Legality of marriages in embassies questioned

Elmo

The Department of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that thousands of foreign couples who got married here have been told their unions are invalid and illegal.

It is estimated that up to 3,000 couples, who married in their country's embassies here, could be affected.

This problem dates from the introduction of the 2004 Civil Registration Act, which entered into law on 5 November, 2007.

The Irish Times reports that last week the General Register Office wrote to all foreign embassies, informing them that marriages performed by diplomatic missions were not legal unless they were performed by an authorised registrar and took place in a registered building.

Under international rules, ceremonies deemed illegal in the country they are performed cannot be recognised in the home state.

It is reportedly causing problems for many couples, who have been told they cannot register their children in the names of both married parents, and has sparked a diplomatic row between the Government and several EU states.

They have asked Spain, which currently holds the EU Presidency, to mediate on their behalf.

A spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs said they are aware of the problem and are in contact with embassies with a view to resolving the issue.

Why would an Irish Act cause problems for different countries. I always assumed that if you are in an Embassy of another country you are effectively in their country and not Ireland. Or is this just an urban myth.

Couldn't think of where else to put this mods sorry.

OhNoYouDidn't

Let me get this straight.

The marraiges don't count in Ireland because they didn't technically happen in Ireland, rather on foreign embassy land.

But they can't count in the land of that embassy because they don't conform to the 2005 act as legitimate Irish weddings?

Surely both can't be right.

I would have assumed marraiges in embassies are the business of that country and of no consequence to the GRO whatsoever. Why treat them any differently to weddings in that country proper - ie if the other state says they are married, they are married.

enda1

Firstly it's pretty embarrassing that the department of foreign affairs did not let the embassies know that we were passing a law which would make their regular practice illegal, surely their should have been consultancy and pre notice?

The marriages in the sense of a diplomat holding a closed ceremony would probably not be accepted in Lithuania, so why should it be in Ireland?

The only reason they were previously validated in Lithuania, was because they accepted that a legal Irish wedding was by consequence a legal Lithuanian wedding, however after losing the Irish legitimacy, the weddings are now just plain illegitimate.

(Lithuania just used as an example). I think my explanation is pretty difficult to follow, maybe someone can simplify

Alun

I too find this a little bizarre. I too had always thought that the premises of the embassy itself was effectively foreign soil, so any marriage taking place there would be effectively taking place in the country that embassy represented, i.e. Poland, Lithuania etc. and not in Ireland, and therefore none of Ireland's business. Just the same as if the couple had flown back to their home country to get married, which would, I presume, have been accepted as legal. Anyway, these mostly seem to be cases of EU nationals getting married together, so surely not the original 'target' of the legislation.

I'm not surprised the other EU countries involved are kicking up a stink to be honest.

enda1

Alun wrote: »

I too find this a little bizarre. I too had always thought that the premises of the embassy itself was effectively foreign soil, so any marriage taking place there would be effectively taking place in the country that embassy represented, i.e. Poland, Lithuania etc. and not in Ireland, and therefore none of Ireland's business. Just the same as if the couple had flown back to their home country to get married, which would, I presume, have been accepted as legal. Anyway, these mostly seem to be cases of EU nationals getting married together, so surely not the original 'target' of the legislation.

I'm not surprised the other EU countries involved are kicking up a stink to be honest.

But the way the weddings were performed I guess wouldn't be acceptable in their home countries. And now since Ireland doesn't accept them, they have to do it in an official way in Ireland or their home countries.

seamus

Elmo wrote: »

Why would an Irish Act cause problems for different countries. I always assumed that if you are in an Embassy of another country you are effectively in their country and not Ireland. Or is this just an urban myth.

It depends on the country in question.

Take for example, the Irish embassy in New York. Imagine that the USA had a law which stated that any marriage ceremony performed in the Irish embassy was legal in the United States.

That marriage would *not* be legal in Ireland because it was not performed by a registrar (as required under Irish law). However, because it's a legal marriage in the USA, then it is by default recognised as a legal marriage in Ireland.

However, if the USA then changes the law so that the marriage performed in an embassy is no longer legal, then any ceremonies performed there are legal neither in Ireland or the USA.

This is I think what happened. A marriage in the Spanish embassy in Dublin would not have been recognised in Spain, except for the fact that Ireland specifically recognised the marriage as legal via a loophole.

The loophole has been closed, effectively voiding these marriages, but the embassies involved never bothered to check the new legislation.

enda1

seamus wrote: »

It depends on the country in question.

Take for example, the Irish embassy in New York. Imagine that the USA had a law which stated that any marriage ceremony performed in the Irish embassy was legal in the United States.

That marriage would *not* be legal in Ireland because it was not performed by a registrar (as required under Irish law). However, because it's a legal marriage in the USA, then it is by default recognised as a legal marriage in Ireland.

However, if the USA then changes the law so that the marriage performed in an embassy is no longer legal, then any ceremonies performed there are legal neither in Ireland or the USA.

This is I think what happened. A marriage in the Spanish embassy in Dublin would not have been recognised in Spain, except for the fact that Ireland specifically recognised the marriage as legal via a loophole.

The loophole has been closed, effectively voiding these marriages, but the embassies involved never bothered to check the new legislation.

Damn it. That was a lot clearer than my attempts at explaining it.

OhNoYouDidn't

enda1 wrote: »

But the way the weddings were performed I guess wouldn't be acceptable in their home countries. And now since Ireland doesn't accept them, they have to do it in an official way in Ireland or their home countries.

But surely that is up to the 'home country' in question to sort out....

I would have taken it as a given that if I got married in, say, the Mongolian embassy in Dublin that it was a Mongolian marriage as it happened de facto in Mongolia.

Why are the Irish state intervening now to state the bleedin' obvious?

seamus

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Why are the Irish state intervening now to state the bleedin' obvious?

Because they changed the law in 2004 but obviously the embassies failed to notice and have been performing ceremonies since then, with people handing invalid marriages documents to revenue and other state bodies. It would be remiss of the GRO not to tell them the embassies to stop wasting their time.

Hagar

I'm confused. How can a change in Irish law be effective in a foreign country ie inside a foreign embassy?

OhNoYouDidn't

seamus wrote: »

Because they changed the law in 2004 but obviously the embassies failed to notice and have been performing ceremonies since then, with people handing invalid marriages documents to revenue and other state bodies. It would be remiss of the GRO not to tell them the embassies to stop wasting their time.

I'm still unclear how a change in Irish family law has an impact on what goes on inside a foreign embassy....

Elmo

But your taking it that the Marriages were preformed in an Irish Embassy in a foreign country which is not the case. Irish Embassies with Irish registrars should at least be provided in that scenario, after all Irish law dictates what happens in Irish Embassies.

I love the term loophole when no such loophole existed. Basically the Irish Government outlawed Marriages in foreign embassies/foreign soil (thus creating a loophole). And again I would love to know how Irish Law effects laws in other countries.

seamus

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm still unclear how a change in Irish family law has an impact on what goes on inside a foreign embassy....

Previously, marriages which took place inside a foreign embassy were recognised in Ireland.

Irish law can do this - it's not interfering with what's taking place in the embassy, it's simply making an allowance for a special situation. Governments are well within their rights to make laws about what goes on in different jurisdictions, however they can only be *enforced* within that Government's jurisdiction.

For example, it is illegal in most EU countries to solicit sex from a child, anywhere in the world. Now, if Gary Glitter goes somewhere where it's legal to have sex with a child, he's safe while he's there. However, he can be arrested and tried as soon as he arrives back in the EU.

That's how this marriage thing worked - the marriages took place in a foreign jurisdiction, but were legally recognised by Irish law. The marriages however weren't legal in that foreign jurisdiction.
But marriage law in most countries will recognise a marriage that has been declared legal in a foreign jurisdiction. So it's by loophole that these marriages were legal in the foreign jurisdiction, because they were legal in Ireland.

When the Irish government removed their legal recognition, the marriages were no longer legal anywhere.

Alun

seamus wrote: »

That's how this marriage thing worked - the marriages took place in a foreign jurisdiction, but were legally recognised by Irish law. The marriages however weren't legal in that foreign jurisdiction.

The bit in bold is the bit that I don't understand ... surely it's up to the relevant foreign jurisdiction to decide what is and isn't legal within their own jurisdiction, i.e. on embassy soil, not Ireland? Or are you saying that even before the introduction of the new legislation they were (wittingly or unwittingly) breaking their own laws?

Elmo

seamus wrote: »

But marriage law in most countries will recognise a marriage that has been declared legal in a foreign jurisdiction. So it's by loophole that these marriages were legal in the foreign jurisdiction, because they were legal in Ireland.

When the Irish government removed their legal recognition, the marriages were no longer legal anywhere.

Does Ireland recognizes marriages in other jurisdictions?

I don't see how it is a loophole in the law that Ireland recognized the validity of marriages carried out in foreign embassies?

I can see the new law has a loophole were by while other countries recognized the marriage Ireland does not and should a bigamist wish to marry another person he/she can legally do so in Ireland, while also being legally married to others in other jurisdictions. This would be a loophole since something that is illegal becomes legal through an error in the law.

Unlike the loophole that sees people being legally married in foreign jurisdictions, which was not a loophole.

seamus

Alun wrote: »

The bit in bold is the bit that I don't understand ... surely it's up to the relevant foreign jurisdiction to decide what is and isn't legal within their own jurisdiction, i.e. on embassy soil, not Ireland? Or are you saying that even before the introduction of the new legislation they were (wittingly or unwittingly) breaking their own laws?

No, there were no laws being broken.

To take Spain as an example, a couple get married in the Spanish embassy in Dublin, performed by a Spanish diplomat. That marriage is not a Spanish marriage because it does not fulfill the requirements of Spanish law.

However, it is an Irish marriage because it fulfills the requirements of Irish law - namely having taken place in an embassy within the Republic.

Therefore because it's legal in Ireland, it's legal in Spain. The second part has now been removed and such marriages are now neither Irish marriages nor Spanish marriages.

Elmo wrote: »

Does Ireland recognizes marriages in other jurisdictions?

Yes, provided that the marriage would have been legal if it took place in Ireland (i.e. you're not sibling or underage).

I don't see how it is a loophole in the law that Ireland recognized the validity of marriages carried out in foreign embassies?

Because as I point out above, those marriages were only technically validated by Irish law. They were not validated by the foreign law.

I can see the new law has a loophole were by while other countries recognized the marriage Ireland does not and should a bigamist wish to marry another person he/she can legally do so in Ireland, while also being legally married to others in other jurisdictions.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here in that this was never a case of Ireland recognising or not recognising foreign marriages. Rather it was a case of Ireland recognising marriages which would otherwise have not been recognised anywhere.

I'm going to doublecheck all this because I'm only going here on what the newspaper article has said

Hagar

seamus wrote: »

Previously, marriages which took place inside a foreign embassy were recognised in Ireland...
The marriages however weren't legal in that foreign jurisdiction.

Why weren't the marriages carried out in, say the German Embassy in Dublin, not legal in Germany? That's the bit that it all hinges on, everything else makes sense.

If there just happened to be a quirk in German law that didn't allow marriages inside their embassy I can see that "No German Marriage = No recognition in Ireland". I can't see an identical quirk occuring simultaneously in every country though.

I still can't see the logic.

Alun

seamus wrote: »

To take Spain as an example, a couple get married in the Spanish embassy in Dublin, performed by a Spanish diplomat. That marriage is not a Spanish marriage because it does not fulfill the requirements of Spanish law.

Again, this is the bit I'm having trouble with ... says who? Surely it's up to the Spanish authorities to decide on whether this is legal or not, not the country in which the embassy is based (whether it's Ireland, or any other country for that matter, EU or not), assuming one is to take the stance that the embassy itself is effectively Spanish soil.

seamus

69 wrote: »

Why weren't the marriages carried out in, say the German Embassy in Dublin, not legal in Germany? That's the bit that it all hinges on, everything else makes sense.

If there just happened to be a quirk in German law that didn't allow marriages inside their embassy I can see that "No German Marriage = No recognition in Ireland". I can't see an identical quirk occuring simultaneously in every country though.

I still can't see the logic.

Most countries require that the person performing the marriage - the celebrant - is registered with that country in order for any marriage to be legal. In Ireland you must be a "registrar" in order to perform a legal marriage, for example.

The diplomats in embassies are probably not registered in their home countries as legal celebrants, so the German diplomat cannot perform a German marriage in the German embassy unless he is a registered celebrant under German law.

This is the quirk that's occured simultaneously across all of the countries.

Elmo

seamus wrote: »

Because as I point out above, those marriages were only technically validated by Irish law. They were not validated by the foreign law.

Why are embassies carrying out marriages which aren't valid in their home countries? Again this would now become a loophole since a bigamist could still go into any embassy in any country get married and then go off to that country and get married again.

seamus

Alun wrote: »

Again, this is the bit I'm having trouble with ... says who? Surely it's up to the Spanish authorities to decide on whether this is legal or not, not the country in which the embassy is based (whether it's Ireland, or any other country for that matter, EU or not), assuming one is to take the stance that the embassy itself is effectively Spanish soil.

Yes it is up to the Spanish authorities, exactly. So the marriage will *never* have been a Spanish marriage because it was not legal according to Spanish law.

Irish law had a quirk which bypassed this - Irish law is perfectly within its rights to declare any ceremony in any jurisdiction as legal under Irish law. So even though the marriage took place in a foreign jurisdiction, Irish law declared it legal in Ireland.

Why are embassies carrying out marriages which aren't valid in their home countries?

Because it was easier than having to go home and get married and the requirements were more relaxed.

Again this would now become a loophole since a bigamist could still go into any embassy in any country get married and then go off to that country and get married again.

But the first marriage wouldn't be legal, so it's not bigamy.

Elmo

How I now understand it: -

1. The Embassies were carrying out Marriages based on Irish Law.
2. Irish Law recognized these marriages while in some cases their home country did not (as the celebrant may not have been registered in their home country).
3. The new Irish Law now does not recognized such marriages unless it is recognized in the home country or where the celebrant is registered in Ireland to carry out such marriages.

So if a couple now gets married in a Foreign Country's Embassies were the Celebrant is required either by Irish law or the law of their home country to be registered - but is not - then the Marriage is void.

Otherwise where a celebrant is registered in their home country then the Marriage is valid under Irish law.

Alun

seamus wrote: »

Yes it is up to the Spanish authorities, exactly. So the marriage will *never* have been a Spanish marriage because it was not legal according to Spanish law.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall here. Who exactly is saying that the marriage wasn't legal according to Spanish law? The Spanish embassy is Spanish soil, so surely it's up to the Spanish themselves to say whether it's legal or not, and if the Spanish declare that it is legal for two people to get married in their embassy and for that marriage to be equivalent to getting married in Spain, then that's their business and nobody else's, surely? Marriage laws, specifically who is allowed to marry people and where vary a lot over the world, and even within the EU.

Or do you have any actual evidence to suggest that what the Spanish, or indeed any other embassies, were doing was illegal according to their own laws?

Elmo

Alun wrote: »

I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall here. Who exactly is saying that the marriage wasn't legal according to Spanish law? The Spanish embassy is Spanish soil, so surely it's up to the Spanish themselves to say whether it's legal or not, and if the Spanish declare that it is legal for two people to get married in their embassy and for that marriage to be equivalent to getting married in Spain, then that's their business and nobody else's, surely? Marriage laws, specifically who is allowed to marry people and where vary a lot over the world, and even within the EU.

Or do you have any actual evidence to suggest that what the Spanish, or indeed any other embassies, were doing was illegal according to their own laws?

Spain is just an example of a country.

From what I gather. The embassies were using Irish Law to validate their marriages rather than their home country laws, now it has been pushed back to their own laws meaning that where a countries laws states that the celebrant is required to be registered as such then the marriage is valid or if the celebrant is registered as such in Ireland.

So if we take a country that regonizes a marriage from an unregistered diplomat then the marriage is valid through those laws.

But perhaps I am just a confused?

seamus

That's exactly it Elmo.

Alun wrote: »

I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall here. Who exactly is saying that the marriage wasn't legal according to Spanish law? The Spanish embassy is Spanish soil, so surely it's up to the Spanish themselves to say whether it's legal or not, and if the Spanish declare that it is legal for two people to get married in their embassy and for that marriage to be equivalent to getting married in Spain, then that's their business and nobody else's, surely? Marriage laws, specifically who is allowed to marry people and where vary a lot over the world, and even within the EU.

As Elmo says, Spain is just an example, they may not be even affected.

It is Spanish law that's saying that the marriage is not a Spanish marriage. However, Irish law declared the marriage to be an Irish marriage because it took place within Ireland. Therefore by inheritance, the marriage is valid in Spain.

Or do you have any actual evidence to suggest that what the Spanish, or indeed any other embassies, were doing was illegal according to their own laws?

Nothing illegal was being done here, to clarify. No laws were broken. I'm trying to avoid use of the word "legal" and instead use "valid" because the former implies that the law was being abused or broken.

As I say, I've to have a better look at this, but I'll try give an example after lunch.

OhNoYouDidn't

Thanks for clarfying.

But now the logical next question is why were foreign embassies marrying people in accordance with Irish but not home law in the first place?!?

Elmo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But now the logical next question is why were foreign embassies marrying people in accordance with Irish but not home law in the first place?!?

Possible because they are Diplomats and saw that they didn't have to do such an ordinary thing as register since Ireland accepted the marriage without such formal issues, as far as Ireland was concerned if a marriage was carried out in an Embassy by an official then sure the couple were married.

But yes really they should be using their own laws, or informing themselves of changes in Irish law.

peasant

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But now the logical next question is why were foreign embassies marrying people in accordance with Irish but not home law in the first place?!?

Exactly.
I find it difficult to imagine that foreign diplomats would carry out meaningless (and potentially illegal) wedding ceremonies in their embassies ...whether they are recognised in the host country or not.

enda1

peasant wrote: »

Exactly.
I find it difficult to imagine that foreign diplomats would carry out meaningless (and potentially illegal) wedding ceremonies in their embassies ...whether they are recognised in the host country or not.

But they were legal in Ireland until the law was changed! And they were certainly not meaningless.

The only way a marriage can be legal abroad is if it is recognised in the host country. I doubt many jurisdictions will sanction marriages abroad that are not recognised in the host country.

Elmo

enda1 wrote: »

But they were legal in Ireland until the law was changed! And they were certainly not meaningless.

The only way a marriage can be legal abroad is if it is recognised in the host country. I doubt many jurisdictions will sanction marriages abroad that are not recognised in the host country.

How long did it take them to notice that the marriages weren't valid when someone came looking for a divorce?

peasant

enda1 wrote: »

But they were legal in Ireland until the law was changed! And they were certainly not meaningless.

The only way a marriage can be legal abroad is if it is recognised in the host country. I doubt many jurisdictions will sanction marriages abroad that are not recognised in the host country.

Hang on...hang on ....


we've got two scenarios here

1) ceremony in embassy (foreign soil) is legal according to the laws of that embassie's country --- marriage is a legal (foreign) marriage and has to be recognised by Ireland

2) ceremony in embassy (foreign soil) is not legally binding according to the laws of that embassie's country --- marriage gets recognised by Ireland anyway (at least it used to be, but not anymore)


if 1) is the case, then nothing has changed and if it's 2) ...then why would the embassies have carried out the ceremonies in the first place?
In my experience embassies usually don't do "favours"

radtjack

What the feck is that story??? I got married at the French Ambassy of Dublin by the Ambassador himself last year in April 2009... Do you think they're gonna find a solution by passing another law or do I really need to get married again?????

OhNoYouDidn't

radtjack wrote: »

What the feck is that story??? I got married at the French Ambassy of Dublin by the Ambassador himself last year in April 2009... Do you think they're gonna find a solution by passing another law or do I really need to get married again?????

From the sounds of it you aren't married.

Do you mind me asking, if it isn't too personal, why you got married in the embassy? And if they charged....?

Elmo

peasant wrote: »

we've got two scenarios here

1) ceremony in embassy (foreign soil) is legal according to the laws of that embassie's country --- marriage is a legal (foreign) marriage and has to be recognised by Ireland

2) ceremony in embassy (foreign soil) is not legally binding according to the laws of that embassie's country --- marriage gets recognised by Ireland anyway (at least it used to be, but not anymore)


if 1) is the case, then nothing has changed and if it's 2) ...then why would the embassies have carried out the ceremonies in the first place?
In my experience embassies usually don't do "favours"

Irish law stated that if a marriage was carried out in a foreign embassy that it was valid. The new laws now change this, stating that for a marriage to be valid that

1. The Celebrant is registered as such under their own laws (Hence valid through the home country).
2. The celebrant is registered as such in Ireland (Hence valid through Ireland).

What the feck is that story??? I got married at the French Ambassy of Dublin by the Ambassador himself last year in April 2009... Do you think they're gonna find a solution by passing another law or do I really need to get married again?????

Depends if the French recognize your marriage then it is still valid. Was the celebrant registered in France or Ireland? Did the celebrant need to be registered in France?

radtjack

Hi, no problem. They didn't charge at the embassy, and I knew it was like 150 euro to get married in a registrar office so choice quickly made!

...

really shocked I must say

Re - Just rang the French Ambassy, they're saying it's the minister of Justice who is blocking the situation, whereas the minister of foreign affairs is favorable to facilitating the situation of the 3,000 couples concerned. She said though that we wouldn't get an official solution in the next 15 days...

enda1

peasant wrote: »

Hang on...hang on ....


we've got two scenarios here

1) ceremony in embassy (foreign soil) is legal according to the laws of that embassie's country --- marriage is a legal (foreign) marriage and has to be recognised by Ireland

2) ceremony in embassy (foreign soil) is not legally binding according to the laws of that embassie's country --- marriage gets recognised by Ireland anyway (at least it used to be, but not anymore)


if 1) is the case, then nothing has changed and if it's 2) ...then why would the embassies have carried out the ceremonies in the first place?
In my experience embassies usually don't do "favours"

If scenario 1 were to exist then it will be grand for those concerned.

However, I think that everyone is up in arms cause they were all scenario 2 cases, i.e. trying to avoid the €150 registrar fee by giving a bottle of whiskey to the local consulate

lucyli

But if you get married in another country move here aren't they recognised

Does this mean i have to get married twice :P

Elmo

Really the embassies didn't do their job. The Embassies are representives of their counties to assist their citizens while residing in a foreign country. It seems to me that the embassies did not deem it important enough to take a look at the changes within Irish law under which they acted. Hence 3,000 are now unsure of their legal situation. What is the point of having embassies?

But if you get married in another country move here aren't they recognised

Marriages legally obtained in other jurisdictions are recognized in Ireland. The issue is with marriages that took place in Embassies in Ireland.

Just rang the French Ambassy, they're saying it's the minister of Justice who is blocking the situation, whereas the minister of foreign affairs is favorable to facilitating the situation of the 3,000 couples concerned. She said though that we wouldn't get an official solution in the next 15 days.

Did you ask the French Embassy if the Celebrant at your marriage was registered either in Ireland or in France?

lucyli

Elmo wrote: »

Marriages legally obtained in other jurisdictions are recognized in Ireland. The issue is with marriages that took place in Embassies in Ireland.

So if they consider the embassies other countries how does it not fall in same category

Elmo

lucyli wrote: »

So if they consider the embassies other countries how does it not fall in same category

What the embassies had being doing was using an Irish Law which stated that any marriage in an Embassy in Ireland was valid, hence many of the Embassies didn't look to their own countries laws.

Ireland has since changed their laws stating that Embassies must either be registered in Ireland to provide the service or registered in their own countries to provide the service.

The embassies didn't notice the change and continued to provide marriages under the old Irish law, so if they weren't registered in their home country or Ireland the marriages were not valid in any country.

Sid_Justice

At what point does all this become relevant though in reality? Like they can't take the marriage cert off you can they? Or if at some point in the future you had to produce proof of marriage would some guy be able to say

"hold on, this marriage took place in a embassy prior to 2010, sorry that's no longer valid".?

Seems unlikely to me.

Just to get this straight. The guys who were registrar/celebrant/the priest guy wouldn't be able to do marriages in their own actual country but just in some kind of quirk in Ireland they could in the embassy? Surely it sounds like an oversight if the ambassador dude isn't registered as a marriage guy.

lucyli

Elmo wrote: »

What the embassies had being doing was using an Irish Law which stated that any marriage in an Embassy in Ireland was valid, hence many of the Embassies didn't look to their own countries laws.

Ireland has since changed their laws stating that Embassies must either be registered in Ireland to provide the service or registered in their own countries to provide the service.

The embassies didn't notice the change and continued to provide marriages under the old Irish law, so if they weren't registered in their home country or Ireland the marriages were not valid in any country.

Oh i see thanks for that
Complete mess up there those people should sue their embassies.

Elmo

Sid_Justice wrote: »

At what point does all this become relevant though in reality? Like they can't take the marriage cert off you can they? Or if at some point in the future you had to produce proof of marriage would some guy be able to say

"hold on, this marriage took place in a embassy prior to 2010, sorry that's no longer valid".?

Seems unlikely to me.

I think the new laws happened in 2007, so any marriage since 2007 in an Embassy that was not registered to provide marriages are not legit.

And yes it is an oversight by the Embassy who should have insure that the marriages were valid in their own country first and then in Ireland. This would have avoided the issue.

And someone being fussy on an Irish Citizen application could used it to stop the application.

radtjack

[QUOTE= Elmo >> Did you ask the French Embassy if the Celebrant at your marriage was registered either in Ireland or in France?[/QUOTE]

Hi Elmo, nope I forgot, will have to ring again What I know is that no marriage has been celebrated in the French Embassy for the last 10 years, because the previous embassador didn't want to marry couples... so I would doubt he's registered...

gizmo555

Sid_Justice wrote: »

At what point does all this become relevant though in reality?

There's a whole range of ways - estate law, if one partner dies; tax; guardianship of children; the Family Home Protection Act which stops one spouse selling the family home without the consent of the other doesn't apply to unmarried couples - there are no doubt many more.

JustinDee

gizmo555 wrote: »

There's a whole range of ways - estate law, if one partner dies; tax; guardianship of children; the Family Home Protection Act which stops one spouse selling the family home without the consent of the other doesn't apply to unmarried couples - there are no doubt many more.

Yes, arcane and outdated laws.
Its not that long ago when people born outside wedlock were finally accepted as normal people and not treated as 'illegitimate'.

Sid_Justice

gizmo555 wrote: »

There's a whole range of ways - estate law, if one partner dies; tax; guardianship of children; the Family Home Protection Act which stops one spouse selling the family home without the consent of the other doesn't apply to unmarried couples - there are no doubt many more.

I understand the difference being married and not being married is. But if you already have a house together, already are getting taxed as spouses, are already legal guardian of the children already already already is somebody going to post a letter out to every single person affected by the marriage that wasnt a marraige and inform them? Are the government going to reclaim tax from couples who claimed as spouses? It's a bit like saying, the priest that signed my baptism cert was actually a conman and i was never baptised. therefore i was never a Catholic, and I should never have gone to a Catholic school and I should have never been married in a catholic church.

Well it's not really like that but far more serious in theory but I still don't think anyone's marriage is going to be declared null and void and they'll have to get it done again.

I can imagine if you knew yourself your marriage wasn't legit and rather than going through a divorce you could tip your solicitor off and use that to end the relationship.

Elmo

radtjack wrote: »

Hi Elmo, nope I forgot, will have to ring again What I know is that no marriage has been celebrated in the French Embassy for the last 10 years, because the previous embassador didn't want to marry couples... so I would doubt he's registered...

You might be lucky since the new Ambassador may have looked in the legalities of providing the service in the Embassy.

Elmo

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I can imagine if you knew yourself your marriage wasn't legit and rather than going through a divorce you could tip your solicitor off and use that to end the relationship.

This is probably the only reason this has come up. Somebody wanted a Divorce and found out that they weren't married to begin with. Which leads us into divorce settlements which make marriage important.

seamus

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I understand the difference being married and not being married is. But if you already have a house together, already are getting taxed as spouses, are already legal guardian of the children already already already is somebody going to post a letter out to every single person affected by the marriage that wasnt a marraige and inform them? Are the government going to reclaim tax from couples who claimed as spouses?

Well in reality the only case it will really matter is in relation in taxation and inheritance.

Since this "potentially" affects just 3,000 marriages, it will be cheaper and easier for the GRO to declare an amnesty on those marriages and issue marriage certificates, rather than have revenue re-open the books on 3,000 people since November 2007 and determine what they owe.

Technically speaking, if you never gave the GRO notification of your intention to marry, then you were never married. Having registered as "married" with Revenue is not the GRO's problem.

This is probably the only reason this has come up. Somebody wanted a Divorce and found out that they weren't married to begin with. Which leads us into divorce settlements which make marriage important.

I'd say a couple of small requests may have come in looking for a marriage cert or some other validation of a marriage and the GRO were turning around and telling people that the marriage was invalid. Then they realised that embassies were still incorrectly marrying people so decided to send out this note.

gizmo555

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, arcane and outdated laws.

You may consider them arcane and outdated, but they are still law and hence of interest and importance to people caught up in this situation.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I understand the difference being married and not being married is.

Well then, you should already know "At what point does all this become relevant though in reality." If, for example, the wife in one of these marriages dies intestate leaving children, the husband will have no automatic entitlement to a share in her estate and will have to go through a whole lot of costly legal hoops to establish guardianship of his own children.

seamus wrote: »

Well in reality the only case it will really matter is in relation in taxation and inheritance.

What about the guardianship of children and family homes?