Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

Gloomendoom

Mojisola wrote: »

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.

How do you know?

Mojisola

Gloomendoom wrote: »

How do you know?

Usually from things people say when the relationship is breaking up or they find they are expected to financially support their spouse when sickness or job losses occur.

Gloomendoom

Mojisola wrote: »

Usually from things people say when the relationship is breaking up or they find they are expected to financially support their spouse when sickness or job losses occur.

Odd. In a CofE wedding, at least, it is normal to promise to support your spouse in sickness or health. It's pretty clear.

I don't believe that you have to do the same in a civil ceremony.

adouglasmhor

Gloomendoom wrote: »

You should also be aware that you are wrong. Purely religious wedding ceremonies take place every day up and down the country.

Do the CofE get taxpayers' money?

Several of their Bishops do.

adouglasmhor

Jagraf wrote: »

I'm thinking of visiting a vegan restaurant and demanding they cook me sausages next week.

Vegan sausages are really nice, apart from the Linda MCartney cardboard things. Hope you enjoy them.

BarryBlue

Gloomendoom wrote: »

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.

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

There is no need for two ceremonies at all. The legal ceremony that actually marries you is all that is needed. Anything else is simply window-dressing by personal choice and is not "needed" at all in order to be married. You don't "need" a reception, a stag/hen night or a honeymoon, nor do you need a religious input. Some people choose some or all of them but they are no more married than if they don't have any of them.


You have confirmed what I said earlier about backward nations being the ones that have religious compulsion. They have no relevance whatsoever to what happens in the UK.

jackyann

It's not so much understanding that you are married (although it happens!) but what the legalities of marriage are.

I suppose I am thinking mostly of situations where one partner is from outside the UK, and has a poor grasp of our legal system, but I have also known the following believed by people from the UK:

that if couples divorce, custody of the children is given to the father
that married women cannot own property as individuals
that spouses cannot give evidence against each other in court
that husbands have to give consent to any medical procedure performed upon their wives
that spouses have the right to see each others medical records

Now, an understanding of UK history can show us where these ideas came from, but we've had 150+ years of the Married Women's Property Act that some of them are still around is quite worrying!

TopQuark

Bizarre question. I can't imagine why anyone who is not religious would want to get anywhere near a religious building for their wedding, no matter how beautiful. I would hate any association with what is for me, make-believe nonsense. They couldn't have paid DH and I to get married even in Westminster Abbey!

We got married in DH's local town hall in France. Over there, the legal ceremony takes place only in the town hall. If you're lucky, the town hall is pretty and if not, it will be an ugly 1960's building. In our case it was more like the latter. We made up for it by having the reception at a chateau however. If you want to go to a church/mosque/whatever after the town hall you can do, but in law, any event held there is purely ceremonial and is not recognised in the eyes of the law.