Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bill for secular marriages passes in Senead, but it needs to be amended
Options
Comments
-
Your average tradesman runs "a non profit making company".
Company gross profit minus misc. company expenses = his wages/drawings.
So company's net profit = 0.0 -
I think the Revenue Commissions might consider that questionable accounting. For starters 'wages' should come out before gross profit, and be subject to paye, prsi, levies etc.Your average tradesman runs "a non profit making company".
Company gross profit minus misc. company expenses = his wages/drawings.
So company's net profit = 0.
For a sole trader, drawings I think come after net profit (so after tax is deducted from the businesses' taxable income).
Claiming your business is non profit making (and therefore non taxable) is not likely to be quite as straightforward as you seem to think.
But more to the point, I think the legislation specifies "for the purpose of profit or gain has carried on a business of solemnising marriages", so it doesn't really matter whether they did or didn't make a profit from solemnising marraiges, only that they solemnised marriages for the purpose of making a profit. It doesn't seem to rule out charging a fee which covers the costs of solemnising the marriage.0 -
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. And a fairly common one.I think you are highlighting some more defects in this piece of legislation.
If there is no definition of what requirements constitute a "fit and proper person to solemnise marriages" then it would be very difficult to disqualify somebody on the grounds of falling short of the requirements.
When you’re drafting a licensing regime (which is what this is) you recognise that it’s impossible in practice to specify in advance every circumstance or condition or event which might justify the withdrawal of the licence. So you specify the conditions which will arise most frequently, and then you add a fairly flexible further condition, which can be interpreted in the light of circumstances that may arise but which you haven’t foreseen. “Fit and proper person” is a concept that gets employed a lot in this context.
As well as being an official of the Spiritualist Union Colton is also an accountant and I’m pretty sure that the legal regulatory regime for accountants also provides for his professional status to be withdrawn if he’s found to be not a “fit and proper person”. A fraud conviction is obviously going to be relevant there. He’d also need to be a “fit and proper person” if wanted to become, or to continue as, a solicitor, a court official, a person authorised to conduct commercial vehicle roadworthiness tests, the holder of a waste recovery licence, the holder of a licence under the Property Services (Regulation) Act 2011, and a host of other professions, authorisations, licences or registrations. Colton’s fraud conviction might not be bar to his being considered a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence to export salmon and trout under the Fisheries Act 1939.
So what is required in each case depends on what you need to be fit and proper for. And, even when you know that, the question is much more easily answered against a specific set of facts. Do you want to draw up a complete list of every possible criminal offence which will, or will not, make you not “fit and proper” for every possible purpose for which that test is applied? No, me neither. And criminal convictions are only part of it. “Fit and proper: embraces not just questions of character but questions of training, experience, competence, etc as appropriate.
As Absalom points out, the law is against wedding solemnisers carrying on a business of celebrating marriages for the purpose of profit or gain. This goes back to the point I was making earlier - the bodies that have been recognised are those which see the celebration of marriage as an intrinsically good thing to do, rather than as a money-making opportunity, and the state doesn’t want to be seen to put in place a licensing regime which turns marriage celebration into just another consumer product of which capitalists can take advantage to turn a shilling. Hence nominating bodies have to be not-for-profit, and solemnisers have to be not running a business for the purpose of profit or gain. There’s no objection to a celebrant being paid a fee, but he can’t be conducting celebrations on a scale, and with a degree of system and method, that amounts to carrying on a business for profit, so this tends to mean that the celebration of marriages is going to be ancillary to some wider purpose or mission, as it is for both churches and the HAI.I don't know why the law is against wedding solemnisers making a profit.
Does that mean wedding solemnisers don't charge a fee? Or maybe they only take brown envelopes stuffed with cash? That used to be the norm for the priests.
Whoever provides a service deserves to get paid. Unless the service is illegal, but that is a circular argument, and therefore nonsensical.
This requirement does not prevent AI from becoming a nominating body; what stops that is the requirement to have humanist objects. If that obstacle were removed, AI could become a nominating body and could appoint solemnisers on the same basis as HAI and the churches - i.e. it could not appoint solemnisers who carry on a business of solemnisation for profit.0 -
Your average tradesman runs "a non profit making company".
Company gross profit minus misc. company expenses = his wages/drawings.
So company's net profit = 0.
Analogy doesn't work. He owns the company so he doesn't take wages but a profit. He is taxed differently than he would be if he were waged, and there are implications if his business goes belly up in that its harder for him to get the dole.0 -
AI does have a humanist object.Peregrinus wrote: »This requirement does not prevent AI from becoming a nominating body; what stops that is the requirement to have humanist objects. If that obstacle were removed, AI could become a nominating body and could appoint solemnisers on the same basis as HAI and the churches - i.e. it could not appoint solemnisers who carry on a business of solemnisation for profit.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I'm inclined to think that the ban on political activity (campaigning or lobbying for changes in the state's public policy) is the sticking point for AI. Not so much the humanist ideals or the charitable status requirements.
Re the "profit" aspect of solemnising marriages, take the case of secular marriages, for example if a civil service employee of the HSE is conducting a registry office marriage they are simply functioning as official registrars. They don't have to see it as "a good thing". So if this work is to be outsourced, there is no need to specify that a private firm which has been set up for the purpose should not be "for profit". Surely they would do a better and professional job of it than volunteer workers would anyway.
Which leads on to my second point; company profits are not the same as private earnings. We have some high profile multinationals operating in Ireland which pay very little corporation tax, but they provide employment and the employees pay income tax.
On a smaller scale, a plumber could have his own company which might not make any company profit after the employees (mainly himself) have been paid. He is still liable to pay income tax though on his personal drawings, unless of course the company is doing so badly that there is no money left to pay the boss. In that case, he becomes an unpaid worker in a supposedly "for profit" business venture.
On the opposite side of the coin, there are many so-called charities which pay extravagant salaries or fund extravagant staff lifestyles. We had the Rehab scandals last year, where board members were drawing vast salaries and personal pension packages for themselves. In the same category, there are jet- setting pastors in certain questionable religions, and in the established religions there are bishops living in palaces.
Basically, it is naive to imagine that the whole world can be divided into two groups, ie the nasty money grabbers on one side, and the altruistic charitable sworn-to-poverty volunteers on the other.
In terms of providing a secular marriage registration service, a better distinction for the State to make would be "competent honest and fit for purpose and tax compliant" V "incompetent, dishonest, not fit for purpose".
And the "purpose" in this case is to register a marriage as per the requirements of the State, ie check that the required period of notice has been given in advance , parties are willing and not under duress, not already married etc... in other words these are practical aspects.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »AI does have a humanist object.
They must have mislaid it long ago. They themselves are wholly unaware that they have it, and in fact deny that they do.Where do they keep it?0 -
Important distinction here; the churches, the HAI, etc , are not involved in registering marriages; they are involved in solemnising them. The HSE registers all marriages, regardless of who solemnises them.In terms of providing a secular marriage registration service, a better distinction for the State to make would be "competent honest and fit for purpose and tax compliant" V "incompetent, dishonest, not fit for purpose".
And the "purpose" in this case is to register a marriage as per the requirements of the State, ie check that the required period of notice has been given in advance , parties are willing and not under duress, not already married etc... in other words these are practical aspects.
Given that the HSE also solemnises marriages itself, we might reasonably ask why there should be any alternative method of solemnisation? Why shouldn’t all marriages have to be solemnised before the registrar in order if they are to secure legal and official recognition? That is, as we know, the position in France, and in many other countries. It works quite well.
And, if you hold Hotblack’s view of the matter - that the reality of marriage consists entirely in state recognition, - I think the logical end-point is that this should be the case. If “marriage” simply means “state recognition”, why should the state privatise state recognition?
The reason that the state doesn’t take this position, I think, is that not everybody does hold Hotblack’s view of the matter. In fact, most people - religious and non-religious alike - don’t hold this view. Marriage is generally considered to be not a creation of the state but a social reality - a couple make conjugal commitments to one another, solemnly and publicly, and the community recognises, acknowledges the importance of, celebrates, accepts and supports those commitments in various ways. This changes the relationship between the spouses, and also the relationship between the couple and the wider community, in important ways. The state doesn’t create this reality; it’s a societal creation which predates states (and churches). The state merely recognises it, because refusing to recognise reality is, by and large, a stupid and self-destructive course of action.
OK. Lots of people see religious and/or humanist significance in marriage, and it’s important to them to solemnise their marriage in a way that engages this significance. A state-officiated ceremony doesn’t do that for them, so they go to a church, or to a humanist community, or similar. The question is, is the state going to recognise the meaning and effect of these celebrations?
The answer, in Ireland, broadly speaking, is “yes” (and FWIW I personally think it’s the right answer). If the people concerned - the spouses, their families, their community - consider the ceremony effective to solemnise their marriage then, all other things being equal, the default should be that the state should want to recognise the reality thus created. For practical and policy reasons the state regulates the celebration of marriage and this limits the ceremonies it will legally recognise (e.g. a marriage before a minister of religion who is not on the register of solemnisers will not be recognised no matter how much the spouses and their families regard it as valid and meaningful) but, in general, the regulatory regime is directed to ensuring that marriages will be recognised, not that they will not.
So, why are marriages organised under the auspices of AI not recognised? The short answer is that nobody celebrates such marriages, so there is nothing to recognise. We don’t recognise marriages celebrated by AI for the same reason that we don’t recognise marriages celebrated by the Institution of Chartered Accountants. And the reason for that is that AI’s own philosophy does not suggest that they have anything of material significance to bring to marriage celebration; they don’t express humanist values, they don’t express religious values. What characterises atheists, as we know all too well on this board, is that they don’t hold a particular kind of belief. That’s not a characteristic which, it seems to me, provides much ground for saying that you have anything to bring to the celebration of marriages that the state can’t or doesn’t bring. And this explains why, up to now, the AI has never involved itself in the marriage celebration business, even though it was just as free to do so as the HAI, or a church or religious community not covered by the Irish civil registration procedures.
And nothing has changed. AI still has nothing to bring to the solemnisation of marriages. While it would be possible for the state to legislate to recognise marriages celebrated by AI, there doesn’t seem to be any policy reason to do so, since there is nobody out there who thinks AI can bring a necessary dimension to the marriage celebration that the state cannot bring, and AI itself does not make that claim.
Is the non-profit requirement justified? Is the no-political-campaigning requirement justified? Arguably not. But I don’t think we need get exercised about that unless these rules are operating to exclude unjustifiably the recognition of marriages solemnised in a way that the people involved regard as important or necessary.0 -
Again with the red herring of AI marriages anyone old enough to remember 'talk to your AI man' ads on the radio will probably be chuckling at this point
I've never (yet) been a member of AI, and no doubt Michael could explain it far better than I, but this is my understanding of their position:
Their objections to the legislation are as follows
- Non-religious bodies are subject to 'ethical' etc. tests which religious bodies are not, and the largest one in the country would have difficulty passing to be honest
- Non-religious bodies are subject to restrictions religious ones are not, non-profit and non-political. Whereas large churches have vast incomes which are never accounted for, and campaign politically on all sorts of issues
- They may have objected to the humanist object requirement also. It's entirely arbitrary and AI are not keen on arbitrary requirements being written into law
Now as far as I'm aware, AI have never expressed or held the intention or desire to perform marriage ceremonies themselves. They were quite concerned however that the 'non-political' requirement could be used to silence or put pressure on HAI's campaigns in relation to education, etc. So far that doesn't seem to be happening, but nonetheless it is very undesirable and unfair that these requirements are written into law for certain bodies performing marriages, but not others, because the latter are regarded as 'religious'. The State should have no function in deciding what is a religion and what is not, and should not treat any body, person or thing more or less favourably on the basis of professed religion.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Advertisement
-
where?Peregrinus wrote: »They themselves are wholly unaware that they have it, and in fact deny that they do.0 -
The HSE will automatically register all "solemn" marriages, and so the couple do not have to make the additional trip to the registry office after the church service. The marriage registration form is signed by the couple at the church, and witnessed by the priest in his capacity as official solemniser. Therefore the priest is acting at that moment as agent for the State. I would call that an active "involvement" in the civil registration process.Peregrinus wrote: »Important distinction here; the churches, the HAI, etc , are not involved in registering marriages; they are involved in solemnising them. The HSE registers all marriages, regardless of who solemnises them.
The state trusts that an official solemniser has ensured there is no impediment to marriage and the 3 months notice has been given, as required by law.
In contrast a marriage that is not officially "solemn" is assumed to be a sham, by default, and so the couple will also have to deal with the registry office, as if their own ceremony didn't exist.
While I agree in general, I am always suspicious when I hear "the community" being mentioned. If a muslim guy talks about "the community" he means "the muslim community" and an RC means "the RC community" etc.Peregrinus wrote: »Given that the HSE also solemnises marriages itself, we might reasonably ask why there should be any alternative method of solemnisation? Why shouldn’t all marriages have to be solemnised before the registrar in order if they are to secure legal and official recognition? That is, as we know, the position in France, and in many other countries. It works quite well.
And, if you hold Hotblack’s view of the matter - that the reality of marriage consists entirely in state recognition, - I think the logical end-point is that this should be the case. If “marriage” simply means “state recognition”, why should the state privatise state recognition?
The reason that the state doesn’t take this position, I think, is that not everybody does hold Hotblack’s view of the matter. In fact, most people - religious and non-religious alike - don’t hold this view. Marriage is generally considered to be not a creation of the state but a social reality - a couple make conjugal commitments to one another, solemnly and publicly, and the community recognises, acknowledges the importance of, celebrates, accepts and supports those commitments in various ways. This changes the relationship between the spouses, and also the relationship between the couple and the wider community, in important ways. The state doesn’t create this reality; it’s a societal creation which predates states (and churches). The state merely recognises it, because refusing to recognise reality is, by and large, a stupid and self-destructive course of action.
So this is the crux of the matter. Say a couple chose to marry in a minority religion or an atheist ceremony. "The community" which is judging them in this context is not the family and friends of the couple getting married. It is the wider community making a value judgement on this couples ceremony, as to whether it is genuine or just a sham. Then by extension, the State accepts this value judgement. But IMO it is not the business of the State to make a value judgement on individual beliefs or religions.
Up until recently, only a few denominations were considered genuine enough to act as marriage solemnisers, but the State has in recent years extended its recognition to minority religions, humanists etc..
But it has failed in its obligation to ensure that charlatans are prevented from acting as its agents. The state extended its recognition, but selected the wrong criteria. Religiosity and charitable status was given more importance than honesty and integrity.
IMO either all marriages, including the church ones, should be solemnised separately in front of a civil registrar as in France, or else the job of solemniser should be thrown open to anyone, or any business, who is capable of acting honestly as an agent of the civil registrar (and there is no religious or ethical component to that).0 -
Interesting "hissy fit" type threat by RCC to stop acting as marriage solemniser for straight couples if civil same sex marriage is allowed by the state.
I've no problem with that, it seems to work for the french....Vive La FranceThe move would mean the tens of thousands of couples who get married in Catholic churches each year would have to go elsewhere to have their marriage legally recognised by the State.
At present, the signing of the Marriage Registration Form – a civil document required by the State in order to recognise a marriage – takes place after the wedding Mass.0 -
As others have pointed out on the gay marriage thread, if the RCC actually did this the big losers would be... the RCC
Just creates an opportunity for rivals
"Humanist Weddings - The All-in-One Legal Marriage Including Light Woo"
"Go Church of Ireland - Catholic and Reformed"
"Civil Marriages - Get It Over With Quick!"Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Don’t want to be married by a priest? Call the solemniser http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/don-t-want-to-be-married-by-a-priest-call-the-solemniser-1.2195526 Kate Holmquist“Sadly we have to say no to hundreds of couples,” says Brian Whiteside, who represents the Humanists. “If we had a large list of solemnisers we’d be doing 2,000 weddings a year, and that’s 10 per cent of all weddings. It’s such a growing market we can’t keep up with it.”
Enter the “celebrants” in training, lay people who are learning with a mixture of theatre training and pop psychology to become convincing masters of ceremonies at weddings that are similar to church services, but without the church.
If you’re considering this for your own wedding, there is an important distinction between a “solemniser” and a “celebrant”. Solemniser is the legal term for the 5,627 people licensed by the State to conduct weddings. Apart from 107 civil registrars around the country, they include 5,506 religious in three main groups, Humanists, Spiritualists and Interfaith, charging anything from €350 to €500, plus expenses.The nonlegal status of celebrants is something Lorraine Mancey O’Brien, a lecturer in gender studies at the school of justice at UCD and founder of the Irish Institute of Celebrants, would like to change as. With potentially thousands of same-sex weddings coming on stream, there is a market for it. And she makes the valid point that a couple shouldn’t have to embrace Humanism, Spiritualism, Interfaith or any of the other many approved religious categories of solemniser in order to be legally married outside a registry office.
She would like her group of “celebrants” to be allowed to become secular solemnisers. The first “secular” group to be allowed solemnise were the Humanists, who earned the right in 2012 championed by Ivana Bacik. Its 19 solemnisers are fully booked for 2015 with 1,300 weddings, up from 400 in 2013 and 100 in 2014.
also mentions spiritual unionist founder and fraudster
"Irish Institute of Celebrants" 'It costs €800 for the two year training https://twitter.com/TodaySOR/statuses/590831688600653824
http://www.iioc.ie/0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »As Absalom points out, the law is against wedding solemnisers carrying on a business of celebrating marriages for the purpose of profit or gain. This goes back to the point I was making earlier - the bodies that have been recognised are those which see the celebration of marriage as an intrinsically good thing to do, rather than as a money-making opportunity, and the state doesn’t want to be seen to put in place a licensing regime which turns marriage celebration into just another consumer product of which capitalists can take advantage to turn a shilling. Hence nominating bodies have to be not-for-profit, and solemnisers have to be not running a business for the purpose of profit or gain. There’s no objection to a celebrant being paid a fee, but he can’t be conducting celebrations on a scale, and with a degree of system and method, that amounts to carrying on a business for profit, so this tends to mean that the celebration of marriages is going to be ancillary to some wider purpose or mission, as it is for both churches and the HAI.
Just catching up on this discussion.
On this point, there is a distinction in the law between the nominating bodies and the solemnisers who have been nominated.
In the HAI, the nominated solemnisers are running private for-profit businesses as individual sole traders, which on the face of it is in breach of the law. Brian Whiteside is on record as saying that his employment description on his tax return is Humanist Celebrant.
They may in theory argue that they are charging for the managing the event and not for the actual solemnising, but that argument is unlikely to hold up given that they are only conducting the solemnising for people who are availing of the event-management services, and the fact that they are publicly saying that the solemnising is giving them what they call, in unambiguously business terms, greater market share.0 -
Humanist celebrants also conduct naming ceremonies, funerals and other "milestones-of-life" ceremonies and events, as well as non-legally-recognised partnership ceremonies. I think it's the situating of weddings within this wider ministry which prevents them from being regarded carrying on a business of solemnising marriages for profit or gain.
For what it's worth, the "profit or gain" applies to humanist and religious celebrants alike. And, again for what it's worth, it's not an Irish innovation; a similar provision appears in marriage registration laws in England, Scotland, Australia and no doubt other countries.
It's not intended to prevent celebrants from charging fees for their services. The main concern is to ensure that the focus of the celebration is on the couple themselves, their commitment and their belief, rather than on the opportunity it presents to the celebrant to make money. Hence the situating of marriage celebration within a wider ministry is important. I think this clause would also be invoked if the celebrant were found to be providing, or to have commercial links with people providing, hotels, meals, photographs or other wedding-related goods and services. Possibly a secondary consideration is that a profit-driven celebrant would have an incentive not to identify, and decline to celebrate, marriages of convenience (which is something celebrants are expected to do).0
Advertisement