Priest that will marry us without state involvement?

newmug

Hi folks. Does anyone know of a priest that will marry us without us having to do the civil registry first?

bonniebede

newmug wrote: »

Hi folks. Does anyone know of a priest that will marry us without us having to do the civil registry first?

They are not supposed to do this, and could be in trouble with the bishop if they did. Any reason you can't do the civil registry? the waiting time is the same for a church wedding as the civil registry. You know you don't have to get married in the civil registry if you get married in church, its not like the continental system, your church marriage is also a civil marriage.

yuo could get married in a different jurisdiction which doesn't have a waiting time. from some research i did on that a while ago i think the best bet is california, which will marry non citizens without a wait period and no blood tests. once you are civilly married a priest in ireland is free to marry you in church, as you are already legally married.

also, perhaps you aren't aware that even if you don't marry legally, after you live together three years, the new civil partnership bill gives you certsain enforceable rights against each other, as if you were married anyway.

ResearchWill

newmug wrote: »

Hi folks. Does anyone know of a priest that will marry us without us having to do the civil registry first?

If a priest did do this, you do know, that while the church may consider you married, the state will not.

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

Hi folks. Does anyone know of a priest that will marry us without us having to do the civil registry first?

I can't see any priest agreeing to go along with this, as far as I know all priests are registered as solemnisers by the state and it would put them in a very difficult position if they performed the religious part of the service but ignored the civil aspect of signing the register. Is there any particular reason that you don't want the state involved?

newmug

bonniebede wrote: »

You know you don't have to get married in the civil registry if you get married in church, its not like the continental system, your church marriage is also a civil marriage..........

yuo could get married in a different jurisdiction which doesn't have a waiting time. from some research i did on that a while ago i think the best bet is california...........

also, perhaps you aren't aware that even if you don't marry legally, after you live together three years, the new civil partnership bill gives you certsain enforceable rights against each other, as if you were married anyway.

I wasn't aware that the church marragoe also counts as your civil marraige, I always thought you had to get the civil part done first. Every couple I know who got married around here had to do it that way, some even on different days because the church would be booked for other things.

I was thinking of another jurisdiction alright, but I was more thinking along the lines of somewhere in the North!!

I wasnt aware about what the new civil partnership entailed either. Cheers Bonniebede.

ResearchWill wrote: »

If a priest did do this, you do know, that while the church may consider you married, the state will not.

Well thats what I want Will. Call it a form of protest if you will, but I want absolutely zero to do with the current govt. or any of the cretins from the last one either. I didnt vote for either of them, I dont recognise them, but I am a practicing Catholic and I only want to be married in the eyes of God. Thats whats important to me.

Onesimus

newmug wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the church marragoe also counts as your civil marraige, I always thought you had to get the civil part done first. Every couple I know who got married around here had to do it that way, some even on different days because the church would be booked for other things.

I was thinking of another jurisdiction alright, but I was more thinking along the lines of somewhere in the North!!

I wasnt aware about what the new civil partnership entailed either. Cheers Bonniebede.




Well thats what I want Will. Call it a form of protest if you will, but I want absolutely zero to do with the current govt. or any of the cretins from the last one either. I didnt vote for either of them, I dont recognise them, but I am a practicing Catholic and I only want to be married in the eyes of God. Thats whats important to me.

Newmug I understand your concerns, but even Joseph and Mary respected the state law of which they were a part of and went to be registered with the state census.

"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."(NASB)

It is important you do the same unless getting married civilly would mean compromising your faith, it is important you do it.

ResearchWill

newmug wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the church marragoe also counts as your civil marraige, I always thought you had to get the civil part done first. Every couple I know who got married around here had to do it that way, some even on different days because the church would be booked for other things.

I was thinking of another jurisdiction alright, but I was more thinking along the lines of somewhere in the North!!

I wasnt aware about what the new civil partnership entailed either. Cheers Bonniebede.




Well thats what I want Will. Call it a form of protest if you will, but I want absolutely zero to do with the current govt. or any of the cretins from the last one either. I didnt vote for either of them, I dont recognise them, but I am a practicing Catholic and I only want to be married in the eyes of God. Thats whats important to me.

But it is not the government that is involved in you marriage it is the State. The State is very different to those that are in power. If you want to go down this road I guess a priest will marry you according to the rites of the church, but you are bringing a huge number of future problems on you. Inheritance rights, succession rights, children's rights etc. my own opinion is your protest will only harm you and your family.

MadsL

Why not marry in a Catholic Church overseas?

newmug

ResearchWill wrote: »

But it is not the government that is involved in you marriage it is the State. The State is very different to those that are in power. If you want to go down this road I guess a priest will marry you according to the rites of the church, but you are bringing a huge number of future problems on you. Inheritance rights, succession rights, children's rights etc. my own opinion is your protest will only harm you and your family.

I know the state and the govt are separate, but they're both limbs of the same monster. Those problems you mention shouldn't be in anybody's hands but myself and my spouses'. But you're probably right. The law is an ass, it needs a serious overhaul.

newmug

MadsL wrote: »

Why not marry in a Catholic Church overseas?

Cant afford to. Was thinking of the North though maybe?

ResearchWill

newmug wrote: »

Cant afford to. Was thinking of the North though maybe?

The only difference then is the state ceremony will be that of the UK rather than the Republic of Ireland. Of the marriage does not conform to the civil requirements of the country the marriage takes place in then it is not recognised in the Irish state. Then the original issues I outlined are still there, for example the treatment the Irish courts and state give non married fathers in child care matters.

MadsL

newmug wrote: »

Cant afford to. Was thinking of the North though maybe?

Train to Belfast wouldn't break ya

how can you be a member of the catholic church and think the state is the one that's overbearing?
just get married by the church&state or dont get married

ResearchWill

MadsL wrote: »

Train to Belfast wouldn't break ya

The only issue is they would have to find a priest up there who will perform the marriage without the civil part.

Benny_Cake

By going to the North, or to any other country, you could get married and then "forget" to register it here on your return. But since it would probably be recognised by the authorities of the other jurisdiction you would still have the involvement of the civil authority of another country. I'm not sure if you are hold anarchist views or not, but whether you recognise the state or not, the state certainly recognises you, and there are objectionable qualities to all governments - and as another poster mentioned, the state and the government are not the same thing, which is why we have an independent judiciary, public services, broadcasting, and so on.

MadsL

ResearchWill wrote: »

The only issue is they would have to find a priest up there who will perform the marriage without the civil part.

Find a Loyalist one who would be prejudiced against the 'Free State'...oh, wait. :pac:

NuMarvel

bluewolf wrote: »

how can you be a member of the catholic church and think the state is the one that's overbearing?
just get married by the church&state or dont get married

I don't think that's fair. I don't agree with his point of view, but I have to believe that he and his fiancé have the right to be married in a purely religious ceremony if that is what they want. I'm arguing for the right to marry who I want on another thread, so I have to extend the same right when it comes to how they want. Particularly when I'm making points about separation of church and state.

The only caveat I'd apply is that they make sure they completely understand the complexities they may encounter down the line, as others have outlined.

Newmug, I'm afraid I can't help you with your query, and I don't mean to turn your query into a soapbox. Has your local priest definitely said he won't carry out the ceremony?

dvpower

I guess it's nice to see different forms of marriage being contemplated.

partyatmygaff

As others have said while the state is ruled by the government, the government is not the state. The state is the people of Ireland and the government are those people who've been appointed to manage and keep things in order.

Just liken it to a church. There is the church itself and there is its clergy. The clergy are meant to lead the church and help maintain it but they are not the church itself. The church is the people.

So in short, what's wrong with getting the people of Ireland and most of the world's nations from acknowledging the commitment you two have made before God?

NuMarvel

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't think that's fair. I don't agree with his point of view, but I have to believe that he and his fiancé have the right to be married in a purely religious ceremony if that is what they want. I'm arguing for the right to marry who I want on another thread, so I have to extend the same right when it comes to how they want. Particularly when I'm making points about separation of church and state.

The only caveat I'd apply is that they make sure they completely understand the complexities they may encounter down the line, as others have outlined.

Newmug, I'm afraid I can't help you with your query, and I don't mean to turn your query into a soapbox. Has your local priest definitely said he won't carry out the ceremony?

I didn't say they didn't have the right so I don't know what you're talking about

NuMarvel

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't say they didn't have the right so I don't know what you're talking about

So what did you mean when you said "Just get married by the church & state, or don't get married"?

lmaopml

Newmug, any Priest or Registrar, must be 'registered' to conduct a Marriage and have it legally registered with the state.

Priests are 'registered' to conduct a Marriage - obviously firstly in the eyes of God between those who are believers, but also as 'Registrars' of the State - to make sure that it's not only a Spiritual binding, but also a 'legal' binding...

...both are covenants or 'contracts' if you like. One has the added element of the State and current 'Family Law' etc. etc. the other is.....well, conducted by a Priest and he is firstly a witness and secondly a Registrar.

Onesimus

I feel for newmug though and understand his dissapointment or concern. It's just that Newmug needs to understand that the Church asks us to obey state law as long as it is in accordance with the Divine and Church law.

So it's ok Newmug, I understand your dislike for much of what politicians do, but it is important nonetheless that we vote.

I love you and hope you are doing well my friend.

Always feel free to PM me anytime for a chat brother

you and your future bride to be are in our prayers.

Onesimus <>< ICXC

lmaopml

Onesimus wrote: »

I feel for newmug though and understand his dissapointment or concern. It's just that Newmug needs to understand that the Church asks us to obey state law as long as it is in accordance with the Divine and Church law.

So it's ok Newmug, I understand your dislike for much of what politicians do, but it is important nonetheless that we vote.

I love you and hope you are doing well my friend.

Always feel free to PM me anytime for a chat brother

you and your future bride to be are in our prayers.

Onesimus <>< ICXC

I like your 'love' Onesimus.:) Ultimately, Newmug will have to recognise that Priests will Marry you publicly and be a registrar for obvious reasons no? in line with the state laws - voting won't change the secular and legal contract of marriage too much - but it doesn't diminish the sacrament unless one thinks the promise made means less where one makes it?

However, there is also the 'Extraordinary' form of Marriage which recognises under certain circumstances when a Priest is not available or will be available to register your marriage that recognises that a Man and Woman can marry each other with a promise - that's the sacrament! It's awful hard to find where a Priest can't be found though?

I've never heard of such a case, or at least it's never been publicised as a particular time when marriage happened - I'm quite sure it did though!

Onesimus

I like your 'love' Onesimus.:) Ultimately, Newmug will have to recognise that Priests will Marry you publicly and be a registrar for obvious reasons no? in line with the state laws - voting won't change the secular and legal contract of marriage too much - but it doesn't diminish the sacrament unless one thinks the promise made means less where one makes it?

Yes Priests must be obedient to state law that does not contradict the Divine or Church Law.

However, there is also the 'Extraordinary' form of Marriage which recognises under certain circumstances when a Priest is not available or will be available to register your marriage that recognises that a Man and Woman can marry each other with a promise - that's the sacrament! It's awful hard to find where a Priest can't be found though?

Never heard of that one. Would love a qoute from the CCC or elsewhere on that one though. Interesting. But I would imagine Newmugs case would work if he belonged to some tribe in the amazon that didn't have any kind of state law at all to be registered with.

Onesimus

Or whether its a case where he were in a war torn country in which civil registtration would prove to be impossible.

lmaopml

Onesimus wrote: »

Yes Priests must be obedient to state law that does not contradict the Divine or Church Law.



Never heard of that one. Would love a qoute from the CCC or elsewhere on that one though. Interesting. But I would imagine Newmugs case would work if he belonged to some tribe in the amazon that didn't have any kind of state law at all to be registered with.

Yeah, I know....Even in the Amazon they have Priests who take 'account' of a marriage... you won't get married in the Catholic Church again elsewhere if you got married in the Amazon - simply because it's 'recorded' properly recorded and nothing less.

Onesimus

lmaopml wrote: »

Yeah, I know....Even in the Amazon they have Priests who take 'account' of a marriage... you won't get married in the Catholic Church again elsewhere if you got married in the Amazon - simply because it's 'recorded' properly recorded and nothing less.

Well yes each marriage in the Church is accounted for by the Church, but not by the state/Civil if ya know what I'm sayin.

newmug

Cheers everybody, you all have good points. I'll have to speak to herself and we'll consider what the next move will be.

bluewolf wrote: »

how can you be a member of the catholic church and think the state is the one that's overbearing?
just get married by the church&state or dont get married

I dont get what you mean there bluewolf

lmaopml

Onesimus wrote: »

Well yes each marriage in the Church is accounted for by the Church, but not by the state/Civil if ya know what I'm sayin.

No, the Church co-operates with the State insofar as registering a marriage is concerned wherever and however she can. Even if the State is hostile, they don't conduct marriage without giving due regard to State law. The Church always encouraged cooperation and religious freedom with regards recording a marriage with ANY state where Christians reside.

Onesimus

lmaopml wrote: »

No, the Church co-operates with the State insofar as registering a marriage is concerned wherever and however she can. Even if the State is hostile, they don't conduct marriage without giving due regard to State law. The Church always encouraged cooperation and religious freedom with regards recording a marriage with ANY state where Christians reside.

When I said that I thought you would take it for granted that I meant in tribal communities who are free from any state law/civil stuff.

skooterblue2

So OP what the big deal with getting married in the church but without having a civil registration?

Dont stand there like one oclock half struck. Marry the girl properly or dont. Dont make an ass of the job and having kids spending money on solicitors fees to clean their inheritance and your tax affairs later.

The days of Loolaa in the church are at an end. the new thinking of priests coming into the church is they have to conform within the law. Maybe get one of those outthere priest who marry traveller teenagers. No priest want to incur the wrath of his bishop incase he gets sent to a Craggy Island-esque place.

bonniebede

Onesimus wrote: »

Never heard of that one. Would love a qoute from the CCC or elsewhere on that one though. Interesting. .

from canon law orf the latin rite:

Can. 1112 §1. Where there is a lack of priests and deacons, the diocesan bishop can delegate lay persons to assist at marriages, with the previous favorable vote of the conference of bishops and after he has obtained the permission of the Holy See.

§2. A suitable lay person is to be selected, who is capable of giving instruction to those preparing to be married and able to perform the matrimonial liturgy properly.



Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.

and from the catechism:

1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called "Crowning") is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant.

skooterblue2

OP If your issues with the state are greater than you love for this girl then you shouldn't be marrying her. Think about, if you dont love her enough to do the thing properly that would make legal provision for your children then you shouldnt be getting married.

Snappy Smurf

newmug wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the church marragoe also counts as your civil marraige, I always thought you had to get the civil part done first. Every couple I know who got married around here had to do it that way, some even on different days because the church would be booked for other things.

I was thinking of another jurisdiction alright, but I was more thinking along the lines of somewhere in the North!!

I wasnt aware about what the new civil partnership entailed either. Cheers Bonniebede.




Well thats what I want Will. Call it a form of protest if you will, but I want absolutely zero to do with the current govt. or any of the cretins from the last one either. I didnt vote for either of them, I dont recognise them, but I am a practicing Catholic and I only want to be married in the eyes of God. Thats whats important to me.

In NI they just do the Nuptial Mass in church and after the couple have exchanged vows, and the Mass is concluded, the couple signs the state papers, either in the church or in the sacristy.

skooterblue2

Another one has escaped from the box!

If you are not married in the eyes of the state ... then you are not married. That mean no tax benefits. If you are that pissed off with the State ... emigrate! You probably cant because you dont have a formal education? HETAC/FETAC/City and Guilds/

Oh and Canon law only applies to the church. They arent going to fine you or lock you up or hang you if you break it.... well not anymore.

Honestly I have to say I pity the poor girl ......... As my Grandfather would say "Are you in some sort of trouble?".

NotForResale

I could just be talking out my arse on this , but if this marriage is carried out in Ireland and the government is unaware it could cause legal headaches down the road, money issues, divorce, child custody issues, i can only guess.

skooterblue2

NotForResale wrote: »

I could just be talking out my arse on this , but if this marriage is carried out in Ireland and the government is unaware it could cause legal headaches down the road, money issues, divorce, child custody issues, i can only guess.

What he said ..... Well if there is no record of it then it never happened. Finally a bit of common sense.

ResearchWill

skooterblue2 wrote: »

What he said ..... Well if there is no record of it then it never happened. Finally a bit of common sense.

I think I said exactly the same thing on the first page, in fact I think most post echo the said common sense approach.

NuMarvel

NuMarvel wrote: »

So what did you mean when you said "Just get married by the church & state, or don't get married"?

Saying I don't think something is a good idea is completely unconnected to whether someone has the right to do it
and going by the responses on this thread and their other thread on the subject, it seems clear enough it's not likely to be possible, in which case discussing their rights is entirely moot
in this case it seems like a bad idea, more hassle than it's worth, and so on

skooterblue2

Here is the thing OP? Say you have kids....
..... are you planning to get their births registered?
So they can go to school, go to college, register for Tax and social welfare, get a driving license, vote, get health care, get a passport get a job?

Dont think you have thought out the wider implications of this have you? Tell you what you go and stick it to THE MAN!
I am sure they can wing it through life with a birth cert and a swimming certificate like Frank Spencer.

MadsL

Can't help but wonder if it is a case of;

1 Corinthians 7:9 wrote:

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

But not wanting the other responsibilities of marriage...

skooterblue2

that is all good and true for St Paul to be writing those words but they didnt have PPS numbers, Passport, judicial seperations and the Department of Social welfare to deal with back in the day.

Since then a lot has happened that doesnt take account of current social and legal circumstances

MadsL

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Since then a lot has happened that doesnt take account of current social and legal circumstances

Is there a comma missing in there somewhere? Really struggling to make sense of this sentence.

neemish

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

In NI they just do the Nuptial Mass in church and after the couple have exchanged vows, and the Mass is concluded, the couple signs the state papers, either in the church or in the sacristy.

Its the same in the Republic. There is one line in the Marriage Ceremony which means that the vows fulfill both Church and State requirements.

When the couple signs the Marriage register, it is the State Papers they are signing and NOT the Church register - the Priest fills out the Church register.

skooterblue2

neemish wrote: »

Its the same in the Republic. There is one line in the Marriage Ceremony which means that the vows fulfill both Church and State requirements.

When the couple signs the Marriage register, it is the State Papers they are signing and NOT the Church register - the Priest fills out the Church register.

LOL It doesnt matter OP, Either way the Free State or Queen gets to register your details. Just do the right thing. Personally I dont think you are fit to be married if you put your pride above the happiness of your future life partner.

If you have your mind fixed on something else bigger than dealing with all the aspects of the wedding (Legal, seating arrangements, reception menu, wedding venue, new life new home, future parenting, inlaws, honeymoon, which side of the bed you sleep on). You would be better off sorting that stuff out before the wedding.

A word about women, they are like taxi drivers, they work on a clock and they won't put up with that kind of sugar for long. Meaning keeping on with "I dont want the marriage registered" and "The State screwed me and I will screw them back" and you won't have to worry about the wedding.

skooterblue2

MadsL wrote: »

Is there a comma missing in there somewhere? Really struggling to make sense of this sentence.

There is no comma missing. Read the whole post it is grammatically correct. Honours English student here

In those days if you moved down the road 20 miles you could completely re-invent yourself. Look at the Mayor of Casterbridge (Thomas Hardy), the main character moves to the next town and starts up a new life or Jean Valjean in Les Miserables (Victor Hugo) the next town is a new life. Today any landlord worth his salt will want PPS, a letter from work or college, a look at bank statement and photocopy of Passport. A Birth Cert is not a sufficient proof of identity.

OP, the State may or may not care about you but it does care when your paper work is not in order. While it is not in order will have more difficulty gaining access to state services.

Save yourself and your future a lot of grief and get it done right first day.

Bannasidhe

OP - the simple fact is that if you have a purely religious wedding ceremony and do not engage with the civil aspect it has no legal meaning. In the eyes of the State (and every other State) you and your partner will be considered strangers, you will have no joint rights/responsibilities which could lead to tax problems and inheritance issues down the line and under current legislation should you have children they will not be recognised as your children but the children of a lone parent. In order to be recognised as their father you would still have to engage with the State and possibly go to court.

In short - a purely religious wedding may be valid in the eyes of the Church (though it would be hard to find a priest anywhere who would agree to officiate), but in the eyes of the State it is symbolic and has no legal validity.

You would be opening up a legal can of worms for you, your partner and any future children.

skooterblue2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

OP - the simple fact is that if you have a purely religious wedding ceremony and do not engage with the civil aspect it has no legal meaning. In the eyes of the State (and every other State) you and your partner will be considered strangers, you will have no joint rights/responsibilities which could lead to tax problems and inheritance issues down the line and under current legislation should you have children they will not be recognised as your children but the children of a lone parent. In order to be recognised as their father you would still have to engage with the State and possibly go to court.

In short - a purely religious wedding may be valid in the eyes of the Church (though it would be hard to find a priest anywhere who would agree to officiate), but in the eyes of the State it is symbolic and has no legal validity.

You would be opening up a legal can of worms for you, your partner and any future children.

That is the most concise reply I have seen so far.

newmug

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Another one has escaped from the box!

If you are not married in the eyes of the state ... then you are not married. That mean no tax benefits. If you are that pissed off with the State ... emigrate! You probably cant because you dont have a formal education? HETAC/FETAC/City and Guilds/

Oh and Canon law only applies to the church. They arent going to fine you or lock you up or hang you if you break it.... well not anymore.

Honestly I have to say I pity the poor girl ......... As my Grandfather would say "Are you in some sort of trouble?".

skooterblue2 wrote: »

So OP what the big deal with getting married in the church but without having a civil registration?

Dont stand there like one oclock half struck. Marry the girl properly or dont. Dont make an ass of the job and having kids spending money on solicitors fees to clean their inheritance and your tax affairs later.

The days of Loolaa in the church are at an end. the new thinking of priests coming into the church is they have to conform within the law. Maybe get one of those outthere priest who marry traveller teenagers. No priest want to incur the wrath of his bishop incase he gets sent to a Craggy Island-esque place.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

OP If your issues with the state are greater than you love for this girl then you shouldn't be marrying her. Think about, if you dont love her enough to do the thing properly that would make legal provision for your children then you shouldnt be getting married.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

What he said ..... Well if there is no record of it then it never happened. Finally a bit of common sense.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Here is the thing OP? Say you have kids....
..... are you planning to get their births registered?
So they can go to school, go to college, register for Tax and social welfare, get a driving license, vote, get health care, get a passport get a job?

Dont think you have thought out the wider implications of this have you? Tell you what you go and stick it to THE MAN!
I am sure they can wing it through life with a birth cert and a swimming certificate like Frank Spencer.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

that is all good and true for St Paul to be writing those words but they didnt have PPS numbers, Passport, judicial seperations and the Department of Social welfare to deal with back in the day.

Since then a lot has happened that doesnt take account of current social and legal circumstances

skooterblue2 wrote: »

LOL It doesnt matter OP, Either way the Free State or Queen gets to register your details. Just do the right thing. Personally I dont think you are fit to be married if you put your pride above the happiness of your future life partner.

If you have your mind fixed on something else bigger than dealing with all the aspects of the wedding (Legal, seating arrangements, reception menu, wedding venue, new life new home, future parenting, inlaws, honeymoon, which side of the bed you sleep on). You would be better off sorting that stuff out before the wedding.

A word about women, they are like taxi drivers, they work on a clock and they won't put up with that kind of sugar for long. Meaning keeping on with "I dont want the marriage registered" and "The State screwed me and I will screw them back" and you won't have to worry about the wedding.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

There is no comma missing. Read the whole post it is grammatically correct. Honours English student here

In those days if you moved down the road 20 miles you could completely re-invent yourself. Look at the Mayor of Casterbridge (Thomas Hardy), the main character moves to the next town and starts up a new life or Jean Valjean in Les Miserables (Victor Hugo) the next town is a new life. Today any landlord worth his salt will want PPS, a letter from work or college, a look at bank statement and photocopy of Passport. A Birth Cert is not a sufficient proof of identity.

OP, the State may or may not care about you but it does care when your paper work is not in order. While it is not in order will have more difficulty gaining access to state services.

Save yourself and your future a lot of grief and get it done right first day.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is the most concise reply I have seen so far.

I've been patiently taking in all the replies from various posters, but I have never seen the likes of your replies. Is there something wrong with you? You posted 9 replies, most of which just re-hash your point of view, with a liberal sprinkling of insults for good measure. You continously question our commitment to each other, which is insulting in itself without the childish jibes - did YOUR parents not register with the state, has this thread opened an old wound for you? Or do you just take pleasure in throwing immature comments around on the internet?

@ everybody else, great info so far, much appreciated. So basically, nobody knows of a priest who will marry us spiritually and at the same time, not legally? And the consensus is that it mightn't be a great idea anyway? My POV on it is that we could always marry legally afterwards.

Nice replies only please, nasties ignored:)

28064212

newmug wrote: »

@ everybody else, great info so far, much appreciated. So basically, nobody knows of a priest who will marry us spiritually and at the same time, not legally? And the consensus is that it mightn't be a great idea anyway? My POV on it is that we could always marry legally afterwards.

Nice replies only please, nasties ignored:)

Have you actually asked a priest if he will perform the sacrament of matrimony without needing the civil equivalent?

And not only is it "not a great idea", it's a bad idea. You've been told the many benefits and rights civil marriage confers. In a terrible scenario, say you go through with this ill-conceived plan, and get religiously married and don't get the civil part. Your wife falls pregnant, and in an awful situation, she dies giving birth. Are you ok with knowing you won't have automatic guardianship rights to the child? In fact, if her next-of-kin contested it (e.g. her parents), they would be the ones raising your child.

You don't appear to have actually given this any thought beyond "sticking it to the man"