Bill for secular marriages passes in Senead, but it needs to be amended

im interested in the paperwork i think i gather from what some of the politicians said, that they wanted a body of 5 years standing because of the complex paperwork involved although it doesn't actually look complicated for most people http://www.groireland.ie/getting_married.htm#section4

I wonder if anyone here who marrying a person not born here had to go through?
how much more work did your priest or registrar have to do if at all?


if theres anything to look into that's done by the dept of health, foreign affairs and justice not the solmeniser

are the politician punishing many people for the tiny amount of fraud that may occur, suggesting they will be the source of more fraud, its the classic department line, we've much of recently

some november 2012 updates to solemnising http://www.groireland.ie/docs/Notes_for_Religious_Solemnisers_Updated_Nov_2012.pdf

All couples must now present in person to a Registrar to give their three months’
notice

were AI suggesting changing that nope, so no there could be no drive through spur of the moment elvis weddings as joan was suggesting

It is important to advise couples that they
should have all documentation in order before the visit to the Registrar’s Office
in order to avoid the necessity for a second visit. In this regard it is essential that
the proposed solemniser is on the register at the time of giving notification.

hmm ok


the HSE registrar handles all this stuff for all kinds of marriages why do they need special demands for secular bodies
you get a Marriage Registration Form filled in and signed with the HSE and you give that to the solemniser.

The Marriage Registration Form is the civil authorisation for the marriage to proceed. Any marriage solemnised without a Marriage Registration Form will be null and void in civil law and of no legal effect.

ok

2.2 Checking the Marriage Registration Form
A Marriage Registration Form (MRF) is issued to every couple once they have completed the necessary civil preliminaries with the registrar. The couple are obliged under the Act to give this form to the solemniser before the ceremony (the couple and the solemniser should make their arrangements regarding how and when this is done). The solemniser must check the MRF to ensure that it is correct as far as he or she is aware – this would particularly apply to the details regarding the solemniser and where the marriage is taking place. (There will obviously be details on the MRF relating to the couple which the solemniser may not be familiar with).
Section 48(3) of the Act states that a marriage shall not be solemnised unless one of the parties to the marriage has given the relevant MRF to the person solemnising the marriage, for examination by him or her. Under Section 69(10) (c) of the Act, a person, who being a registered solemniser, solemnises a marriage without the MRF having been given to him or her, before the solemnisation, for examination by him or her is guilty of an offence.

so the solmeniser just has to check the MRF, that doesn't sound too onerous...

Last-minute amendments to the MRF
While couples will be requested to ensure that any necessary changes to the MRF are notified to the Registrar in advance of the ceremony so as to allow for it to be amended and reissued, situations will arise (e.g. illness of the solemniser) where changes will have to be made to the MRF at the ceremony. When this arises, the necessary amendment/s should be clearly made on the MRF by the solemniser and initialled by the solemniser, both parties and both witnesses. There is a section in the MRF which should also be completed and signed, explaining the nature of and reason for the changes.

so solemeniser can amend the important MRF

Immediately after the ceremony, the MRF must be signed by the couple, the two witnesses and the registered solemniser. The MRF should be returned to a registrar (not necessarily the registrar who issued the MRF or a registrar in the area where the marriage took place) within a month of the ceremony so that the marriage can be civilly registered. It is the responsibility of the couple, not the solemniser, to ensure that the MRF is returned to the registrar.

the paperwork is between the couple and the authorities not the solmeniser

note the law does allow for shotgun weddings

Michael I know this is OT but is there any more information on the bishops' meeting with government and whether other secular or faith groups will be afforded the same?

kenny/bishop meeting happening today 3 hours so far

an issue came up last week about people wanting to get married at outdoor venues. the rules state the civil ceremony must take place in public venue, with four walls and a roof, some want to get married outdoors or perhaps in a marqueue on the grounds of grand house of hotel, the general registrar currently applies the law tightly not allowing this.

I kinda agree civil ceremonies are supposed to civil/public, the resstriction is there so peopel can find the place, object and to try to avoid coerced marraiges.

see jerry buttimers dail speech and transcript http://jerrybuttimer.ie/2014/07/03/buttimer-calls-for-legislative-change-to-increase-choice-of-wedding-venues/

Humanists to take legal action to overturn outdoor weddings ban
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/humanists-to-take-legal-action-to-overturn-outdoor-weddings-ban-1.1849681

Irish law protects marriage from ethical atheists and unethical humanists but not from a spiritualist thief http://atheist.ie/2015/03/irish-law-protects-marriage-from-ethical-atheists/

This wording means that marriage needs to be protected from atheists who are not humanists, and from humanists who are not ethical.


Discrimination on the ground of religion or belief

This piece of legislation shows the contempt the state holds for the non-religious in Ireland. It tells us that:

The state accepts that once you are religious, then you are a fit and proper person.
If you are a humanist, then in order to be a fit and proper person, the law requires you to be ethical as well.
Being an ethical atheist does not come into the reasoning at all, as you are simply not considered a fit a proper person to come under this legislation.

This discriminatory piece of legislation benefits only religious bodies however new or old, and humanist bodies that are both ethical and have been in existence for five years or more.

You could object. On the other hand, nothing in the Act suggests that its the personal qualities or characteristics of an individual which qualify him to celebrate marriages in the first place, and registration as a celebrant is not any kind of endorsement or accolade for the individual. For both religious and secular celebrants, the Act focuses on the nominating body, rather than on the individual nominated.

As expectationlost points out, the registrar does have the right to cancel an individual registration on the grounds that the individual is not "a fit and proper person to solemnise a marriage". But I don't think that means the registrar can cancel the registration because he doesn't like you, or because expectationlost or Peregrinus don't like you; I'm pretty sure the courts would hold that this power must be exercised by reference to some characteristic or quality in the individual concerned which specifically impairs his ability to celebrate marriages in compliance with the Act. The courts have recognised that there's a constitutional right to earn a living, so the exercise of a power to exclude someone from a particular profession or occupation is usually scrutinised carefully.

Plus, there's a constitutional principle of the separation of powers. It's the legislator's job to set the parameters for criminal penalties, and the court's job to apply those penalties in specific cases. The Registrar is neither a legislator or a court, so his power in this regard is again going to be construed fairly narrowly by the courts. If the Oireachtas had intended a conviction for fraud (or for serious criminal offence, or for any criminal offence at all) to be a bar to being a marriage celebrant, it would have been a simple matter to say so in the Act. They didn't say so; conspicuously, only a conviction for an offence under this Act is a bar. The Registrar doesn't have the right to add to the penalties that the Oireachtas has specified on conviction for fraud. If he wants to bar this bloke he's going to have to satisfy himself that the fraud conviction bears in some identifiable way on his fitness to celebrate marriage. I think he might be on sticky grounds there, given that as a celebrant Colton is not in the position of handling clients' money, which is the context in which he committed his fraud.

In the short term the issue doesn't arise; Colton is in prison and therefore cannot celebrate marriages. My expectation is that before or upon his release he'll be deregistered by his own church, and if people want him to be deregistered they are probably better off putting pressure on the church than on the Registrar.

recedite wrote: »

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.

That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. And a fairly common one.

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.

recedite wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

AI does have a humanist object.

recedite wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They themselves are wholly unaware that they have it, and in fact deny that they do.

where?

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/

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).