Civil weddings, religous questions

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Kiwi in IE

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

Pherekydes

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

NamelessPhil

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

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

lazygal

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

Benny_Cake

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

Pherekydes

lazygal wrote: »

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

Yep, this was my experience.

magicbastarder

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

Cabaal

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

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder

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

Shrap

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

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

wokingvoter

Fred Swanson wrote: »

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

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

It's a legal requirement.

lazygal

wokingvoter wrote: »

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

It's a legal requirement.

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

lazygal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

Shrap

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

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

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

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

wokingvoter

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

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

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

lazygal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

magicbastarder

lazygal wrote: »

I wouldn't say Grand Canal is particularly nice.

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

lazygal

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

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

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder

lazygal wrote: »

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

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

lazygal

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

Benny_Cake

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

lazygal

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

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.