Suspension of all marriages 'until after the pandemic'

Neyite

https://www2.hse.ie/services/births-deaths-and-marriages/how-to-get-married-in-ireland/how-to-get-married-in-ireland.html

The HSE have currently suspended all marriage appointments. Their website states "When the pandemic is over and normal service resumes you will need to make an appointment with us to attend in person to present the documents listed on the marriage checklist."
and;
"Please do not make any further arrangements to marry until after the pandemic. We do not know how long it will take for services to return to normal after the pandemic. It will be possible for you to make an appointment to complete your notification in person after the pandemic"
and;
"Marriage ceremonies can only take place if they meet the most recent Government measures to stop the spread of COVID 19. Government measures are updated regularly and it is important to keep up to date with this information."

Now, regarding the last point, the current lockdown rule of no more than 4 people gathering unless all from the same family mean that weddings can't take place anyway as a wedding must have a celebrant, couple + two witnesses. So for the moment, that can't happen anyway but if restrictions relax a bit, surely weddings should be able to go ahead in their most basic form?

The HSE website wording is vague - the pandemic won't be over realistically until a vaccine is a) created, b) tested and c) widely administered. So potentially, years. And there's no adaptation of their rules to facilitate any alternative, such as witnesses via video link or even their office offering a video link appointment to couples. They switched over to a postal (email really) notification that they normally only offer to overseas couples during March but that was all that they've done.

We were due to get married in the summer. Obviously the wedding that was planned is off, but my partner and I did think that we could still retain the priest and two witnesses to do the legal bit on the original date because, if one of us is affected by Covid, then the other has the protections and benefits of a legal spouse - whether that's transfer of tax credits or more important issues such as next of kin rights.

But essentially what they are saying is nobody can marry in the state of Ireland until the pandemic is over (whenever) and until they have cleared their backlog of weddings that are for now, all March onwards appointments which were cancelled.

Is there any constitutional /civil right of a person in the state to marry? And can it legally be withheld from all citizens by the state for an indeterminate period?

markpb

I wonder if the HSE/GRO will adopt the same procedure for registering marriages as they have for registering births. There’s no reason for people to have to visit them in person to present proof of ID and be told you can’t marry your cousin.

It won’t help the OP but it would remove one more piece of bureaucracy from Irish administration.

Jim Root

sounds pretty reasonable to me

Neyite

I've emailed my contact in the registrars office to ask about video meeting/ postal paperwork alternatives to completing the paperwork process.



It will be interesting to see what they come back with.

nuac

Mod
As it seems this infection will be with us for a long time it is reasonable for members of this forum to suggest ways marriages could be solemnised now.
Best of luck to Neyite and partner

Metroid diorteM

I heard of some legal paper work being signed and held up through a window with the solicitor outside the house for witnessing.

Its ridiculous to prevent certification of marriage. It's like the teachers who are sitting back on "holiday" instead of adapting like the rest of us have to.

Government should do it through skype and send marriage forms via pdf.

Neyite

I've just had a reply. The person who I had been dealing has been very helpful and lovely on the phone however the short answer is that she has no idea and won't until after May 5th.



Any changes to the process are determined at a national level and currently there's no video/remote method of completing the process to register your intent to marry.



Any marriages that can legally take place at the moment are the ones who obtained their Marriage Registration Form prior to when their offices shut to the public in mid-March and can only have their ceremony when the current lockdown is eased to allow for more than 4 gathering (currently witnesses must attend in person, so again, no video option there)

In addition there won't be any more registrations granted until either a) they change their process to allow remote processing or b) they reopen their offices for face-to-face appointments... which is anyone's guess right now.

SozBbz

If this is going on for any serious lenght of time, people ought to be allowed to marry, at least legally.

Thats not to be confused with having the "big day!" with 250 of your closes acquaintances, but it should always be possible to enter into a marriage as it offers legal protection to a persons family.

I saw on the news now that births can now be registered online so if that process which basically is the state recording a new citizen with PPS number and all the identity documentation that flows from it, surely it should be possible to apply for approval to marry if you have your paperwork in order.

Neyite

Oh my dreams of having any sort of 'day' are long dashed We just want to go ahead with the legal bit at this stage.

Manach

Being the relgious sort, I'd just check if a Priest was empowered to perfom the ceromony and leave the state to decide whatever it choses with its ways and means of what it considers "marriage".

L1011

Manach wrote: »

Being the relgious sort, I'd just check if a Priest was empowered to perfom the ceromony and leave the state to decide whatever it choses with its ways and means of what it considers "marriage".

They would be breaking the law if they claimed to be performing a marriage without the registration

Additionally a religious ceremony without the civil registration would give no legal rights which is what the OP wants.

Del2005

Manach wrote: »

Being the relgious sort, I'd just check if a Priest was empowered to perfom the ceromony and leave the state to decide whatever it choses with its ways and means of what it considers "marriage".

Regilous ceremonies are not legal marriage in this country. The bride and groom always leave the Chapel after the relgious ceremony to get married in the back room, or else they get married legally before the relgious ceremony.

The definition of marriage is clear in this country, if you want to get the benefits of marriage it has to be a civil marriage to be legal.

Neyite

Manach wrote: »

Being the relgious sort, I'd just check if a Priest was empowered to perfom the ceromony and leave the state to decide whatever it choses with its ways and means of what it considers "marriage".

An RCC wedding legally incorporates both the civil and the religious elements. So while a priest could say the words (assuming he would be willing which I doubt,) and you'd be technically married in the eyes of God, it has no legal standing without first obtaining the HSE registration paperwork (basically the marriage licence).

So legally it leaves a couple's marital status unchanged.

lisasimpson

We did our green book before christmas. All we need to do is confirm the new date. Absolutely mad there is no on line system for all the couples who have presented themselves for the greenbook to be able to update changes online

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

Religious ceremonies are not legal marriage in this country. The bride and groom always leave the Chapel after the relgious ceremony to get married in the back room, or else they get married legally before the relgious ceremony.

A common misconception, but a misconception nevertheless. Religious ceremonies are legal marriages in this country. It is the exchange of vows in front of the celebrant, and not the completion of the paperwork in the sacristy afterwards, which, legally speaking, constitutes the marriage.

Which has two important consequences:

1. You can't have a religious ceremony without first of all going through the process needed to get a Marriage Registration Form. It's an offence for a celebrant (religious or civil) to celebrate a marriage without an MRF, so none of them will do it.

2. If you have a religious ceremony, but fail to complete the paperwork afterwards to register it, you are still married. The celebrant has committed the offence of failing to register the marriage, though. So celebrants won't do this either.

Del2005 wrote: »

The definition of marriage is clear in this country, if you want to get the benefits of marriage it has to be a civil marriage to be legal.

Nope. A religious ceremony is just as valid as a civil ceremony. You are legally required to get an MRF from the registrar before marrying, and to register the marriage afterwards (by completing and returning the MRF). But you don't have to have a civil marriage (and most couples don't).

I can't see how this won't be challenged in the court. People have to be allowed marry.

There's far too many important legal benefits to getting married.

Protection for kids,
Tax credits,
Inheritance tax,
Widows pension
Next of kin
Etc., etc.

You could have the married couple & 2 witnesses in the same room and a celebrant over Skype or zoom for the congregation.

I'll be writing to my TD's to appeal it. We were due to get married in October, but hadn't applied for our cert yet.

Peregrinus

People do have to be allowed to marry. But if this restriction is temporary (in the sense that, it is lifted in less time that it would would take to launch, fight and win High Court & Supreme Court proceedings challenging it) the practical reality is that we may just have to live with it for a time.

The idea of using skype or similar to get around the four-person restriction won't work. The existing legislation requires the celebrant, the spouses and the witnesses all to be in one another's presence for a valid solemnization of marriage. It would take an Act of the Oireachtas to change this. A simpler and more accessible solution is to create an excepton to the four-person restriction to allow meetings of five persons for the purposes of solemnizing a marriage.

As regards getting a Marriage Registration Form, it's again a requirement of the legislation that the couple should both attend before the registrar and make a declaration in his presence that there is no impediment to the marriage, and it would take an Act of the Oireachtas to change this. The only short-term solution to this problem is to amend the rules about necessary travel, etc, and to change the practices in registrars' offices, to allow a couple to attend and make the required declaration (observing proper social distancing, of course).

Mrs OBumble

I think this is a pretty good indicator of the usefulness of state marriage these days. Time to abolish it totally.

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

Is there any constitutional /civil right of a person in the state to marry? And can it legally be withheld from all citizens by the state for an indeterminate period?

There isn’t an explicit right to marry afforded to individuals in Irish law. Even Article 12 of the ECHR contains an explicit reference to national laws governing the exercise of this right, which in the current context are the Government restrictions temporarily in place in the interests of public health.

I can think of one way it may be possible to marry and have the marriage recognised in Irish law before the restrictions are revised, which would be to travel to a jurisdiction in which (a) the restrictions aren’t as... restrictive (b) doesn’t have any residency requirements (c) where there is an international agreement in place to recognise marriages in Irish law which are recognised as valid in that country.

Canada is nice this time of year.

SozBbz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn’t an explicit right to marry afforded to individuals in Irish law. Even Article 12 of the ECHR contains an explicit reference to national laws governing the exercise of this right, which in the current context are the Government restrictions temporarily in place in the interests of public health.

I can think of one way it may be possible to marry and have the marriage recognised in Irish law before the restrictions are revised, which would be to travel to a jurisdiction in which (a) the restrictions aren’t as... restrictive (b) doesn’t have any residency requirements (c) where there is an international agreement in place to recognise marriages in Irish law which are recognised as valid in that country.

Canada is nice this time of year.

All of this is so much more problematic than simply letting people have a basic legal ceremony in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

SozBbz wrote: »

All of this is so much more problematic than simply letting people have a basic legal ceremony in Ireland.

While I agree with you that on an individual level it presents all sorts of problems, I was keeping in mind that this is the Legal Discussion forum and nuac’s earlier guidance that it would be reasonable for members of the forum to suggest ways in which the marriage could be solemnised now, with the restrictions as they are currently in place.

While the more obvious approach for some people might be to let people have a basic legal ceremony in Ireland, that point of view seems to ignore the fact that the Government also has a duty to have regard to public health, and any easing of restrictions has to be balanced with the potential risk to public health. What you’re arguing for is no different to individuals claiming that the restrictions which apply to everyone, are placing an unfair imposition on them. The restrictions are an imposition on everyone for various reasons pertaining to them as individuals, but they are necessary in the interests of maintaining public health.

SozBbz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

While I agree with you that on an individual level it presents all sorts of problems, I was keeping in mind that this is the Legal Discussion forum and nuac’s earlier guidance that it would be reasonable for members of the forum to suggest ways in which the marriage could be solemnised now, with the restrictions as they are currently in place.

While the more obvious approach for some people might be to let people have a basic legal ceremony in Ireland, that point of view seems to ignore the fact that the Government also has a duty to have regard to public health, and any easing of restrictions has to be balanced with the potential risk to public health. What you’re arguing for is no different to individuals claiming that the restrictions which apply to everyone, are placing an unfair imposition on them. The restrictions are an imposition on everyone for various reasons pertaining to them as individuals, but they are necessary in the interests of maintaining public health.

So... you actually think allowing a couple to travel internationally, thus interacting with hundreds of people going through the airports, on the planes themselves with recycled air, immigration, staying in a hotel and then interacting with Candaian registry office staff etc etc.... is less risky than allowing 5 people to stand in a room for 15 minutes while keeping a 2m distance between those not in the same household? I'm sorry but thats just nonsensical. How does this fit within the Govt advice against unnecessary travel and limiting social interaction.

Very few people would want to get married in the above circumstances but for the few that do, I think it should be an option in a very limited, managed way. Getting legally married could be very important for cohabbiting couples who want the legal benefits of marriage more than ever now that peoples health is under threat.

One eyed Jack

SozBbz wrote: »

So... you actually think allowing a couple to travel internationally, thus interacting with hundreds of people going through the airports, on the planes themselves with recycled air, immigration, staying in a hotel and then interacting with Candaian registry office staff etc etc.... is less risky than allowing 5 people to stand in a room for 15 minutes while keeping a 2m distance between those not in the same household? I'm sorry but thats just nonsensical. How does this fit within the Govt advice against unnecessary travel and limiting social interaction.

No, I don’t think that at all. Of course it’s absolutely more risky and as we’re both agreed - impractical for all sorts of reasons. However, the point is that it is one way to have a marriage solemnised now while the current restrictions in Ireland still apply. How does it fit in with Government advice against unnecessary travel and limiting social interaction?

I’d say it stands up pretty well from an individuals perspective given the reasons you have outlined yourself below -

SozBbz wrote: »

Very few people would want to get married in the above circumstances but for the few that do, I think it should be an option in a very limited, managed way. Getting legally married could be very important for cohabbiting couples who want the legal benefits of marriage more than ever now that peoples health is under threat.

Which demonstrates precisely my point - everyone has reasons why they feel the current restrictions are an unfair imposition on them personally in their current circumstances. The Government however has a duty to regard what is in the common good, in the interests of public health, and balance that with the rights of the individual. Individuals are of course entitled to the point of view that current restrictions imposed upon them are unreasonable and all the rest of it, but allowing any easing of restrictions which are currently being managed and limiting public gatherings and social interaction isn’t being done with the intention of being unfair to people. It’s being done in the interests of being fair to everyone and to limit the spread of infection.

I understand that there are circumstances in which people find themselves which they feel are important enough to outweigh the benefits to society of the imposed restrictions, and as an individual choice they may well be prepared to risk pledging their lives to each other in front of witnesses till death do them part. The Government however considers public health of greater importance than permitting individuals to risk taking everyone else with them.

Neyite

I'm not going to go abroad to get married. I shouldn't have to. And what if Canada shuts it's borders 2 days before our flights? Or after we've landed? No travel insurer would refund that. What you are suggesting is technically possible however it's an expensive and risky solution in several ways to an issue that could literally be resolved by a Zoom meeting with a registrar, if they were willing to adapt their systems.

They have adapted it for births. They will need to do it for this because as a result of the pandemic, there are lots of unmarried couples who probably are thinking 'sh!t, if I get sick/die/ lose my job because of Covid, my family are screwed because we aren't married' so on top of the likes of me that was in the middle of the process, there's thousands of weddings currently cancelled, all the ones to come until September will be as well, plus the 'oh sh!t' couples I've described above, their work is just piling up and could for many months to come.

I'd argue that granting permission to marry should be deemed an essential service during a time of nationwide pandemic simply because of the precarious position it may financially or legally put a person in should the pandemic affect them or their intended spouse.

Caranica

Very hard to fraudulently register a birth having moved to online registration. Same cannot be said for marriage registration, which has much more serious implications. They moved to interview based permission to marry for a reason.

Carawaystick

Peregrinus wrote: »

A common misconception, but a misconception nevertheless. Religious ceremonies are legal marriages in this country. It is the exchange of vows in front of the celebrant,
...
which, legally speaking, constitutes the marriage.

Only certain religions marriage ceremonies are allowed to be legal marriages, though. Muslim ones are not, and given any documents I've read from state bodies regarding Pastafarianism, I'd doubt they are...

growleaves

In the play Romeo and Juliet get married in secret by a friar.

I'm not suggesting that a compliant citizen of our brave medical-advisory state do this - perish the thought! - but I would call it a victimless crime. You could always sort the legal paperwork out later.

Neyite

growleaves wrote: »

In the play Romeo and Juliet get married in secret by a friar.

I'm not suggesting that a compliant citizen of our brave medical-advisory state do this - perish the thought! - but I would call it a victimless crime. You could always sort the legal paperwork out later.

We are not religious. We are having a religious service due to other, non-religious reasons but it's about a legally recognised situation for us. So the priest doing a non-legal service on the day seems pointless to me I'm afraid.

Besides, there's no priest that would break a law by turning a blind eye to the paperwork. Nor would I even ask one.

It really isn't about us to have a 'wedding'. It's about us being married spouses in the eyes of the law.

Neyite

Caranica wrote: »

Very hard to fraudulently register a birth having moved to online registration. Same cannot be said for marriage registration, which has much more serious implications. They moved to interview based permission to marry for a reason.

If the criterion for granting permission to marry in the state rests on a face to face meeting with a representive of the state, that's the rules. So when they withdraw that service for an indeterminate length of time and offer no alternative or modification to the system, what then? And how long can a state service such as marriage registration realistically stay closed to the public? These are my questions they are unable to answer. And unable to tell anyone when they may have an answer.

Peregrinus

Neyite wrote: »

If the criterion for granting permission to marry in the state rests on a face to face meeting with a representive of the state, that's the rules. So when they withdraw that service for an indeterminate length of time and offer no alternative or modification to the system, what then? And how long can a state service such as marriage registration realistically stay closed to the public? These are my questions they are unable to answer. And unable to tell anyone when they may have an answer.

These are the correct questions to ask.

The present impasse can be resolved in one of two ways:

1. Change the current law, so that it is possible to marry without first appearing in person before the registrar, and without needing five people to gather for the solemnization. As pointed out above, this requires an Act of the Oireachtas, which doesn't happen in a hurry.

2. Modify the lockdown rules, and/or the practices in the Registrar's office, so that the necessary meeting can go ahead, and the required number of people can attend the ceremony.

The thing is, it's not within the power of the registrar or their staff to decide which of these things will happen, or when. They can't enact legislation. And they can't change the lockdown rules. So, though you are asking the right questions, they are unable to answer them.

What they can do (and I would guess are doing) is feed upwards to the decision-makers your dissatisfaction with the invidious situation that you are placed in, and no doubt the dissatisfaction of many similarly-situated couples. So even if they can't answer your questions, you asking them does have a positive, if indirect, effect. The more people who complain about this, and draw attention to the problems that result from the current impasse, the more pressure to make decisions about when and how to resolve it. You can also contact your TDs who, again, can't wave a magic wand themselves but who are part of the mechanism by which pressing policy issues are brought to the attention of the people in a position to resolve them.

Not that long ago we went through a major political campaign, and a constitutional referendum, to make marriage available to same-sex couples. That was important precisely because being denied the status of marriage can have very signficant adverse consequences. So, yeah, the fact that nobody can get married now, and we have no idea when they can, is a serious matter.

Neyite

The front line staffer that's been dealing with my query is genuinely one of the nicest, friendliest customer service experiences I've had. These decisions must be made at a much higher level. I would imagine that they are feeding the complaints up the food chain and I imagine that there are many taking their frustrations out on the front line staff, so I'm very sympathetic.

You raise a very valid point about SSM. And thanks for the tip about contacting a TD - I never have but it may prod some sort of motion on the issue should it be needed. My plan is to provisionally see if they do have any contingency plans after the 5th as asked. Depending on the government's decision at the end of this lockdown phase with regard to restrictions if they do remain closed I may very well need to use your suggestions.

What I've noticed from wedding facebook groups etc is that the majority that are cancelling or postphoning are focusing on the wedding arrangements and the hassle of rearranging all that and there's very few of us who are concerned more with the not being able to marry aspect of it. Which is interesting.

Mrs OBumble

Another alternative is for the state to simply remove all the (unnecessary IMHO) advantages which it grants to married people, and so to treat all citizens equally. Thus removing the need for "marriage ".

Neyite

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Another alternative is for the state to simply remove all the (unnecessary IMHO) advantages which it grants to married people, and so to treat all citizens equally. Thus removing the need for "marriage ".

I'd say that's a bit too radical an overhaul for Ireland but it's an interesting concept!

Caranica

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Another alternative is for the state to simply remove all the (unnecessary IMHO) advantages which it grants to married people, and so to treat all citizens equally. Thus removing the need for "marriage ".

"Simply" Constitutional amendments and legislative amendments... Nothing simple about those!

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

I'm not going to go abroad to get married. I shouldn't have to. And what if Canada shuts it's borders 2 days before our flights? Or after we've landed? No travel insurer would refund that. What you are suggesting is technically possible however it's an expensive and risky solution in several ways to an issue that could literally be resolved by a Zoom meeting with a registrar, if they were willing to adapt their systems.

...

I'd argue that granting permission to marry should be deemed an essential service during a time of nationwide pandemic simply because of the precarious position it may financially or legally put a person in should the pandemic affect them or their intended spouse.

I didn’t mean to suggest that anyone in those circumstances should do anything, I’m aware that people are inclined to do what suits them regardless. I was suggesting that that was the only way I could see the objective being achieved with the current restrictions in place as they are right now. This may all change on 5th May. It’s not as though it’s entirely unheard of that people have travelled to other jurisdictions to avail of services in those jurisdictions which aren’t, or weren’t available to them in Ireland at the time.

While I don’t foresee current legislation being changed to facilitate video conferencing (I don’t imagine that many registered solemnisers would agree to it either), I’m a firm advocate of the institution of marriage. But I just don’t think anyone would have a very compelling argument in arguing financial reasons to permit people to enter into marriage in Ireland. Such an argument is likely to fall foul of the stipulations in the Marriage of Lunatics Act, 1811 (I’d certainly think anyone arguing any perceived financial benefits of marriage in Ireland weren’t the full shilling).

I think a person would have a far better argument if they were to argue that the current restrictions impede people’s ability to avail of the protection of the State conferred upon the institution of the Family as it is understood in Irish law to be founded upon the institution of Marriage. Saying that may seem odd to anyone who isn’t familiar with the fact that the State only recognises a Family through marriage, but it’s long been established that there is no such concept as the “de facto” family in Ireland -


Ruling stresses no such thing as 'de facto family' in law

No 'de facto' family in Ireland for unwed father

Sperm donor granted access to child


I’m wracking my brain to try and think of any other way besides getting into a lengthy legal crusade to enter into marriage given the current circumstances as they are in Ireland, but I just don’t see it unfortunately. Even if someone were to go the above legal route, they’re likely to butt heads with people who argue that the concept of the Family in Irish law should not be founded upon the institution of marriage.

Claw Hammer

More than likely if someone who wished to marry challenged the lockdown rules in court, the rules would be changed. The rules were rushed in and can be finessed if necessary. The practical objections can be easily enough overcome. There are small numbers involved, relatively little travel and the necessary social distancing should be relatively easy to organise.

SozBbz

Claw Hammer wrote: »

More than likely if someone who wished to marry challenged the lockdown rules in court, the rules would be changed. The rules were rushed in and can be finessed if necessary. The practical objections can be easily enough overcome. There are small numbers involved, relatively little travel and the necessary social distancing should be relatively easy to organise.

Exactly this. Other posters are going on as if our lockdown is i) total and ii) not subject to change. These rules are not handed down from some higher power, they're just made by people and are open to being clarified and amended as necessary.

People are still leaving their homes and interacting with other people whilst not breaching the rules, such as going to the bank or the post office. This is allowed because the govt recognises the importance of allowing some semblance of normal life to proceed.

I think most people have been accommodating over the past few weeks but if theres no end in sight, then alternative provisions will have to be made. I see no issue in allowing interviews via some online platform (maybe Zoom isnt the most secure for a legal interaction) with documents to be sent by registered post or similar.

If the registrar has any concerns about the bonafides of the couple they can reject their application or ask for follow up as is currently the case.

A marriage only needs the couple, 2 witnesses and a registrar. That can easily be accommodated within social distancing and arrangements made for the paperwork to be filed accordingly.

I really can't imagine high volumes of people would want to get married under these circumstances, so for the few that do, I really feel this should be mangable.

Addle

In the news today - https://www.instagram.com/p/B_SSRxQF7yi/?hl=en

GM228

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn’t an explicit right to marry afforded to individuals in Irish law. Even Article 12 of the ECHR contains an explicit reference to national laws governing the exercise of this right

The right to marry is an unenumerated right under Article 40 of the Constitution, however like all rights it is not absolute and subject to competing rights, public policy and of course public health.

Peregrinus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Another alternative is for the state to simply remove all the (unnecessary IMHO) advantages which it grants to married people, and so to treat all citizens equally. Thus removing the need for "marriage ".

You're on a hiding to nothing here. There is literally no country in the world that doesn't have legal recognition of marriage. In every human society that we know of marriage is a signficant social reality. If the state ignores relevant realities the outcome is not to make reality less relevant, but to make the state less relevant.

Colonel Claptrap

We were supposed to have documentation meeting next week. Received a call today asking to fill out a form and return by email and that a future appointment will be made to attend in person.

The 3 month waiting period starts from when the form is returned so I guess that's how they will prevent a backlog from forming.

Neyite

I've just had an update, or rather none -the email I got says that they have no clear strategy as yet, social distancing is in place and their offices remain closed until further notice.



So no answer really. I'm sympathetic to the fact that they, like many businesses, don't have answers. But given they've been closed since mid March, and Friday's announcement shows phases of reopening through until August at a minimum, a strategy of some sort should be communicated to people who wants to marry.



I'm actually lucky that I have a named email address. People who are trying to contact registry offices on generic emails aren't getting a response at all.

lisasimpson

Its an absolute joke and the one industry that has a high proportion of self employed people too. Clarification is badly needed

Neyite

lisasimpson wrote: »

Its an absolute joke and the one industry that has a high proportion of self employed people too. Clarification is badly needed

The vendors rightly enough have no concern whether or not you are legally marrying or not, they get booked, get their deposit, deliver a service and get paid, whether you are marrying your legal spouse or a tree. Bookings are obviously in a heap for the summer but those same scrapped wedding are booking their vendors for a new 2021/2022 date, and in fact even the 'dead' days like Tuesdays and Wednesdays are getting snapped up next year because that's all that's left.



So while they may be down income from this summer/autumn, if they are flat out 5 days of the week in 2021 on weddings rather than the usual 2 they might quickly bounce back with a bigger than usual turnover next year.

Mrs OBumble

lisasimpson wrote: »

Its an absolute joke and the one industry that has a high proportion of self employed people too. Clarification is badly needed

This is only one corner of the leisure industry. Whether people are self-employed or not is irrelevant.

Weddings are simply not essential.

The legal side is necessary in order to access certain concessions from the state (note: concessions, not benefits, because welfare is totally not linked to your marital status). But none of these are essential to life or health.

Peregrinus

lisasimpson wrote: »

Its an absolute joke and the one industry that has a high proportion of self employed people too. Clarification is badly needed

Even if marriage ceremonies could go ahead, social gatherings and events would still be banned, so the suppliers of wedding-related services - hotels, restaurants, travel agents, etc, etc - would not benefit in any way. All the OP wants to be able to do is to contract a lawful marriage in a ceremony with a celebrant and two witnesses.

This isn't about jobs in the catering, events, travel and wedding industries; it's about couples who want to be marry.

We don't care about the party bit, so we just confirmed with the Wicklow registrar, we can get married in July.

We'll have one of my groomsmen and her maid of honor as witnesses.

Legal bit done, party and celebration can wait until after the pandemic.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't care about the party bit, so we just confirmed with the Wicklow registrar, we can get married in July.

We'll have one of my groomsmen and her maid of honor as witnesses.

Legal bit done, party and celebration can wait until after the pandemic.

How did they do the appointment with you? Was it remotely or did you have to attend the offices? You can pm if you prefer but it would be really helpful to me to know more. My date is July too.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

How did they do the appointment with you? Was it remotely or did you have to attend the offices? You can pm if you prefer but it would be really helpful to me to know more. My date is July too.

They just said to get in contact 2 weeks before the wedding for the face to face

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We don't care about the party bit, so we just confirmed with the Wicklow registrar, we can get married in July.

We'll have one of my groomsmen and her maid of honor as witnesses.

Legal bit done, party and celebration can wait until after the pandemic.

Well done. It’s great to see a bit of common sense prevailing. Getting married takes 20 minutes and costs €200. Anything else is frills.

Claw Hammer

The day of the wedding is the day of the dancing.