Civil weddings, religous questions

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

Yep ten minute job for us. In fairness it's hassle free really.

Benny_Cake

lazygal wrote: »

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.

We registered intent at Lombard House, which is a dump of a building in fairness. We'd seen photos of Sir Patrick Dun's so we knew that we were happy enough with the venue.

wokingvoter

I think people see civil ceremonies in UK soap operas and think the Health Centre they're heading to in Mullingar or Waterford is going to look the same , ornate cornicing, bay window looking out onto sweeping lawns, plush shag pile carpet etc.
The registrars office is a place of business in reality, all the romance can be lavished on the party venue

Hotblack Desiato

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.

Same with us, five years earlier.

lazygal wrote: »

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

There's a small noticeboard at the end of the lobby. Literally a couple of lines of small print each. You probably wouldn't notice the whole noticeboard unless you were looking out for it!

Thought Grand Canal St. was fine as a venue btw, accommodated a few dozen people no problems, we didn't fill it.

I find it very odd that a public servant would ask a member of the public about their religious beliefs or practices while accessing a state service (outside of the hospital or education sector :rolleyes: ) and what possible purpose obtaining such information would have? Data Protection Act makes it illegal to gather unnecessary personal private information and religious affiliation would be regarded as particularly sensitive. If such information is required (and it is NOT for a civil marriage) then it must only be used for the purpose for which it was gathered.

Wonder if this was a solo run by some registrar whom the god botherers had gotten to? I can imagine the RCC would love to know how many massgoers are opting for civil ceremonies. I can't imagine how such information would be useful to the state or any other body.

wokingvoter

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Same with us, five years earlier.



There's a small noticeboard at the end of the lobby. Literally a couple of lines of small print each. You probably wouldn't notice the whole noticeboard unless you were looking out for it!

Thought Grand Canal St. was fine as a venue btw, accommodated a few dozen people no problems, we didn't fill it.

I find it very odd that a public servant would ask a member of the public about their religious beliefs or practices while accessing a state service (outside of the hospital or education sector :rolleyes: ) and what possible purpose obtaining such information would have? Data Protection Act makes it illegal to gather unnecessary personal private information and religious affiliation would be regarded as particularly sensitive. If such information is required (and it is NOT for a civil marriage) then it must only be used for the purpose for which it was gathered.

Wonder if this was a solo run by some registrar whom the god botherers had gotten to? I can imagine the RCC would love to know how many massgoers are opting for civil ceremonies. I can't imagine how such information would be useful to the state or any other body.

One of the questions the registrar asks when your arranging the legal bit of your marriage is wether your ceremony will be secular civil or religious.
I can't post links but it's there on the citizens information website as a legal requirement
What's that got to do with RCC???'
It's probably for the SSO or something
Why would anyone have a problem with that question?

Shrap

Anyone else done the deed in Limerick? I fell about laughing at the state of the place. Unfortunately forgot to take photos of the picture window to the left of the door in which two shop dummies were dressed up and posed as a couple in the full white-wedding gear, he standing, she seated. Surreal, I tell you :eek:

Hotblack Desiato

wokingvoter wrote: »

One of the questions the registrar asks when your arranging the legal bit of your marriage is wether your ceremony will be secular civil or religious.

Of course we were asked that (well, the only options were civil or religious then) as a registrar will be required for a civil ceremony and the venue will either need to be booked or approved.

That's not the question the OP and other posters describe, though.

pauldla

Shrap wrote: »

Anyone else done the deed in Limerick? I fell about laughing at the state of the place. Unfortunately forgot to take photos of the picture window to the left of the door in which two shop dummies were dressed up and posed as a couple in the full white-wedding gear, he standing, she seated. Surreal, I tell you :eek:

I did the deed in Changsha, Hunan province. Wearing a GAA jersey. The most interesting bit, other than the flash of purple and gold in an otherwise drab office, was the staff regarding my passport with perplexity ('Ireland? Where is Ireland?'). Then one of the senior bottle-washers announced that Ireland was in England, and that seemed to satisfy them. I decided to let the matter lie...

wokingvoter

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Of course we were asked that (well, the only options were civil or religious then) as a registrar will be required for a civil ceremony and the venue will either need to be booked or approved.

That's not the question the OP and other posters describe, though.

It's 13 years ago. The wording has probably been "tidied" up now
I can't see how it's anything to do with RCC though

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Cabaal wrote: »

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

image

off topic, but near 10,000 cars registered in 1915? Wouldn't have expected that

rainbow kirby

Got married in May 2015, registered intent in Limerick in December 2014, the form we were given to fill out lacked a field for a secular ceremony - we were having a humanist ceremony.

Hotblack Desiato

wokingvoter wrote: »

It's 13 years ago. The wording has probably been "tidied" up now
I can't see how it's anything to do with RCC though

Nope you're still not getting it. Did you read the OP?

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope you're still not getting it. Did you read the OP?

I think he's referring to your question "Wonder if this was a solo run by some registrar whom the god botherers had gotten to? I can imagine the RCC would love to know how many massgoers are opting for civil ceremonies. I can't imagine how such information would be useful to the state or any other body."

The question being, why would the Catholic Church 'get to' a registrar and persuade them to ask for the information, particularly if gathering that information were illegal. There doesn't seem to be a motive for the 'god botherers' to bother the nuptialists; that they'd love to know how many massgoers are opting for civil ceremonies seems like a fairly tenuous reason, particularly if they weren't getting the (fairly useless) information from every single registrar.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I find it very odd that a public servant would ask a member of the public about their religious beliefs or practices while accessing a state service (outside of the hospital or education sector :rolleyes: ) and what possible purpose obtaining such information would have?

There may be an unwritten, or even written, agreement between the main marriage solemnisers - the church + the state - as regards the state keeping the church up to date on who's marrying whom. The reason being that the RCC asserts that any anybody who is married in a state-level ceremony is, de facto, married in the eyes of the church, and the church wants to prevent multiple marriages, particularly amongst its own members.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

There may be an unwritten, or even written, agreement between the main marriage solemnisers - the church + the state - as regards the state keeping the church up to date on who's marrying whom. The reason being that the RCC asserts that any anybody who is married in a state-level ceremony is, de facto, married in the eyes of the church, and the church wants to prevent multiple marriages, particularly amongst its own members.

Are you sure? My understanding is that Catholics who do not marry in the Church are considered not to be validly married (though non Catholics are). And if the Church wanted to know if someone has been civilly married, they need only access the public marriage registers; they hardly need an agreement, written or unwritten, with the State to keep them up to date in order to prevent multiple marriages.

wokingvoter

robindch wrote: »

There may be an unwritten, or even written, agreement between the main marriage solemnisers - the church + the state - as regards the state keeping the church up to date on who's marrying whom. The reason being that the RCC asserts that any anybody who is married in a state-level ceremony is, de facto, married in the eyes of the church, and the church wants to prevent multiple marriages, particularly amongst its own members.

I thought I'd stumbled on CT forum there for a minute
Excuse the pun bit, Oh Lord!

intheclouds

robindch wrote: »

There may be an unwritten, or even written, agreement between the main marriage solemnisers - the church + the state - as regards the state keeping the church up to date on who's marrying whom. The reason being that the RCC asserts that any anybody who is married in a state-level ceremony is, de facto, married in the eyes of the church, and the church wants to prevent multiple marriages, particularly amongst its own members.

I don't think this can be true. The church does not recognise a state marriage. People who are divorced from a civil marriage can still marry again in a Catholic Church as they are considered to be never before married.

The church holds canon law above state law so it seems odd that they'd be looking for the state to update them.

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

Are you sure? My understanding is that Catholics who do not marry in the Church are considered not to be validly married (though non Catholics are).

Non-catholics are considered validly married if they're married via a state ceremony or some other broadly equivalent ceremony mandated by the main religions - there's a thin honor amongst thieves in this.

And yes - my point - that non-practising catholics are considered married by the RCC if they've done the state ceremony as well. I know this since I contacted the bishop's palace in Drumcondra a few years back to confirm, since Popette was up to some of her old tricks again - in this case, creating her own private version of catholicism, then attempting to enforce its addled rules upon her long-suffering extended family.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

Non-catholics are considered validly married if they're married via a state ceremony or some other broadly equivalent ceremony mandated by the main religions - there's a thin honor amongst thieves in this.

Well, I don't know about honor amongst thieves, but we weren't discussing non Catholics (though I did mention non Catholics who don't marry in a Church are considered to be validly married); you specifically said "The reason being that the RCC asserts that any anybody who is married in a state-level ceremony is, de facto, married in the eyes of the church, and the church wants to prevent multiple marriages, particularly amongst its own members." My point being it doesn't assert that; it asserts the opposite for Catholics, who are really the only people you could be referring to when you talk about the Church wanting to prevent multiple marriages amongst its own members, aren't they?

robindch wrote: »

And yes - my point - that non-practising catholics are considered married by the RCC if they've done the state ceremony as well. I know this since I contacted the bishop's palace in Drumcondra a few years back to confirm, since Popette was up to some of her old tricks again - in this case, creating her own private version of catholicism, then attempting to enforce its addled rules upon her long-suffering extended family.

Eh no, that wasn't your point. You didn't mention non practicing Catholics at all, you specifically said anybody. Non practicing Catholics who marry other Catholics (practicing or otherwise) are not considered married by the Church if they only have a State ceremony; the marriage has not followed canonical form so is invalid (unless they request and receive a 'dispensation from canonical form', generally given in the case of mixed faith Christian marriages). If they have a State as well (like you say) as a Church ceremony (though I can't imagine why anyone would) they're considered married, by virtue of the fact that they have had a Church ceremony. As far as the Church is concerned, a Catholic couple who have a State ceremony must have their marriage convalidated (a shortened Catholic wedding ceremony in which the sacrament is conferred) in order to be valid.

Hotblack Desiato

So, still no credible explanation as to why these intrusive questions would be asked - or how it would even be legal to do so.

Wonder if AI have heard of this happening?

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So, still no credible explanation as to why these intrusive questions would be asked - or how it would even be legal to do so. Wonder if AI have heard of this happening?

Well, we've only one (?) account; recollected from thirteen years ago, of intrusive questions being asked, the other accounts seem to be of questions somewhat more relevant being asked, weren't they?

wokingvoter

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So, still no credible explanation as to why these intrusive questions would be asked - or how it would even be legal to do so.

Wonder if AI have heard of this happening?

Are AI like...the politically correct police of officialdom?
Have they got the power to "shut the whole thing down" if they find anybody trying to be religious where they shouldn't be ?
I cant post links but here's what it says on citizens information website about notifying The Man if you want to get married:

A couple getting married are required to to give notification in person of their intention to marry to a Registrar at least 3 months before the intended date of the marriage. The requirement to give a 3-month notice does not apply to civil partners whose civil partnership was registered in Ireland – see 'Civil partners' below.
The notification can be given to any Registrar. When you make the appointment with the Registrar you will be informed what information and documents you need to bring with you. Generally, you and your intended spouse will be required to bring the following:

• Passports as identification.
• Birth Certificates (must bear an apostille stamp if not issued by the Civil Registration Service in Ireland)
• Original final divorce decrees in respect of all previous divorces if either of you is divorced. Further information will be required if it was a foreign divorce and you will require an approved English translation of the divorce decree
• Original dissolutions in respect of all previous civil partnerships if either of you has a civil partnership dissolution
• Final decree of nullity and a letter from the relevant court confirming that no appeal was lodged, if either of you was in a civil partnership or marriage that was annulled by an Irish Court
• Deceased spouse's death certificate and previous civil marriage certificate if either of you is widowed
• PPS Numbers

You will also have to provide information about the intended marriage such as:

• Whether it will be a civil, secular or religious ceremony
• The intended date and location of the marriage
• Details of the proposed solemniser of the marriage
• The names and dates of birth of the two proposed witnesses

You will also have to pay a notification fee.
When you attend the Registrar you will have to make a declaration of no impediment.
The Registrar will issue an acknowlegement to both of you and the proposed solemniser of the marriage confirming the date of receipt of notification. This does not give you permission to marry.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

wokingvoter

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd say it was always a requirement to provide this information. I don't know why. Id say if you wrote to the Chief Registrar and asked him/her why then they'd probably write back to you.
Either way I suppose anybody could be affronted by any question asked in any application form for public services, but mostly people don't.

Absolam

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it was an off the cuff remark and the response was not noted anywhere, is it possible that it wasn't, as you originally said 'part of the process' but just a conversational gambit from the particular civil servant talking with you at the time?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Absolam

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did he say that in an off the cuff manner? As in "Oh, I ask everyone... kind of like hairdressers asking what people are planning for the weekend", or was it a bit more " I ask everyone, the Bishops need to know what you people are getting up to you know".
Actually, why did he say that in the first place? Was there a bit of a conversation going about what he was asking already? Did you ask him what the purpose of the questioning was? Having gone to the effort of asking, you could hardly have left it at "I ask everyone" could you?

wokingvoter

Question 7 on the State Pension application form asks for your mothers maiden name, Question 12 asks for your exact marital status.
Do you think that these questions are part of this conspiracy between the RCC and the State as well?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.