Suspension of all marriages 'until after the pandemic'

Neyite · 20-04-2020 10:59am #1

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 · 20-04-2020 11:43am

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 · 20-04-2020 11:43am

sounds pretty reasonable to me

Neyite · 20-04-2020 11:53am

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 · 20-04-2020 11:58am

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 · 20-04-2020 12:18pm

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 · 20-04-2020 12:25pm

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 · 20-04-2020 12:27pm

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 · 20-04-2020 12:38pm

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 · 20-04-2020 1:50pm

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 · 20-04-2020 1:55pm

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 · 20-04-2020 1:57pm

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 · 20-04-2020 3:13pm

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 · 20-04-2020 3:19pm

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 · 21-04-2020 7:52am

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).

21-04-2020 8:15am

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 · 21-04-2020 8:52am

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 · 21-04-2020 9:12am

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

One eyed Jack · 21-04-2020 2:31pm

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 · 21-04-2020 2:35pm

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 · 21-04-2020 2:51pm

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 · 21-04-2020 3:36pm

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 · 21-04-2020 5:05pm

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 · 21-04-2020 6:23pm

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 · 21-04-2020 7:18pm

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 · 21-04-2020 8:56pm

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 · 21-04-2020 9:17pm

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 · 21-04-2020 9:48pm

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 · 21-04-2020 10:07pm

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 · 22-04-2020 3:52am

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 · 22-04-2020 11:14am

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.

Suspension of all marriages 'until after the pandemic'

Comments