Marrying a Christian

ClubDead

I’m arranging my wedding at the moment and having a moral dilemma. I’m an atheist, it’s something I feel very strong about and partner is non practicing catholic/agnostic/indifferent to religion. He doesn’t care about the ceremony, however he would like us to get married in a lovely location and have beautiful photographs. I agree with him and having searched extensively however the options are limited, with the best option being Dublin City Hall. We have the option of getting married in an amazing location, however it would mean having a catholic ceremony. His argument is that I believe religion is bull$hit, just words, and we might as well use them for their location. However, I know I’d feel like a hypocrite.

So, of you who have gotten married, did you suck it up and marry for the sake of your partner’s wishes/photo opportunities? Or stick to your guns?

Gumbi

Honestly it comes down to how the conviction of your beliefs. It is something you might regret later on and might lead to more arguments. If you have children, what about baptism, communion, confirmation etc.?

I'd recommend having a good long talk about it with your partner, explaining what you feel and why you feel that way, and hopefully he'll come around.

Turtwig

Beliefs, including religious beliefs, come in all spectra and sizes. If you feel any of his beliefs are so deep rooted and intertwined in who he is that they may become problematic then you have a problem. If not, then you shouldn't have a problem. For Irish Culture the main stickler is baptism. From both himself, his parents, and possibly your own parents. It's probably best you both have some sort of clear picture of what exactly you both expect. Whatever you do DON'T assume it'll be ok later. Know what both your expectations and acceptable compromises are.

Location wise, there isn't really many glamorous secular options. I'm open to correction, maybe the humanist association of Ireland or Atheist Ireland have some suggestions? Regardless, it's pretty much about how you feel. If you feel that the wedding will feel false because you're not a Catholic then that's pretty much what you've got to consider: whether that knowledge of it being false is going to affect your experience of your big day. Nobody here can tell you that. Though, they can certainly relate to your experiences and hopefully help with sorting out your emotions.

Finally, congratulations.
Wish you and yours all the best with the upcoming wedding.

Peregrinus

The City Hall is a fairly amazing location, IMO. Is the other one so much more amazing that it is worth you turning what is presumably an important statement for you about your commitment to your partner into a hypocritical charade? You really want to be calling on God to witness your wedding vows so that the photographs will look that bit nicer?

You can get beautiful photographs taken any time, anywhere. The point about wedding photographs is that they are photographs of a momentous event. It's the event that really matters, not the pictures of the event. Have the wedding you want, that expresses what you both want to express about your commitment to one another. If your partner wants to hire a spectacular venue for a photo-shoot, organise that separately.

SmilingLurker

Firstly congratulations!

I was lucky enough to marry another non believer, but I would have stuck to my guns. I wanted to feel comfortable and totally honest the day of my wedding vows, and that meant and still means a lot to me.

HAI will marry you in a huge number of places now, when we got married there was very limited choice. Good luck!

smacl

Some friends got married in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham a few years and it was stonkingly spectacular. Looks like it is still an option

Best wedding I was ever at was on Fanore beach in Clare, with a reception that went on in PJs pub afterwards for three days. Very lucky with the weather, though not entirely atheist with some pagan stuff going on on the beach and a visit from the straw boys during the evening.

Czarcasm

ClubDead wrote: »

I’m arranging my wedding at the moment and having a moral dilemma. I’m an atheist, it’s something I feel very strong about and partner is non practicing catholic/agnostic/indifferent to religion. He doesn’t care about the ceremony, however he would like us to get married in a lovely location and have beautiful photographs. I agree with him and having searched extensively however the options are limited, with the best option being Dublin City Hall. We have the option of getting married in an amazing location, however it would mean having a catholic ceremony. His argument is that I believe religion is bull$hit, just words, and we might as well use them for their location. However, I know I’d feel like a hypocrite.

OP first of all I should say Congratulations, and I really wouldn't want to put a damper on your parade, but your fiancés "ah sure what's the harm, you don't believe in it anyway" justification is effectively a cop out for him to maintain his traditional Catholic stance, and also push the responsibility for the decision onto you.

As others have mentioned, it might be a good idea to have these sorts of discussions before you get married, because "ah sure what's the harm" now, will be the way to get you to concede every time. It's called the thin end of the wedge, and even if you decide not to have children, his rather lackadaisical "ah sure what's the harm, you don't believe in it anyway" will still be forcing you into these moral dilemmas where you'll feel guilty for being atheist because it's going to cause issues in your relationship.

So, of you who have gotten married, did you suck it up and marry for the sake of your partner’s wishes/photo opportunities? Or stick to your guns?

Well there wasn't any kind of disagreements really between my wife and I about photo opportunities and all the trimmings, we just went with a simple civil ceremony in the registry office (though both my wife and I are quite camera shy so the wedding photos were hilarious... in a very cringe sort of way ).

I'm actually RC and my wife is atheist, but we agreed to bring our child up in the RC faith (this was something we'd discussed long before we were married).

Legend_DIT

Huge congratulations! My wife and I are both non-religious (me more so than her) and we got married in the Unitarian Church. It was a nice compromise between having a traditional venue and a ceremony without god. It was very important to me that I didn't have to say anything I didn't believe in on the big day. As the Unitarian church is big on inclusivity, I asked the celebrant to change 'we pray to god that they will have a long and happy life' to 'we pray that they will have a long and happy life' on the grounds that we did not want to exclude those who were not monotheistic. It's a small change but it was important to us. All our readings and song choices were also secular, and you are given a lot of freedom as long as your choices are about celebrating love and not being disrespectful to the solemnity of the church.

I would recommend attending a service over the next Sunday or 2, getting a feel for the place and then talking to Bridget the reverend afterwards if you are interested.

vibe666

Congrats!

We were almost identical to you, me an atheist, her a non-practicing Catholic.

We gave up on the idea of a big Irish wedding and had a small ceremony with 50 of our closest friends and relatives in the Algarve in 2010 and people are still talking about how amazing it was even now and there isn't a single thing we'd change about it.

We got married at a lovely old country house in the hills and had the wedding of our dreams for similar money to what we would have paid for a really underwhelming Irish wedding for 200 people, half of which I'd probably never met before!

Rather than get proper married in Portugal, we had a quiet civil ceremony in Ireland with a couple of witnesses who we knew couldn't make the wedding in Portugal, then just had the Portugal one as a blessing so it didn't need to be religious as the Portuguese are big into their Catholicism too.

We aimed for 50 people to come and make it their own summer holiday, so we invited 75 and it worked that 50 actually came, so that was perfect for us. We just did the "we want your presence, not your presents" to help keep people's costs down so they weren't worrying about buying gifts too, so some came for a few days, others for the full 2 weeks and we got to spend time with everyone whilst they were there.

Brian Shanahan

ClubDead wrote: »

I’m arranging my wedding at the moment and having a moral dilemma. I’m an atheist, it’s something I feel very strong about and partner is non practicing catholic/agnostic/indifferent to religion. He doesn’t care about the ceremony, however he would like us to get married in a lovely location and have beautiful photographs. I agree with him and having searched extensively however the options are limited, with the best option being Dublin City Hall. We have the option of getting married in an amazing location, however it would mean having a catholic ceremony. His argument is that I believe religion is bull$hit, just words, and we might as well use them for their location. However, I know I’d feel like a hypocrite.

So, of you who have gotten married, did you suck it up and marry for the sake of your partner’s wishes/photo opportunities? Or stick to your guns?

Book a good hotel for the afters, and have most of the photos taken there. Aside from the wedding kiss and signing the registry papers most of your wedding pics can be as easily done at the hotel (and from what I can see from relatives' and friends' weddings, the bulk of the wedding photos are at the afters anyways).

P.S: Under Irish tradition the wedding venue is your choice anyway, so pick for yourself.

Tim Robbins

ClubDead wrote: »

I’m arranging my wedding at the moment and having a moral dilemma. I’m an atheist, it’s something I feel very strong about and partner is non practicing catholic/agnostic/indifferent to religion. He doesn’t care about the ceremony, however he would like us to get married in a lovely location and have beautiful photographs. I agree with him and having searched extensively however the options are limited, with the best option being Dublin City Hall. We have the option of getting married in an amazing location, however it would mean having a catholic ceremony. His argument is that I believe religion is bull$hit, just words, and we might as well use them for their location. However, I know I’d feel like a hypocrite.

So, of you who have gotten married, did you suck it up and marry for the sake of your partner’s wishes/photo opportunities? Or stick to your guns?

I have heard of stories where:
1. One partner has a religious family so takes a hit for the team.
2. One partner believes in God, might go to mass in Christmas and wants a religious wedding.

But not this.

Think about what you will be actually saying at your wedding not just the location. Are you alright with that?

You will more than likely have to make some reference to God / Jesus whatever and that would be a sticky one for me. But if you are comfortable with that I don't see what the moral dilema is. The catholic church has way more to answer for than a bit of harmless hypocrisy.

Peregrinus

Czarcasm wrote: »

OP first of all I should say Congratulations, and I really wouldn't want to put a damper on your parade, but your fiancés "ah sure what's the harm, you don't believe in it anyway" justification is effectively a cop out for him to maintain his traditional Catholic stance, and also push the responsibility for the decision onto you.

I don't think that's entirely fair. ClubDead's partner isn't trying to push responsiblity on to ClubDead; they have expressed their own preference, whcih is for the churchy location - not because it's churchy, but because it's photogenic.

The problem is that ClubDead and his partner are prioritising different things - ClubDead wants the non-churchy venue which happens to be not the most photogenic; the partner wants the most photogenic location, which happens to be churchy. Each of them is entitled to have, and express, their preference; each of them has to deal with the fact that, to get their preference, they will have to deny the beloved their preference. But get used to this; welcome to married life.

I feel - and I think most of us here feel - that ClubDead's preference is a matter of conscience, integrity, honesty or what have you, while the partner's preference is a matter of aesthetics and, given that, ClubDead's preference is the more weighty, morally, speaking, and should prevail.

But, actually, what we feel is irrelevant. Aesthetics may be hugely important to ClubDead's partner; for all we know ClubDead may be marrying a second Oscar Wilde. In the end, only ClubDead and their partner can sort this out, and reconcile or compromise their competing priorities. And I don't think it's helpful for us to suggest that one partner is guilting the other, or being passive-agressive, in the negotiation of this issue when nothing ClubDead has said suggests that this is so.

Czarcasm

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the end, only ClubDead and their partner can sort this out, and reconcile or compromise their competing priorities. And I don't think it's helpful for us to suggest that one partner is guilting the other, or being passive-agressive, in the negotiation of this issue when nothing ClubDead has said suggests that this is so.

You're right Peregrinus, I didn't mean for my post to come across as passing judgment or being offensive to anyone, and I apologise if that's the way it was interpreted.

Just from my reading of the OP though as a whole, and not just picking specifically, and from my experience with relationships where they are for example one person is atheist and the other is still on the fence, the issue of religious differences can often go ignored.

If the OP is having a moral dilema about something as basic as the wedding venue, then that to me at least would suggest that they need to talk more, and her fiance (genuinely I hate to suggest this), but he sounds very dismissive of the OP's lack of belief and doesn't seem to respect the fact that this is indeed a moral dilema for her.

I think this issue may rear up again further down the line and lead to further more fundamental differences in the future is all in other areas where circumstances could present a moral dilema again, and her fiance could suggest again that it should be meaningless to the OP anyway, when really for the OP as an atheist, she recognises that religious traditions carry meaning, just not any that as an atheist she could participate in validating, because as the OP herself points out - that would be hypocrisy.

It's something that is often discussed in this forum in fairness is the hypocrisy of people who for all intents and purposes are only religious for traditional reasons and are only going through the motions. It's because they still go through the motions that gives those motions validation.

Peregrinus

The irony here may be that ClubDead, the non-religious one, cares about religion in a way that her partner, the nominally religious one, does not. Possibly he doesn't quite get how ClubDead, who is not religious, can regard religion as more important than he himself does. But the fact is that she does.

I agree, they need to talk about this. He needs to get not just that ClubDead takes this seriously, but why she takes it seriously. She needs to get his indifference to/reluctance to get worked up about religion. Is her attention to religion going to be an imposition on him? (Answer: Yes, sometimes. Like now.) Will she experience his indifference as a lack of support for her concern, her values? Is she justified in asking him to care about something simply because she cares about it? Or, at any rate, to accept that his indifference is to have less traction in their joint decisions than her passion?

I'm sure they can nut these things out in a way that will work for both of them. But, I agree, they do need to nut them out.

source

Op first thing you need to know is that when you're married, you sometimes have to do things you really don't want to for your partner.

I got married in a church, the full Irish wedding. It was a beautiful day. My wife is a non practicing Catholic who initially was in agreement that we go abroad for our wedding.

My wife's father kicked up such a fuss about the lack of religion that disinheritance was suggested. Basically blackmailed her into a religious ceremony.

I have to be honest, while I'm not religious, and don't believe in a god, I took the stance of what does it really matter if I get married in a church, registry office or beach? Once I'm surrounded by the people I love and marrying the person I want to spend the rest of my life with, the rest is just stone and words.

So I compromised, got married in a church and now her parents think I'm amazing for respecting their wishes and their religion.

I was initially very angry about the whole situation until I sat down a had a good long think about it, when I came to my conclusion of stone and words, I was able to get past the religious aspect.

I'm not saying my approach is for everyone, but compromise does play a big role in married life.

lazygal

I would be wary about compromising because extended family are kicking off. Having a church wedding wouldn't have been a compromise for me because I wouldn't ever have married in a church. I hear people all the time saying they "compromised" on a church wedding ie they had a church wedding when they didn't want to, there's no compromise there I can see. I also think if you're caving to emotional and financial threats before you get married that can cause issues with other things later on in life. Adult men and women who use blackmail like inheritance rights can be toxic to deal with especially if they've seen their tactics work.

Chattastrophe!

source wrote: »

Op first thing you need to know is that when you're married, you sometimes have to do things you really don't want to for your partner.

I got married in a church, the full Irish wedding. It was a beautiful day. My wife is a non practicing Catholic who initially was in agreement that we go abroad for our wedding.

My wife's father kicked up such a fuss about the lack of religion that disinheritance was suggested. Basically blackmailed her into a religious ceremony.

I have to be honest, while I'm not religious, and don't believe in a god, I took the stance of what does it really matter if I get married in a church, registry office or beach? Once I'm surrounded by the people I love and marrying the person I want to spend the rest of my life with, the rest is just stone and words.

So I compromised, got married in a church and now her parents think I'm amazing for respecting their wishes and their religion.

I was initially very angry about the whole situation until I sat down a had a good long think about it, when I came to my conclusion of stone and words, I was able to get past the religious aspect.

I'm not saying my approach is for everyone, but compromise does play a big role in married life.

Jesus. No way could I compromise my principles for the sake of my partner's inheritance.

I don't expect to inherit a penny when my parents die, but even if they were millionaires, I'm not going to tell lies in front of my family and friends just to get their money when they're gone. If they were the type to make those sort of threats, I'd manage without the inheritance, thanks.

I assume you'll be baptising any kids you have, too? To keep on their good side?

Czarcasm

I can understand where source is coming from as I faced the same opposition from my own family - continue seeing my girlfriend (as she was at the time) and I would be disinherited and cut off from my family.

I had to at least make it sound like I gave a shìt, so I told them I respect that is their decision, and I had made mine. We got married several years later alright, and none of my family were present. It bothered me of course that there was nobody from my side of the family at my wedding, but I had my best friend who is like family to me there as my best man, and his wife (his wife had terminal cancer at the time and she told me she wasn't sure about stepping in for the wedding photos, I just told her feck off with that nonsense, she looked great!).

It gets even stranger - a few years ago my brother and his wife (both proclaimed atheist, but had a Church wedding with all the trimmings), asked me to be Godfather to their child. It certainly gave me a moral dilema then alright because I thought they're only doing it for tradition sake (they weren't even thinking as far as school placement) and appearances, and I wasn't sure should I validate their charade.

Then I thought of the child and said to hell with what they think and what they decide for themselves, I was privileged to be the child's godfather, as it meant more than just tradition to me. I go visit my godchild whenever I can but I know already I can't and won't be confusing the poor child with all the religious stuff when he's never been introduced to it by his parents, and maybe when he's older and he has any questions he'll know I'll be there merely in that I'll be able to impart knowledge to him, but encourage him to make his own decisions in what he feels would be in his own best interests, as I can only offer him guidance, I can't tell him, nor anyone else for that matter, how to live their lives.

Peregrinus

Yup. The fact is that we live in a word where, inconveniently, we love people - parents, children, spouses, friends - even while we disagree with them about something. Or about lots of things. And we have to share our lives, and sometimes important aspects of our lives like, you know, weddings and baptisms and somehow not let these disagreements ruin everything. And that often means compromise and, yes, sometimes compromise is messy and unsatisfactory. But, you know what? Sometimes inability to compromise is messier and even less satisfactory.

In the end, on this particular occasion, the right compromise is the one that works for ClubDead and her partner. The fact that a different compromise might work for some of us, and no compromise at all might work for others of us, is neither here nor there.

I just feel, with Czarcasm, that ClubDead and her partner aren't going to find the right-for-them compromise without talking this through, and really listening to one another's beliefs and feelings and fears and hopes. Honesty and intimacy is what it's about, I reckon. If they can do that, then their marriage is off to a good start, no matter where they ultimately decide to scatter the confetti.

desertcircus

OP: it sounds as though your partner doesn't quite understand your issue with a religious ceremony. He may not realise it, but he's asking you to lie as a part of the process of becoming husband and wife, and having a problem with that is completely legitimate. From a cynical point of view, it's also a bad precedent to set, as it establishes that religious ceremonies are something you can swallow - he may well try to make the same argument again about baptism if you have a child. If you don't want to marry in a church, he needs to accept that.

For what it's worth, I got married a month ago, in the registry office. It could have been a toilet for all I cared: the venue barely registered. What mattered was marrying each other.

ClubDead

I’ve had a few sleepless nights now thinking things over and I’ve come to the conclusion that not only would I dread the ceremony, but I’d lose all respect for myself if I went through with a Catholic wedding. My beliefs are very important to me and not something I take lightly, ignoring them for the sake of nice photos is just not something I can do. Thank you for the input everyone, it helped to clarify things for me.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sometimes inability to compromise is messier and even less satisfactory.

Agreed, but only once all sides are willing to compromise to a similar degree. Compromising to suit the loudest or pushiest person in the room is little more than acquiescing to a bully, doubly so if that person is trying to leverage their preferred position with the likes of threats of disinheritance.

My own feeling would be that a wedding should be all about the couple getting married, rather than an attempt to cater for whims and traditions of an extended family. Allowing family to browbeat you into a position that makes you uncomfortable is the flip-side to compromise, and you sometimes need to ask the question that by compromising to suit others are you leaving yourself and your partner unacceptably compromised?

Hotblack Desiato

source wrote: »

I got married in a church, the full Irish wedding. It was a beautiful day. My wife is a non practicing Catholic who initially was in agreement that we go abroad for our wedding.

Not only should atheists not feel forced to marry in a church, they shouldn't feel forced to run off abroad to avoid a church wedding, either.

My wife's father kicked up such a fuss about the lack of religion that disinheritance was suggested. Basically blackmailed her into a religious ceremony.

Then he's just a bully. His inability to cope with other adults making decisions he doesn't like is entirely HIS problem.

So I compromised, got married in a church and now her parents think I'm amazing for respecting their wishes and their religion.

While they have zero respect for your wishes and views on religion.

Peregrinus

Every case is its own case, and in this case the issue is not between the couple on the one hand and the extended family on the other. Nothing in the OP suggests that ClubDead is being pressurised either by her own family or by her partner's; it's the partner himself who wants the churchy venue. So the compromising here has to be between what he wants and what she wants.

I say "compromise", but of course in some ways this is a binary decision - church wedding, or not church wedding. There really isn't any partly-church wedding option on the table. Somebody is going to get what they want, and somebody is going to have to give up what they want.

As between a couple, that's actually quite a tricky situation. They'd both be much happier if there was an intermediate position, so that they could each give something to one another, and also accept something from one another.

But no. Somebody here has to give up what he or she wants, and not feel resentful about it. And the other has to accept that graciously as the loving act that it is, and not feel guilty or defensive about it. They both have to give up a bit of ego, in other words.

rainbow kirby

I'm getting married in May, we're having a humanist ceremony. One thing I've had my foot down about from the beginning was that we were not having a religious wedding, there is no way in hell I could go through with it. I have no intention of starting my married life on lies and that's what a religious ceremony would be.

Czarcasm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not only should atheists not feel forced to marry in a church, they shouldn't feel forced to run off abroad to avoid a church wedding, either.

Then he's just a bully. His inability to cope with other adults making decisions he doesn't like is entirely HIS problem.

While they have zero respect for your wishes and views on religion.

In fairness Hotblack, it's easy for other people outside the situation to call the shots from the sidelines, but it's much harder when you're actually in the situation to stand by your principles while at the same time risking cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Sometimes it's an easy decision to make, sometimes it's a lot harder, and I personally anyway feel like it's very unfair to moralise about someone else's actions when they make a decision that they feel is in their best interests, whether we feel they should have done this, that and the other, or not.

If atheism is ever to gain any traction in Irish society, then it shouldn't be seen as merely replacing one set of someone else's morals with another set of someone else's morals. The individual must be encouraged and supported in thinking for themselves, regardless of how we may feel about their decisions one way or the other.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

There really isn't any partly-church wedding option on the table.

There are though

- Non-religious ceremony in a Unitarian church

- A friend of mine got married in a civil ceremony in a deconsecrated former private chapel, now part of a hotel.

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

The individual must be encouraged and supported in thinking for themselves, regardless of how we may feel about their decisions one way or the other.

Which is precisely what the father did not do, and abused his position of parental influence and financial power to get his own way. Whatever one's religious view, that is wrong.

To clarify - I am not criticising the decision to marry in a church but the means exerted by others outside the couple to achieve that decision.

Czarcasm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which is precisely what the father did not do, and abused his position of parental influence and financial power to get his own way. Whatever one's religious view, that is wrong.

To clarify - I am not criticising the decision to marry in a church but the means exerted by others outside the couple to achieve that decision.

Just saw your edit when I went to reply, but I would still say anyway that these things are never so black and white as people outside the situation make arbitrary commentary on, and while we may feel that it was wrong for source's wife's family to exert that kind of pressure on her, I'm sure it wasn't an easy choice for them to make, to choose between their principles, and their relationship with their family.

I'm just coming at it from the perspective that in my own situation, I know what that felt like, and I had people tell me I was foolish and all the rest of it (I was cutting myself off from my family and walking away from a substantial inheritance) but those people were putting the same pressure on me as my parents were, because all they could see from their perspective was family and money.

I'd already moved out of home and had little contact with my family at that stage anyway, and money has never been a motivator for me. My parents never understood that, and my friends couldn't very well get their heads around it either, because to them it did indeed look like I was cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I'd never hold it against my parents though, as most parents are only doing what they think is right for their children, and they will often force their children into positions in the hope that "they'll make the 'right' decision". I wouldn't particularly criticize anyone's parents for trying at least!

smacl

I usually start from the first principle that all families are screw-ups and move forward on that basis. Usually seems to work out ok.

FWIW, myself and my girlfriend (now wife) managed to stay blissfully unmarried for 22 years, and only made the trip to the registry office at the behest of our solicitor for the sake of our kids / inheritance etc... Parents and extended family got informed after the event.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Some friends got married in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham a few years and it was stonkingly spectacular. Looks like it is still an option.

Unless the OP was offered St Peters Basilica that should beat it :pac:

Cost is going to be a factor though. AFAIK there have been changes recently to the rules, such that you don't have to go to registry office at all.
You can hire a "solemniser" (which in practice is probably going to be a Humanist) to go out to the venue and perform the actual marriage vows there. Any permanent building which is normally open to the public is allowed.

The other way, which has been around for a while, was to go to the registry office separately, perhaps even on a different day, and then have a blessing (or some such makey-uppy ceremony which is not the actual legal marriage) at the chosen venue. But this is no longer necessary because the solemniser is now allowed to travel to your chosen venue and perform the actual legally recognised marriage ceremony there.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Unless the OP was offered St Peters Basilica that should beat it :pac:

Cost is going to be a factor though. AFAIK there have been changes recently to the rules, such that you don't have to go to registry office at all.
You can hire a "solemniser" (which in practice is probably going to be a Humanist) to go out to the venue and perform the actual marriage vows there. Any permanent building which is normally open to the public is allowed.

Two glosses on that: First, the building can't be a church or religious building. Even if the church authorities are happy to have it used for civil ceremonies, the state won't allow it. Secondly, as of now it has to be a building; you can't have a civil ceremony in a park, garden, beach, forest or other open-air location. There is pressure to change this.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Two glosses on that: First, the building can't be a church or religious building. Even if the church authorities are happy to have it used for civil ceremonies, the state won't allow it. Secondly, as of now it has to be a building; you can't have a civil ceremony in a park, garden, beach, forest or other open-air location. There is pressure to change this.

Humanist ceremonies are secular not civil, so the religious rules of civil ceremonies don't apply.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

Humanist ceremonies are secular not civil, so the religious rules of civil ceremonies don't apply.

Actually, they can be both. Irish legislation now allows for officers of the HAI to be registered as civil celebrants, able to conduct legally-effective wedding ceremonies. If you get married in one of these ceremonies, you don't have to do it again at the registry office; you're good. But, if you have one of these ceremonies, you do have to comply with the rules for civil ceremonies - held in a place normally open to the public, not a church, etc.

On the other hand you can have a non-legal ceremony of your own devising wherever you like, conducted how you like, plus (for the legal end) a registry office marriage. And the Humanists will be happy to support you in conducting a non-legal ceremony too, if you want them to; they were in the business of doing so well before they could do legally-effective wedding ceremonies. And if you're having that kind of Humanist ceremony, then the civil ceremony restrictions do not apply.

lazygal

Humanist weddings are classed as secular when you register intent to marry. Hse celebrants perform civil, not secular, ceremonies. Secular and civil ceremonies are different and have different rules. No religious elements at all allowed in civil ceremonies, humanist secular ceremonies are more flexible.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

Humanist weddings are classed as secular when you register intent to marry. Hse celebrants perform civil, not secular, ceremonies. Secular and civil ceremonies are different and have different rules. No religious elements at all allowed in civil ceremonies, humanist secular ceremonies are more flexible.

My mistake. I've checked the Civil Registration Act and the correct position is largely as you say. The "no church buildings, no religious music" rule only applies to marriages conducted by the HSE registrar. It does not apply to marriages conducted by humanist solemnisers.

But the "must be celebrated in a place open to the public" rule applies to all marriages - religious, humanist, HSE. And the last I heard was that, so far as the registrar general was concerned, this meant "not outdoors". But this slightly confused report in the Examiner suggests that this position either has changed or will shortly change, and that outdoor weddings will be fine provided they are in a place open to the public and not, e.g., in your back garden.

rainbow kirby

lazygal wrote: »

Humanist weddings are classed as secular when you register intent to marry. Hse celebrants perform civil, not secular, ceremonies. Secular and civil ceremonies are different and have different rules. No religious elements at all allowed in civil ceremonies, humanist secular ceremonies are more flexible.

Funnily enough, for postal notification (couple living outside Ireland but marrying in Ireland) - the form has still not yet been updated to include an option for a secular ceremony. We were told by the registrar in Limerick to just write it in on the form when we called to check...

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

My mistake. I've checked the Civil Registration Act and the correct position is largely as you say. The "no church buildings, no religious music" rule only applies to marriages conducted by the HSE registrar. It does not apply to marriages conducted by humanist solemnisers.

But the "must be celebrated in a place open to the public" rule applies to all marriages - religious, humanist, HSE. And the last I heard was that, so far as the registrar general was concerned, this meant "not outdoors". But this slightly confused report in the Examiner suggests that this position either has changed or will shortly change, and that outdoor weddings will be fine provided they are in a place open to the public and not, e.g., in your back garden.

I'm always confused by the 'open to the public' rules. I read about a couple of Irish 'celebrity' weddings in churches where security closed the church doors after the arrival of the bride and didn't allow any uninvited guests in. Is that. strictly speaking, 'open to the public'? Friends of ours weren't allowed to ask an uninvited guest to leave their civil ceremony or prevent anyone else from entering when having a hotel ceremony. A guest in the hotel fancied a gawk at their ceremony and there was nothing they could do. I also attended a ceremony at a venue where the ceremony was impossible to get to if you were in a wheelchair as there were steep stairs and no lift. I wonder how strenuously the 'access by the public' rule is applied.

Peregrinus

Weddings are in principle public events; that's the whole point. Back in the day, English marriage law required a couple to be married in a church with the doors open. Same thinking is what's behind requirements for the publication of banns, etc. In a church wedding, it's completely accepted that anyone can wander in to admire the bride in her finery, and no objection is (or can be) taken. A couple getting married is not their business; it's everybody's business.

I'm puzzled, too, by the celebrities who get to celebrate their weddings in heavily-guarded private locations, sharing the event only with 700 of their most intimate friends and the photographer from Hello. I mean, I can see the practical need, but how are they getting around the "place open to the public" requirement? I don't know.

recedite

I suppose a place can be normally open to the public, but it can just happen to be fully booked. The same could happen if you went to the cinema on the first night of a popular movie. It's still "open to the public" but you can't get in.