Civil weddings, religous questions

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Kiwi in IE

We got married in 2013. Were definately asked about religion, but I can't remember being asked if we attend church. I'm not sure why these questions would be asked. Obviously if you are presenting at registry office you are not wanting religion to be part of the ceremony, so even if one or both did belong to a religion, it's irrelevant for the purpose of civil marriage.

Pherekydes

I was married in 2009 and I don't recall being asked about religion.

NamelessPhil

I was married in 2002 in the registry office and we were definitely asked if we were regular church goers. I said no and asked in return what counted as "regular", to which the answer was "Three times a month!".

I remember thinking at the time that most of my acquaintances who claimed to be Catholic would only go about three times a year.

lazygal

Got married in 2011. Religion was only mentioned in the context of not being allowed any religious music or readings in the ceremony.

Benny_Cake

I was married in a registry office in 2014 and there were no questions about religion, just a warning about readings and music. Maybe they collect statistical information from time to time?

Pherekydes

lazygal wrote: »

Got married in 2011. Religion was only mentioned in the context of not being allowed any religious music or readings in the ceremony.

Yep, this was my experience.

magicbastarder

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

at what point were you asked? was it in relation to filling out a form?

Cabaal

some interesting religious marriage stats on this, 100 years ago compared to 2014

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder

i have no memory of a public notice. whose responsibility was it to post the notice? the HSE, or yours?

Shrap

I definitely didn't have any public notice, and don't remember being asked was I religious. 2004, Limerick (which has to be as parochial as Ireland gets, really). Went to a friend's civil wedding in Killarney 2010 and they weren't asked either.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

wokingvoter

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The HSE posted the notice on the notice board in the office.

That's called posting the banns.
The theory being that if I'm in that public office and I'm perusing that notice board and see that Fred Swanson intends to marry Ms Kylie Minogue on April 1st, then I can object, on the grounds that Fred Swanson is already married to my sister.

It's a legal requirement.

lazygal

wokingvoter wrote: »

That's called posting the banns.
The theory being that if I'm in that public office and I'm perusing that notice board and see that Fred Swanson intends to marry Ms Kylie Minogue on April 1st, then I can object, on the grounds that Fred Swanson is already married to my sister.

It's a legal requirement.

Are they posted in Ireland though? When we registered intent to marry, the registrar talking to us said the three month period was mainly to deter marriages of convenience and to check out minors that might be being exploited. I never saw any notices like banns in the office, and I'd imagine they'd be online now-is there a way to check who's registered intent to marry in Ireland?

lazygal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which part of the office? I don't remember any such notices the couple of times we were in Grand Canal office.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's not where we registered intent. In Dublin city, you go to Lombard Street to buy a birth cert, register deaths etc. Grand Canal is where the ceremonies are conducted and where you register intent to marry. We registered two births in Lombard Street and there was no noticeboard there with notifications of intent to marry.

Shrap

Just remembered we side-stepped the 3 month intent to marry period and went before a judge. Tax reasons. Don't ask :-/

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

Just remembered we side-stepped the 3 month intent to marry period and went before a judge. Tax reasons. Don't ask :-/

It's very common. I know someone who went before a judge because she was pregnant and her partner was being sent abroad with the army on a six month mission. Getting married is the sensible thing to do in a serious relationship, ties up loads of loose ends.

wokingvoter

What happens now is that you both sign a legal document in front of the registrar stating that you know of legal impediment to your marriage
However if the registrar has any suspicion about the marriage he has the power to investigate
Regarding the religious questions, the registrar has to ask couples wether they are having a religious secular or civil ceremony

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

The registrar we dealt with explained the three month period as allowing them to investigate dodgy marriages. She said most couples are straightforward but they had certain nationalities that they kept a close eye on, such as Eastern European women getting married to men from Pakistan where sometimes the couple didn't speak the same language, or some very young women marrying much older men they didn't seem to know.

lazygal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't say Grand Canal is particularly nice. My one and only bridal related hissy fit was when I saw the place and said in no uncertain terms that I wasn't having my walk down the aisle in that kip. We just did the legal particulars there and had our 'proper' wedding a week later.

magicbastarder

lazygal wrote: »

I wouldn't say Grand Canal is particularly nice.

you mean in patrick duns? was nicer than i expected (in 2012).

lazygal

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean in patrick duns? was nicer than i expected (in 2012).

Yes I thought it was very shabby and poorly laid out. Very restrictive for numbers too. We got married in 2011.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder

lazygal wrote: »

Yes I thought it was very shabby and poorly laid out. Very restrictive for numbers too. We got married in 2011.

was reminiscent of a nice private cinema when we got married there. with a large conference-style table at the front.

lazygal

It just didn't seem particularly special to me. Like a small lecture theatre with weird big leather chairs at the front at a conference style desk. Maybe they've improved it since.

Benny_Cake

The first time we saw the venue on Grand Canal Street was when we arrived for the wedding. It seemed fine to me, but we only had immediate family and wanted to keep things simple so it was perfect. They are quite strict as regards time though so you wouldn't want a big crowd coming in and out.

lazygal

Did you not register intent there? That's when I saw it and immediately thought this can't be where they conduct the ceremonies. We were only doing the legal bit so it wasn't a big deal how it looked. It wouldn't impress as a venue though.