ceremonies instead of one with exactly the same end result.

Mojisola

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Why? What would be the advantage? It just introduces another level of needless bureaucracy and expense... two ceremonies instead of one with exactly the same end result.

Because it makes people realise that when they sign the register they are entering into a legal contract - not just having a romantic day or are following their religion's rules.

It isn't advisable to sign any kind of legal contract without knowing what you are agreeing to but people do it every day when they get married.

Mojisola

BarryBlue wrote: »

Marriage is a legal institution, separate from all religion, and clearly the religious people don't like that. What they believe is of no relevance to the legal situation.

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Can you then explain why, in some countries, marriages are only recognised by the state after the mandatory religious service has taken place.

Because that's the way they do it in those countries (by the way, which ones?) but it's not how it works here.

BarryBlue

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Can you then explain why, in some countries, marriages are only recognised by the state after the mandatory religious service has taken place.

Yes, of course I can explain it. We have been talking on this thread (or at least I have) about the law in the UK, hence references to civil registration becoming compulsory in 1837. Religion is not only unnecessary in the ceremony, it is expressly forbidden in register offices.


I have no idea what happens in other countries, nor do I care really. My take would be that religion is more prevalent, and often compulsory, in more backward nations. Of course the law varies in other countries. Under some it is possible to be married by a ship's captain even without ever visiting that country, yet that marriage is recognised in the UK.

BarryBlue

Mojisola wrote: »

Because it makes people realise that when they sign the register they are entering into a legal contract - not just having a romantic day or are following their religion's rules.

It isn't advisable to sign any kind of legal contract without knowing what you are agreeing to but people do it every day when they get married.

It actually happens already, certainly where I live. Before our wedding we had to have a meeting with the registrar where such things were discussed and we were given various leaflets. Once this is completed then they make your appointment for the actual ceremony.

Errata

Mojisola wrote: »

Because it makes people realise that when they sign the register they are entering into a legal contract - not just having a romantic day or are following their religion's rules.

It isn't advisable to sign any kind of legal contract without knowing what you are agreeing to but people do it every day when they get married.

I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine anyone not understanding marriage in a registry office isn't a legal contract.

Mojisola

BarryBlue wrote: »

It actually happens already, certainly where I live. Before our wedding we had to have a meeting with the registrar where such things were discussed and we were given various leaflets. Once this is completed then they make your appointment for the actual ceremony.

That's good to hear.

Gloomendoom

Mojisola wrote: »

Because it makes people realise that when they sign the register they are entering into a legal contract - not just having a romantic day or are following their religion's rules.

It isn't advisable to sign any kind of legal contract without knowing what you are agreeing to but people do it every day when they get married.

That may be true, but why the need for two ceremonies? The same advice could be given before a combined religious/civil ceremony. Incorporated into the marriage preparation classes currently given by many religious institutions, for example.

Mojisola wrote: »

Because that's the way they do it in those countries (by the way, which ones?) but it's not how it works here.

Most middle eastern countries and some other Islamic states further afield. Malaysia apparently offers no civil marriage option for Muslims.

jackyann

I think that Mojisola means that it would be a good idea for couples marrying to have some basic information as to the legal status of marriage (in the UK in this case) and how it affects the individuals.
I have known many misconceptions.

Of course, each country has its own laws as to the legal status it confers on those who perform marriage ceremonies and their meaning in law. Lots of scope for confusion around international law! Anyone else remember Jerry Lee Lewis trying to bring his legal wife (age 12) in to the UK back around 1960?

Mojisola

Errata wrote: »

I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine anyone not understanding marriage in a registry office isn't a legal contract.

It's often the people who marry in church who don't realise that signing the register is a legal contract rather than a church record.