Exactly the same as the UK, having done it there personally...
Perhaps I can clarify the situation in relation to Ireland. Marriage is a contract, and if you wish to break that contract, you must litigate before the appropriate court. The religious ceremony has absolutely no legal validity whatsoever. The only people who can solemnise a marriage are County Registrars appointed by the State.
In times past, most couples held their weddings/marriages in the church, therefore priests were appointed as registrars and performed the function of the State by having the couple sign the State registry as well as the parish registry. They would then forward this information to the Registrar for that county.
Therefore, if you want to obtain a divorce, you must go before the State, as in the relevant court, and file your papers as set out under the Divorce Act 1996. The Catholic church does not recognise divorce, and therefore priests will not normally marry previously divorced persons. Previously divorced persons can go to the Registrar for their county who will perform their marriage for them - particularly popular with people who don't follow a particular religion.
I suspect it is the same in parts of the UK, i.e., if you want a divorce (which in the UK involves obtaining a decree nisi and a decree absolute) you must file papers in the relevant STATE-run offices/courts. You do not go back to your Church to seek a divorce.
I hope this helps.
Yes and I was married in a Registry Office. Iād have liked a church wedding ceremony, which would for me in mid 60ās, which would for me have been religious and legal. A registrar being an officer of the Law made it more prudent and acceptable to marry there so our child would not be a ābastardā and God knows again how society used to treat them, as I think Brian pointed out. My eldest is 5th generation as far as Iām aware,on my side to have married for the same reason.
Brian ,it is much harder to stay married for life nowadays as life lasts so much longer.
The romantic view of happy ever after does not take into account the vicissitudes of modern life and you need to have a good relationship to survive all the stress and strains modern life puts on marriage.
One of these is that women work, bring up their children and are now expected to look after aging parents as well. This is asking the impossible.
Elaine, are we talking of the Church of Ireland here?
If we are, then you do not have to have another civil marriage, the religious ceremony is in itself a legal marriage. This is, obviuosly, the same as the C of E.
No matter what you believe, the law says differently and I would not take your opinion should anyone ask for information as to what constitues a legal marriage.
I wasnāt sue of how things are in the other established churches in the UK, only having been married in our parish church in Lancashire.
Marriage is for life, eh? I think it is about time they actually looked around themselves a bit. The old men in Rome have clearly forgotten Pope John XII who was said to have been born to a 14 year old mother, sired by a man who was both his father and grandfather. Never one to shun tradition he continued this Oedipal cycle of dysfunction and also took his mother on as a lover. He was only 18 when he became pope and only 27 when he left it, having been murdered during a jealous rage when the husband of one of his mistresses walked in on them in bed. This would indeed be a fitting end to a pope who was such a womaniser he was have said to have violated virgins and widows alike and had so many women filing in and out of the Vatican that everyone said it had been turned into a brothel.
Pope Alexander VI whose uncle was Calixtus III. Alexander had a lot of mistresses. The one for whom his passion lasted longest was a Vannozza (Giovanna) dei Cattani, who was wife of three successive husbands. The connection began in 1470 when she bore Alexander four children who he openly acknowledged: Giovanni, who later became Duke of Gandia (1474), Cesare (1476), Lucrezia (1480) and Goffredo (Giuffre) (circa 1481). Three other children, Girolama, Isabella and Pedro-Luiz, were of āuncertain parentageā. His son Bernardo, by Vittoria SailĆ³r dei Venezia in 1469, is much less known because his father kept him in hiding. That was probably due to shame because he was a cardinal who wished to become Pope. He gave up hiding his many children after he fathered four more. However, Bernardo received the least attention of his siblings. Before his elevation to Pope, Borgia's passion for Vannozza somewhat dimmed, thus she led a very retired life henceforth. Her place was filled by the beautiful Giulia Farnese, wife of an Orsini, but his love for his children by Vannozza remained as strong as ever. It proved to be the determining factor in his whole career. He spent vast sums of money on them and furnished them with every honour. His daughter Lucrezia, probably the most famous member of the Borgia family, lived with his mistress Giulia, who bore him a daughter, Laura, in 1492. Alexander is an ancestor of virtually ALL royal houses of Europe (including the British ones from three or four dynastic roots) and directly for being the ancestor of Dona Luisa de GuzmĆ”n, wife of the king JoĆ£o IV de Portugal, of the House of Braganza and thus direct ancestor of the entire dynasty. When he died there was said to be a retinue of over 100 children sired by him, several active mistresses and (wait for it) several of his male youth lovers.
Those are just two out of several 'exemplar' popes on whom the modern moral values are clearly not based.
More recently there is the child sexual abuse business worldwide and the failure to defrock a couple of cardinals sitting comfortably in the Holy See for their role including one who apparently could not keep his mitts off children.
So, for the church to not be in favour of everything in the light of their own history... Well, choose one of several words.
Jane,
In Ireland (since we are on the subject of Irish marriage) the church provides canon law, which is not worth anything legally. Anyone in Ireland marrying in a Church, signs the registry and the legal paperwork is completed and sent into the registry office, to make the marriage legal. It's basically a 2in1 service.
Of course a couple can have a blessing, or be married in a church, and not have it legalised at all. That is their right.
But a church marriage is not a legal marriage. A legal marriage is not a religious marriage - my belief is that they are mutually exclusive.
I got married in a hotel in Ireland 6 years ago, but a registrar is necessary by law, and he/she conducts the service and looks after the legal paperwork. This is now a welcome alternative to going to the registry office. But everything ends up back at the registry of births, deaths and marriages. Including church services. The couple signs the registry but the priest sends in the paperwork to the registry for the legal side of things.
I had to then pop along to the office and pay to get a copy of my cert - basically a printout, and for two years I actually had no piece of paper (until needed).
In Ireland, I have never heard of a member of staff administering the service and doing the paperwork, unless they were working with the state also (highly unlikely).
very true, imagine the things they'd be voting for.
Yes I agree that voting on issues that are current, like which political party should be in power could be restricted to those resident, or tax resident at least.
But referendums that are changing aspects of the constitution that affect us all, and our family's and friends' futures, should be open further afield.
Now, having said that, voting in a political party can have long lasting affects. The two pups of my time, CH and BA have truly wreaked havoc in their wake, for decades to come.
It's a debate alright. Maybe a limit of 2 years or 5 years would be good, 0 being obviously too little and 15 being a bit much.
Jane, in England and Wales a copy of the marriage certificate is passed on to the Registry of Births, etc to be put on the actual Register. I think it is the same or similar in Scotland and N Ireland, but it is not only CoE. All 'established' churches are able to do it in as far as they are registered to register at each establishment. There are other places such as posh hotels where people have overpriced, exorbitant and unnecessarily showy weddings that have been extended the same facility as long as either one of the staff is nominated and trained to administer the registration or a registrar is called in. At least, and here I might cross the water, whilst I think that is just showing off, if any of my wealthier gay friends does one of those big shows I might well go.
The next little hurdle to be overcome in Ireland is prenuptial agreements. Currently they are not valid for marriages conducted in the State. There's legislation in preparation to legalise them but the Church is not in favour as marriage is for life.
Certainly applies to a greater extent in the UK since the change in law in Engaged and Wales and more recently in Scotland have changed that (but not N Ireland thus far) so it should, once the legal dust has settled, apply for you folk too and quite right.
Veronique, Ministers of the Church of England issue you with the marriage certificate, there is no need for any form of civil marriage. This is because the C of E is the established church.
Uk law is different in each country of the Kingdom I think.
Motor bike in years gone by (perhaps still), very common family name and knee high to a grasshopper (smaller than me!!) and shares a name as you almost said? Then it is the same, but then there are plenty of them really and why not?
I think the big difference is I've an address in Dublin and I still spend two or three months there a year, so I'm still on the electoral register. I've watched the debate here on folk having a vote in the UK and the fifteen year rule and perhaps needing a dedicated MP to represent expats. I'm not so sure voting from abroad would work for Ireland because of the number of Irish expats. You could have more expats than residents voting which wouldn't really work.
Veronique,
I assume you are referring specifically to French Law when you are referring to wills, inheritance etc?
Just to add to what Brian said: if you are married you can arrange for your (often joint) possessions to pass to the other half of the couple with a minimum of red tape/tax/interference when you die, & if you haven't made a will the law does it for you - if you are simply living together or pacsed that isn't the case, the surviving partner has almost no rights because of how the Code Civil works. Marriage is a civil contract, it should be possible for anyone who so desires to enter into it, legalising gay marriage is a recognition of what actually happens in society and making a situation fair, it's not just a sentimental thing. Re marriage in church - in the UK ministers of whichever recognised religion are also registrars but it is the civil marriage which counts - I think there should be separation of church and state as we have it here in France and then it would be less ambiguous. I too have a N London gay vicar friend Brian, I wonder if it is the same one?
I heard on the news that the Archbishop of Dublin has now realised that the RC Church is out of touch with its younger members.
Its older ones too, but it is still keeping its head in the sand about that it seems.
This is for Shirley especially, but otherwise just general. Marriage is actually a civil legal arrangement. Even in countries where people must be married religiously, civil registration is required if (for instance) a couple wish or need to be recognised as married for such reasons as inheritance, especially in another country, or for the 'legitimacy' (horrible term I would prefer to see gone) of their children.
Religious marriage has become the 'add on' in effect. In the majority of nominally Christian countries nobody is obliged to have a church wedding and very few countries have the situation in which a minister of a church also keeps a registry to officially record and register marriages. Thus, it is broadly speaking no more than a ritual that many people use as a status event, often to show how much money they have to throw at it, or because of believing family members who pressure them to do it. It is, in European society especially, in decline.
Historically, until the time of registration arrived, the fact of the matter is that more couples lived together than could afford to pay their priest to marry them. There are no confirmed statistics but in many places it is calculated that up to 80% of people were considered married but never actually had any kind of official or ceremonial union. That includes the most devout Catholic countries where, ironically, it was far more expensive than for Protestants. Indeed, the notion of children 'out of union' to use the original terminology was known but seldom used. It is only the way we read history today that draws attention to royal and aristocratic bastards as it does, in fact it was a hardly significant word that was merely descriptive and hardly derogatory in its time.
So, same sex marriage, well so what. I used to know a North London vicar through one of the organisations I worked with who was, among other controversial things, gay. He blessed same sex relationships well before they were recognised and I imagine that once civil partnerships became possible he did blessings for the many gay Christians and/or others who wanted the ritual. The step on to a marriage is simply a small one.
So, there we go. Ireland has joined a few other countries worldwide, will now have gone in my lifetime from a country I had friends who left not for the work in the UK but to get away from bigotry and religious intolerance to one that has opened up and is now a proudly secular nation. The extent of child abuse in Ireland has touched my own work, that is slowly being worked through and the truth coming out bit by bit. Now the people of Ireland have made a decisive step toward being part of a modern liberal, democratic society not under the thumb of a hegemony but still allowing those who believe and practise their religion to do so without bias. It is now a 'grown up' country unlike too many others. Now it simply needs the old men in Rome to see the writing on the wall and change their litany of threats of condemnation to eternal hell fires (as if they are exempt!!!!) for what they decide is wrong and let all of Catholic society make choices rather than be under that threat. For priests it is a matter of conscience and belief, fair enough, but for those who are willing to carry out marriages of same sex Christians, the Vatican's shackles should now be removed and then whole matter consigned to part of normal life and its place in history.