Church Marriage - Post Marriage Referendum

hardCopy

Hi Folks,

I head mention on the radio this morning that the RC Church have apparently said they will no longer facilitate civil registration of marriage in the church if the referendum passes.

I've tried googling it but couldn't find anything to back it up.

We're due to be married in September and planning to head off on honeymoon pretty much straight away. I'm wondering now if we should be trying to book a registry office for the civil registration.

Did I pick this up correctly on the radio? Has anyone else thought about planning around this?

fits

Lol. I hope they carry out that threat. But they wont bite the hand that feeds them.

MrWalsh

Wow - that would be an excellent result!

Manach

Just another win in the PC Brigades campaign to re-shape society.

PhoenixParker

It'd cause a disaster with marriages in this country.
Catholic priests account for 4429 of the 5789 individuals permitted to carry out marriages in this country. I think catholic marriages account for something like 60% of the 20,000 marriages in this country annually.

It's already tough enough to line up a non-religious wedding without adding those on top of it.

MrWalsh

PhoenixParker wrote: »

It'd cause a disaster with marriages in this country.
Catholic priests account for 4429 of the 5789 individuals permitted to carry out marriages in this country. I think catholic marriages account for something like 60% of the 20,000 marriages in this country annually.

It's already tough enough to line up a non-religious wedding without adding those on top of it.

It doesnt cause a disaster in all those other countries where Catholic priests do not also carry out the civil part of the marriage.

Actually itd be great for Enda and co, Get Ireland Working - 4429 jobs automatically created for celebrants! Its not like the priests would be made redundant.

Daith

Well The Association of Catholic Priests aren't actually taking a position on the referendum.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-priests-group-won-t-take-stance-on-referendum-1.2151414

I'm curious what station it was on as I'm surprised it wasn't reported anywhere.

pwurple

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Was that some tabloid interpretation of something?

lazygal

I'd love a system where everyone has to have a state ceremony and can then do whatever they want after that. We did this ourselves when we got married.

lazygal

Manach wrote: »

Just another win in the PC Brigades campaign to re-shape society.

It's brilliant, isn't it.

MrWalsh

Manach wrote: »

Just another win in the PC Brigades campaign to re-shape society.

Yes, I would be delighted too!

hardCopy

Daith wrote: »

Well The Association of Catholic Priests aren't actually taking a position on the referendum.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-priests-group-won-t-take-stance-on-referendum-1.2151414

I'm curious what station it was on as I'm surprised it wasn't reported anywhere.

It was on Newstalk Breakfast. I'm going through the listen back on their website to see if I heard it right.

Please don't take me as a source for this, I came hear hoping someone else would know more. It's entirely possible I just heard wrong.

EDIT: It was from an article by Bruce Arnold based on his interpretation of the Same Sex Marriage Bill and the Conference of Bishops submission to the Constitutional Convention - so nothing set in stone

http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/unforseen-unintended-consequences.html
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?aid=30ff9f60-ab94-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4 - Section 29

PhoenixParker

MrWalsh wrote: »

It doesnt cause a disaster in all those other countries where Catholic priests do not also carry out the civil part of the marriage.

Actually itd be great for Enda and co, Get Ireland Working - 4429 jobs automatically created for celebrants! Its not like the priests would be made redundant.

It doesn't cause disaster in other countries because they have different systems.
It needn't cause disaster here if we change our system, but until we do there's going to be a problem if the priests withdraw suddenly.

MrWalsh

PhoenixParker wrote: »

It doesn't cause disaster in other countries because they have different systems.
It needn't cause disaster here if we change our system, but until we do there's going to be a problem if the priests withdraw suddenly.

Well people can still go ahead with their religious marriage and just have the civil bit handled later on.

PhoenixParker

MrWalsh wrote: »

Well people can still go ahead with their religious marriage and just have the civil bit handled later on.

The problem is then all 20,000 marriages will be down to 107 civil registrants + assorted humanists, unitarians & spirtualists.

More civil registrants won't be employed and trained in overnight.

MrWalsh

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The problem is then all 20,000 marriages will be down to 107 civil registrants + assorted humanists, unitarians & spirtualists.

More civil registrants won't be employed and trained in overnight.

No, but people who were getting married in a church will still have the day out and the religious blessing (which presumably was important to them in the first place otherwise they wouldnt have booked a church wedding right?) and they can just get the legal bit sorted in due course.

Or is it that you think people with a church wedding booked would cancel unless the civil bit could be done at the same time? I guess that could happen, but I would have thought people would just carry on and do the legal bit when they can later.

And then for anyone who hasnt a wedding booked yet they would have to go on the waiting list for the earliest appointment. Itd probably result in a lot of people going away to get married somewhere that the rules are quick and easy until things settled down but I dont see why the HSE couldnt get the ball rolling and get new celebrants up and running in a matter of months.

edit - its the HSE - what am I thinking, yeah it could be years before they sort it.

pwurple

hardCopy wrote: »

It was on Newstalk Breakfast. I'm going through the listen back on their website to see if I heard it right.

Please don't take me as a source for this, I came hear hoping someone else would know more. It's entirely possible I just heard wrong.

EDIT: It was from an article by Bruce Arnold based on his interpretation of the Same Sex Marriage Bill and the Conference of Bishops submission to the Constitutional Convention - so nothing set in stone

http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/unforseen-unintended-consequences.html
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?aid=30ff9f60-ab94-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4 - Section 29

So, the source is a newstalk interpretation of a blogger's interpretations of something else?


Yeah... I think I'd be filing this one under nonsense.

MrWalsh

pwurple wrote: »

Yeah... I think I'd be filing this one under nonsense.

Im going to file it under wishful thinking......

Daith

hardCopy wrote: »

EDIT: It was from an article by Bruce Arnold based on his interpretation of the Same Sex Marriage Bill and the Conference of Bishops submission to the Constitutional Convention - so nothing set in stone

http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/unforseen-unintended-consequences.html
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?aid=30ff9f60-ab94-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4 - Section 29

Ah Bruce is basing his argument on nothing. I wouldn't worry about it.

pwurple

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im going to file it under wishful thinking......

Planning your divorce already?

vibe666

time to get ordained as a minister for the church of the flying spaghetti monster methinks, you'll be quids in and flat out 24/7 marrying people before you know it!

http://www.venganza.org/ordination/

you get a certificate and a card for your wallet and everything. :pac:

PhoenixParker

vibe666 wrote: »

time to get ordained as a minister for the church of the flying spaghetti monster methinks, you'll be quids in and flat out 24/7 marrying people before you know it!

http://www.venganza.org/ordination/

you get a certificate and a card for your wallet and everything. :pac:

Not permitted to carry out ceremonies in Ireland.
Yet anyway.

MrWalsh

pwurple wrote: »

Planning your divorce already?

Good to be prepared

Arbiter of Good Taste

To those of you who are jumping up and down with joy, why? Just because you don't want a religious ceremony (though I bet some of you will have it anyway for the "day out"...), what business is it of yours if someone else does? It's a really sh1tty, intolerent attitude to be honest.

It will be a pain in the a$$ for everyone as now the civil system will be inundated with people who would otherwise have had it sorted in the church.

MrWalsh

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

To those of you who are jumping up and down with joy, why?

Because anything in this country that lessens the Churches influence is only a good thing - imo.

People can still have religious ceremonies if they choose - nothing intolerant there.

PhoenixParker

MrWalsh wrote: »

Because anything in this country that lessens the Churches influence is only a good thing - imo.

People can still have religious ceremonies if they choose - nothing intolerant there.

I'd love to see Ireland go down the self-certification route. I mean we already have the three months notice meeting with the registrar so why not just hand you the paperwork, let you sign it at your leisure and return it 3 - 9 months later. Have a second confirmatory interview at that point if you really want to be thorough.

Let the celebrant role be replaced by a third witness who can be anyone or if one wanted to be cautions anyone meeting a very broad range of criteria. The list of people who can witness aspects of a passport application springs to mind:

• Member of the Garda Síochána
• Member of clergy
• Medical doctor
• Lawyer
• Bank manager/assistant bank manager
• Elected public representative
• Notary public/ commissioner for oaths
• Peace commissioner
• School principal/vice principal
• Accountant

Feck all this registered solemnisers nonsense.

arayess

MrWalsh wrote: »

Wow - that would be an excellent result!

MrWalsh wrote: »

Because anything in this country that lessens the Churches influence is only a good thing - imo.

People can still have religious ceremonies if they choose - nothing intolerant there.

but why would it bother you if the church is also the civil registration - as is now.?
want civil go civil - want both religious and civil go to church.

You seem like a strange individual with your petty delights.

MrWalsh

arayess wrote: »

You seem like a strange individual with your petty delights.

LOL!

I do like my petty delights, oh yes I do

arayess

MrWalsh wrote: »

LOL!

I do like my petty delights, oh yes I do

actually fair play to you

MrWalsh

arayess wrote: »

actually fair play to you

But to answer your question seriously, a lot of people who get married in Churches only do so for the venue, not for the religion, but they are "cultural catholics" who then go on to tick Catholic in the census.

If people also had to have a separate civil ceremony, and the HSE had more celebrants (so the wait wasnt as long as it can be even now) and they relaxed up the rules regarding venue (ie, allowed outdoor weddings or weddings in forests etc...) which they would be more likely to do with more people putting pressure on - then we would have less of this cultural catholic nonsense.

The Catholic Church uses the census figures to influence social policy so for example we have situations where children are not given access to the local school unless they have a baptismal cert - so people get them baptised to perpetuate the myth.

The whole things feeds on itself and I dont believe the Church should have a hand in matters of the state and they currently do with Catholic priests also doing the civil bit of a marriage (as well as other areas).

Separation of Church and State is a good thing imo.

arayess

MrWalsh wrote: »

But to answer your question seriously, a lot of people who get married in Churches only do so for the venue, not for the religion, but they are "cultural catholics" who then go on to tick Catholic in the census.

If people also had to have a separate civil ceremony, and the HSE had more celebrants (so the wait wasnt as long as it can be even now) and they relaxed up the rules regarding venue (ie, allowed outdoor weddings or weddings in forests etc...) which they would be more likely to do with more people putting pressure on - then we would have less of this cultural catholic nonsense.

The Catholic Church uses the census figures to influence social policy so for example we have situations where children are not given access to the local school unless they have a baptismal cert - so people get them baptised to perpetuate the myth.

The whole things feeds on itself and I dont believe the Church should have a hand in matters of the state and they currently do with Catholic priests also doing the civil bit of a marriage (as well as other areas).

Separation of Church and State is a good thing imo.

I don't disagree but i disagree with your methods on this whether your ceremony is religious or civil - the full legal aspect should be cover imo.
It's just bureaucracy (more of it) otherwise.

I love seeing the pressure people are under to have a church weddings , it fills me with joy seeing some oh-so-cool militant atheist who clogs social media ranting about the church fall into line for some perceived fear of being the cause of granny's heart attack.
I've been to 5 weddings of these types (i know you were going to ask )

The funny thing is I doubt anybody ever asked granny's opinion :pac::pac:

MrWalsh

arayess wrote: »

I don't disagree but i disagree with your methods on this whether your ceremony is religious or civil - the full legal aspect should be cover imo.
It's just bureaucracy (more of it) otherwise.

While I agree in some ways, I must admit to a bit of a snigger at this thread because the Church would be cutting off its own nose to follow through on such a threat.

I dont feel compelled to campaign to stop catholic priests from performing the legal part but if the Church got its knickers in a twist over same sex marriage and refused to do the civil bit of ANY marriage I would enjoy it

fits

Me too!

CelticRambler

MrWalsh wrote: »

No, but people who were getting married in a church will still have the day out and the religious blessing (which presumably was important to them in the first place otherwise they wouldnt have booked a church wedding right?) and they can just get the legal bit sorted in due course.

It'd have to be the other way 'round: book your civil ceremony first then tack the church wedding on afterwards. The Church won't marry people who aren't legally married, same way as they won't grant an annulment to people who aren't already divorced.

It's an interesting suggestion though - would cause enormous chaos, because everyone planning to get married in the next two years would be competing for appointments with a handful of registrars. They wouldn't be able to plan a big white church wedding until they had confirmation of the civil date, and it'd play havoc with all those hotel reservations ...

Mind you, it would open up a whole new market for overseas weddings.

MrWalsh

CelticRambler wrote: »

It'd have to be the other way 'round: book your civil ceremony first then tack the church wedding on afterwards. The Church won't marry people who aren't legally married, same way as they won't grant an annulment to people who aren't already divorced.

The Church already do perform marriage ceremonies for those not already legally married. The civil bit comes after the catholic marriage ceremony bit in a normal standard wedding.

Wasnt there a bishop exposed in recent years who was marrying travellers who were underage for legal marriage (under 16 AFAIR) but who reckoned that it was better to have them married in the eyes of the church anyway and they could sort the civil bit later.

Ive a pal who lives in the UK who got married here and only realised 10 years or so later that the priest hadnt done the civil bit - he assumed theyd done it in the UK before coming over for the Irish wedding - so she isnt legally married at all.

PhoenixParker

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Not permitted to carry out ceremonies in Ireland.
Yet anyway.

What's to stop a couple getting married in a registry office, say during their lunch break, and then have a wedding ceremony the following Saturday with the celebrant of their choice "performing"?

PhoenixParker

Deleted User wrote: »

What's to stop a couple getting married in a registry office, say during their lunch break, and then have a wedding ceremony the following Saturday with the celebrant of their choice "performing"?

Nothing, many people do it that way now, but there are 107 civil registrars, many of whom spend half their day on the road to venues to marry a single couple.

Getting an appointment in the registry office is where the difficulty will be. It's already fairly tricky, doubly so if you want a specific time or slot. Double the numbers they need to cater to and there'll be a big problem at least until more are hired and trained.

TheDuchess

If the referendum is passed, how soon after does it come into effect in law. Is it immediate?

MrWalsh

TheDuchess wrote: »

If the referendum is passed, how soon after does it come into effect in law. Is it immediate?

I dont know actually. I also dont know what the outcome will mean for currently civil partnered couples - will they be able to get an "upgrade" or will they have to have a completely separate marriage ceremony? I asked a TD recently but he didnt know.

Toots

CelticRambler wrote: »

The Church won't marry people who aren't legally married, same way as they won't grant an annulment to people who aren't already divorced.

Yes they will; my brother in law's marriage has been annulled by the church, but the divorce hasn't been finalised yet, and most likely won't be for another couple of years because it costs a bloody fortune for the solicitor and barrister.

daithi84

In most countries the religious and civil are separate. Its the way it should be done here! The Catholic Church should not have responsibility over the legal end, only the religious.

pwurple

Toots wrote: »

Yes they will; my brother in law's marriage has been annulled by the church, but the divorce hasn't been finalised yet, and most likely won't be for another couple of years because it costs a bloody fortune for the solicitor and barrister.

OT, but tell him to check out a DIY divorce... don't need a solicitor or a barrister if it's straightforward. Loads of people do it that way.

Neyite

daithi84 wrote: »

In most countries the religious and civil are separate. Its the way it should be done here! The Catholic Church should not have responsibility over the legal end, only the religious.

It's not just the RCC though I think? My understanding is that all religions in this country are allowed to do the civil bit in their ceremonies, most notably the humanists getting the accreditation. Before this they could do your wedding, but you had to do the legal bit yourselves another day.

MrWalsh

Neyite wrote: »

It's not just the RCC though I think? My understanding is that all religions in this country are allowed to do the civil bit in their ceremonies, most notably the humanists getting the accreditation. Before this they could do your wedding, but you had to do the legal bit yourselves another day.

It should all be separated.

Neyite

MrWalsh wrote: »

It should all be separated.

Meh. I don't see the harm in letting the religions stick the civil bit into their services for their congregation. Couples still pay the HSE for it regardless.

I'm more disgusted that it costs a whopping €200 to register for a wedding in this country. Its £45 in the UK to register, with a ceremony cost on top of that for another £45.

pwurple

MrWalsh wrote: »

It should all be separated.

Makes no sense. Anyone can already do it separately if they want. Plenty do so...

Current system is straightforward, fair and convenient, as all options are available.

MrWalsh

pwurple wrote: »

Makes no sense. Anyone can already do it separately if they want. Plenty do so...

Current system is straightforward, fair and convenient, as all options are available.

Cant agree with this (although as previously mentioned I am not out campaigning for the separation of it) - I just dont think religious matters and state matters should go hand in hand at all.

It gives a false air of authority to holy men when they act on behalf of the state.

And actually the current system is not fair, but may be fair after the referendum.

Its not straighforward either. And with such a low number of civil registrars its actually easier to organise a church wedding - which gives the church yet another hook.

No - I really cant see any good reason for religious orders to perform the civil part of a marriage at all.

pwurple

MrWalsh wrote: »

Cant agree with this (although as previously mentioned I am not out campaigning for the separation of it) - I just dont think religious matters and state matters should go hand in hand at all.

It gives a false air of authority to holy men when they act on behalf of the state.

Which bit don't you agree with? It is certainly possible, I've been to at least three wedding ceremonies where people have been legally married separately, and done their own thing in a restaurant, back garden, and on a set of cliffs with their dogs as witnesses.

Rabbis, Priests, Vicars, Shamans, whatever, they already have an air of authority. Why would that make any jot of difference to their air of authority?

MrWalsh wrote: »

Its not straighforward either. And with such a low number of civil registrars its actually easier to organise a church wedding - which gives the church yet another hook.

It's perfectly straightforward. Any fresh-faced 18 year old can manage it...

Sheesh, and if the low numbers of registrars is a problem now, I don't think that would improve after you ban 90% of the current registrars. :pac:

MrWalsh

pwurple wrote: »

Which bit don't you agree with?

I dont agree that it makes no sense. It makes a lot of sense.

pwurple wrote: »

Rabbis, Priests, Vicars, Shamans, whatever, they already have an air of authority. Why would that make any jot of difference to their air of authority?

Couldnt care less about their religious authority, dont want to see them behaving as though they have some say over state matters.

pwurple wrote: »

It's perfectly straightforward. Any fresh-faced 18 year old can manage it...

Clearly you know more capable fresh faced 18 year olds than me!

It most certainly is not straightforward and I can tell you that having organised a civil marriage for myself in Ireland and then ditching plans last minute to go do it elsewhere.

pwurple wrote: »

Sheesh, and if the low numbers of registrars is a problem now, I don't think that would improve after you ban 90% of the current registrars. :pac:

Well it would force the HSE to get more registrars on the books and create more jobs. oooh oooh change is bad - nonsense.

Church and State - bad to have the two intermingled, thats how we have the current problems we have the school system.

PhoenixParker

I'd love to see it going the other way.
Rather than saying religious orders can't do it to take away their "power" (for want of a better word), take away their power by making it far more of a free for all.

Let almost anyone sign themselves up to be a solemniser. Get rid of all the bottle necks. Priests, pastafarians, your Uncle Bob and anyone else who wants to have a go.

autumnrain

There will be no close down over the referendum but if someone tries to legally force a priest/pastor to carry out a same sex marriage in a church, there might be. Not just Catholics would object.
In Germany civil marriage must proceed any other marriage - that's seems simple and clear to me. Then specific religions can have their own rules and people can be members by choice. (Instead of fear of upsetting mammy!)