Ship of Fools: Church, state, and marriage

Thread: Church, state, and marriage Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023071

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Who sets the rules for marriage in your church -- your church, or the state?

If a marriage would be acceptable in your church, but the state forbids it (say, because of the specific degree of consanguinity), would your church perform the marriage?

If a couple's marriage is legal, but the church forbids it (say, because of divorce, or because one of the parties is a Buddhist), does your church recognize them and treat them as a married couple? Or are they considered to be living in sin?

If a couple has been married by the state, but not by any church, does your church recognize that marriage? If such a couple wants to join your church, are they required to be married in the church as part of joining your church?

If a couple is living together without having been married by the state or by the church, but they are raising children together, buying a house together, and otherwise living together in a manner that is very much like marriage, are they treated the same way as they would have been treated had they been married by the state, or differently? Why?

If a couple living together but not married wants to join the church, do they have to marry before joining the church (or as part of joining)? If so, is the general policy that they must live apart for a while before they marry and can move back in together? Do the same rules apply to people who were married by the state?

If one member of a couple living together but not married wants to join your church, does your church require the person to either marry their partner or end the relationship in order to join the church? If so, and if the partner would be willing to enter into a civil marriage, but not willing to be married in the church (or does not qualify to be married in your church and is unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to qualify), would the civil marriage be enough?

If a family consisted of a husband and three wives, and they live in an area where polygamy is legal, and they all wanted to join the church, what would be required of the family? If such a family wanted to join the church, but they live in an area where polygamy is not legal, what would be required?

[ 16. May 2012, 08:44: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Non-Anglican churches in England need a licence and an official from the state (registrar) to conduct marriages.

It would not be legal to conduct marriages outwith of the law and I don't know any church that would risk doing marriages which were outwith of the state system.

I'm trying to think what evangelical churches would think of your other questions. I believe they would recognise dual-gender marriages conducted by the state of other religious people - though to be honest I don't know that they would spend very long thinking about it. For many a marriage which was not conducted 'before God' would be an inferior sort of marriage.

I can't think of any evangelical church which would require remarriage in the church as a requirement of membership, but those who are not married would need to be before being offered membership. I think this is pretty odd given they're likely to see the state marriage as valid.

I don't know what would happen regarding time apart before being accepted for membership. I suspect they'd just be encouraged to get married as quickly as possible.

If a single partner wanted to join the church, I think it would be encouraged that they get married, although I think people would accept this was a difficult situation if the other party refused. I can't see many churches requiring the breakup of a marriage for membership - but then I can also see many churches refusing membership for such a person. In one evangelical church I knew, divorced people were refused membership forever. Just couldn't be members. I don't know how widespread that would be.

I don't know what would happen to a polygamist.

[ 15. May 2012, 15:45: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Thinking some more, I suspect most evangelical churches would assume the first wife was the 'real' one and the others were long-term affairs. I guess they'd therefore need to see the situation trimmed down to a one-man-one-woman marriage, some serious public apology for the lifestyle and pretty quick changes before offering membership. Again, membership might not be offered at all, ever.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

A story on this subject from Slacktivist:

quote:
Pennsylvania wouldn’t certify a marriage license until Tennessee certified a birth certificate, and getting Tennessee to do that while we were in Pennsylvania was proving tricky.

Six weeks before the wedding we still didn’t have a marriage license. Our good friend Father Bert — the Episcopal priest who was to perform the ceremony — was getting worried.

“We may have to postpone the wedding,” he said.

“Don’t be silly,” I told him. The invitations had been mailed, relatives had made plans, and we’d already scheduled vacation time for the honeymoon. “Who cares about a little paperwork?”

“But without a marriage license, your marriage isn’t legal,” he said. “You can’t go on your honeymoon if the marriage isn’t legal.”

Just a short time before we’d sat with Father Bert as he explained to us about the sacrament of marriage. Now he was saying that he could only administer this holy sacrament of the church if he had written permission from the county clerk’s office.

“Who cares about the license?” I said. “That’s just for, like, taxes and stuff. We can get all that sorted out later if we need to, after we get back from the honeymoon.”

My friend looked at me like I had three heads. It took us quite a while to understand one another. Eventually I said this, “You’re going to pronounce us married in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit — do you really think that doesn’t matter unless you add the name of Gov. Casey?”

He wasn’t persuaded. There were rules and he wasn’t allowed to break them.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

An area where this kind of paperwork issue comes up is U.S. immigration law. Given that many jurisdictions have restricted the access undocumented immigrants have to the apparatus of the state (including the issuing of marriage licenses), do churches in these juridictions have to refuse to marry couples where one or both are in the U.S. illegally? If so, doesn't that mean that the state has added a de facto 'immigration status' requirement to the ritual standards of the church?

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

In the CofE the priest is acting as a registrar on behalf of the state. So they would be unable to conduct a wedding that was against the rules of the state. So in England a church is unable to carry out a wedding without a state registrar and so cannot perform a wedding that is against government rules.
They can of course carry our any number of ‘marriage’ blessings as their church rules allow (CofE rules would not allow a blessing of a civil union/same sex relationship, for example) but they would never be legal marriages in the eyes of the state, even if they were in the eyes of the church.

The CofE also treats a civil marriage in the same way as it does a religious one.

By and large these days, it only worries about the mariatal status of the man-in-the-pew if they want to go forward for soem sort of licensed office

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Who sets the rules for marriage in your church -- your church, or the state?

Both. They sometimes clash, but rarely (us being the Church of England)

quote:

If a marriage would be acceptable in your church, but the state forbids it (say, because of the specific degree of consanguinity), would your church perform the marriage?

No. Though there might be exceptions around illegal immigration.

quote:

If a couple's marriage is legal, but the church forbids it (say, because of divorce, or because one of the parties is a Buddhist), does your church recognize them and treat them as a married couple? Or are they considered to be living in sin?

The CofE would recognise the marriage of a Christian to a Buddhist anyway - and would perform such a wedding in church, or indeed a wedding between two non-Christians. The ministers of the ceremony are the couple, they are the ones making the promises, and if they feel able and willing to do that then the CofE won't stop them.

Strictly speaking we don't marry them. They marry each other. We're just witnesses and friends. We don't make it happen.

Some vicars will object to celebrating the wedding of a divorced person. That still causes trouble, though far less than even twenty or thirty years ago.

quote:

If a couple has been married by the state, but not by any church, does your church recognize that marriage?

Yes

quote:

If such a couple wants to join your church, are they required to be married in the church as part of joining your church?

quote:

If a couple is living together without having been married by the state or by the church, but they are raising children together, buying a house together, and otherwise living together in a manner that is very much like marriage, are they treated the same way as they would have been treated had they been married by the state, or differently? Why?

Differently. They would be encouraged to marry. The strength of the encouragement would depend on the priest involved. These days most CofE priests would likely be glad that they were together and that they wanted to come to church, and put little if any pressure on them. Some would though.

We wouldn't ordain them though. Strictly speaking we ought not to appoint them to any office in the church at all, but to be honest I suspect that no-one would much worry about making them a churchwarden. Come to think of it I know unmarried parents who have been churchwardens. I have no idea whether they would be excluded from being Readers (in Southwark, I guess probably not, other dicoceses might have firmer views)

quote:

If a couple living together but not married wants to join the church, do they have to marry before joining the church (or as part of joining)?

In practice very little is likely to be said. We have often baptised the children of unmarried couples, and some of them were regular member sof the congregation.

quote:

If so, is the general policy that they must live apart for a while before they marry and can move back in together?

No. Though I have known that to happen. One woman in our parish confessed publically before the congregation that she had sinned by living with her boyfriend unmarried (yes, in Britain, in London, in the 1990s - we evangelicals are funny folk) and said that they would remain apart until their wedding.

Something of "don't ask, don't tell" applies, and has applied for a long time. The truth is that has been quite normal for couples intending to get married to have sex with each other in England for centuries. But apart from odd episodes of rampant enthusiasm, there are surprisingly few early modern historical records of public condemnations and excommunications. For the most part people politely looked the other way and were grateful for the wedding when it came.

quote:

Do the same rules apply to people who were married by the state?

No rules about that at all, its treated the same as any other marriage.

quote:

If one member of a couple living together but not married wants to join your church, does your church require the person to either marry their partner or end the relationship in order to join the church?

No. Again, they would likely be encouraged to marry. The details would vary between parishes.

We have had a great many single parents in our congregation, almost all women. Not all are divorced or abandoned. Presumably there are men out there somewhere who are the fathers of those children. I can't remember anyone every being criticised or disadvantaged because of not being married.

quote:

If so, and if the partner would be willing to enter into a civil marriage, but not willing to be married in the church (or does not qualify to be married in your church and is unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to qualify), would the civil marriage be enough?

Yes. Marriage is not the property of the church, or the state. It existed before either. We recognise marriages celebrated by other states than our own, and other religions than or own, if they come within the rules of what we see as a valid marriage (basically that its a man and a woman, neither married to anyone else, and they consent freely)

quote:

If a family consisted of a husband and three wives, and they live in an area where polygamy is legal, and they all wanted to join the church, what would be required of the family?

I've seen this in Kenya. As usual its more likely that the women would want to join the church than the man. Turning up on their own, or with their children. I think they they would be accepted. We're not in the business of turning people away. The position of the man is different. He might very well come under a lot of criticism, and depending on how firebrand the preacher is, could be excluded from church - there I mean, not here in England, I've never seen this in England.

The official position of the Anglicans in East Africa towards polygamy changed in colonial times. At one point they would refuse to recognise polygamous marriages at all, treat them as void. They changed that because it led to injustice to wives. What they were worried about was a rich man (and of course its only rich men who can afford more than one wife) marrying a new young wife in church, or in a civil ceremony, and repudiating his previous marriages to older women as void. Or getting rid of wives from a poor family and only recognising the well-connected ones. So sometimes the rules got used to exclude less favoured wives and their children from inheritance (cf. Genesis, passim)

So they moved towards recognising the marriage, even while disapproving of it. They wouldn't celebrate polygamous weddings in church though, and wouldn't appoint a husband of more than one wife to any office in the church. That was some time ago. I'm not sure what the position is now.

quote:

If such a family wanted to join the church, but they live in an area where polygamy is not legal, what would be required?

No idea. I've never seen it happen here. This being England, I suspect that if they kept quiet about their home life no-one would notice. Or they would try hard not to. Just as no-one officially noticed all the lesbians in church for the last century or two. The Church of England is quite good at toleration. Though it often consists of pretending to look the other way when people do things we are supposed to disapprove of, so that we can plausibly deny that we saw them.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Non-Anglican churches in England need a licence and an official from the state (registrar) to conduct marriages.

It would not be legal to conduct marriages outwith of the law and I don't know any church that would risk doing marriages which were outwith of the state system.

I'm trying to think what evangelical churches would think of your other questions. I believe they would recognise dual-gender marriages conducted by the state of other religious people - though to be honest I don't know that they would spend very long thinking about it. For many a marriage which was not conducted 'before God' would be an inferior sort of marriage.

I can't think of any evangelical church which would require remarriage in the church as a requirement of membership, but those who are not married would need to be before being offered membership. I think this is pretty odd given they're likely to see the state marriage as valid.

I don't know what would happen regarding time apart before being accepted for membership. I suspect they'd just be encouraged to get married as quickly as possible.

If a single partner wanted to join the church, I think it would be encouraged that they get married, although I think people would accept this was a difficult situation if the other party refused. I can't see many churches requiring the breakup of a marriage for membership - but then I can also see many churches refusing membership for such a person. In one evangelical church I knew, divorced people were refused membership forever. Just couldn't be members. I don't know how widespread that would be.

I don't know what would happen to a polygamist.

Yep, I'd go along with all that with one addition - secular marriage + church blessing = Holy Matrimony

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Until recently I was a Methodist church steward. My fellow church steward was a woman who'd been cohabiting with a man for a long time and had two teenaged children with him. (At least, I have no reason to think they weren't his children.) Her partner often attended church.

I don't know why they never married, and from a Methodist point of view it would be entirely inappropriate for me to ask. I'm sure our minister knew about it, but made no indication that it was a problem for her to hold a post in the church. (Indeed, she was rushed into the job not long after joining!)

Methodists tend to avoid conflict even more than the CofE, and are even more tolerant of 'marital irregularities';at least until recently, most of the couples we've married have been divorcees who couldn't get married in the CofE!

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

"ken
Differently. They would be encouraged to marry. The strength of the encouragement would depend on the priest involved. These days most CofE priests would likely be glad that they were together and that they wanted to come to church, and put little if any pressure on them. Some would though.

We wouldn't ordain them though. Strictly speaking we ought not to appoint them to any office in the church at all, but to be honest I suspect that no-one would much worry about making them a churchwarden. Come to think of it I know unmarried parents who have been churchwardens. I have no idea whether they would be excluded from being Readers (in Southwark, I guess probably not, other dicoceses might have firmer views)"

Yes they are excluded from being readers, I know somebody that it happened too. She was progressing along the reader route when her church realised she and long term partner were not married. She was told that she would not be allowed to go any further forward, while still unmarried but openly living with somebody.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Zacchaeus

How did she take that news? Not very well, I imagine.

It must be rather embarrassing to get so far in your biblical studies and to plan to preach the gospel to others without realising that your church (like most of the others) prioritises marriage over other types of romantic union. Of course, you might disagree with that position, but not to be aware of it at all sugggests that there's been a serious gap in your religious education. But it's inevitable that this sort of thing will sometimes happen in denominations that neglect to discuss this issue for fear of causing offence

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :

Ken's experience is similar to mine. I wonder if, as this will change as the definition of marriage is reconsidered in the uk. Personally I would be quite happy to go with a seperate system, such that marriage was registered for legal purposes solely by the state registrar (not vicar) and church blessings being carried out for those that want them. To be honest I'd prefer this simply because the people I hear talking about their marriages at the school gate tlk about them as a pretty dress, a party and a massive bll, which changes nothing. The promises are just something you do to get that experience, which don't really need to be taken seriously. I don't want to be a part of that.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Possibly a stupid question..

The CofE seems to be able to affirm gay Civil Partnerships (or I assume so - given that some clergy are clearly in them). Does this mean that two gay people living together would be expected to become gay civilised (sigh, why can't we just call it marriage and be done with it? [Frown]

) in the same way before taking a role in the CofE?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The long ranger

I understand that all Anglican gay couples, whether in civil unions/marriages or not, are in theory expected by the CofE to be celibate. So it's not a case of the church urging 'unmarried' gay couples to get married and stop 'living in sin'.

This does raise an irony though - if heterosexual cohabitation is more or less acceptable to the church (as implied on this thread), this suggests that heterosexual marriage is declining in overall importance. Meanwhile, gay Anglican couples are arguing for their cohabitation arrangements to be 'upgraded' to marriage. So it would seem that same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage are potentially moving in opposite directions, at least from an Anglican point of view.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Zacchaeus

How did she take that news? Not very well, I imagine.

It must be rather embarrassing to get so far in your biblical studies and to plan to preach the gospel to others without realising that your church (like most of the others) prioritises marriage over other types of romantic union. Of course, you might disagree with that position, but not to be aware of it at all sugggests that there's been a serious gap in your religious education. But it's inevitable that this sort of thing will sometimes happen in denominations that neglect to discuss this issue for fear of causing offence

She was very unhappy - to clarify she hadn't started formal training, as marital status is enquired of as part of it. It was the discussions and recomendations point of her local church that it came to light.

It just happens in life when you meet a couple you don't actually think to ask 'are you married.'

Interestingly after many years they have now got married - but she has not picked up the reader idea again.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

The CofE as institution does not affrim Civil unions, nor are the clergy allowed to bless or be involved in any form of service around gay relationships.

Of ourse as indivuals they may have their own ideas and the institution will have had to accept the legal standing of them.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Mmm.. but one could be living with someone of the same gender and it not be a problem with regard to holding office in the CofE (unlike being someone who is in a non-married mixed gender relationship)?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
If a marriage would be acceptable in your church, but the state forbids it (say, because of the specific degree of consanguinity), would your church perform the marriage?

I doubt it. (See below)

quote:
If a couple's marriage is legal, but the church forbids it (say, because of divorce, or because one of the parties is a Buddhist), does your church recognize them and treat them as a married couple? Or are they considered to be living in sin?

A legally married couple is a married couple as far we are concerned. Should they have the marriage blessed? Yes

quote:
If a couple has been married by the state, but not by any church, does your church recognize that marriage? If such a couple wants to join your church, are they required to be married in the church as part of joining your church?

Yes
No

quote:
If a couple living together but not married wants to join the church, do they have to marry before joining the church (or as part of joining)? If so, is the general policy that they must live apart for a while before they marry and can move back in together? Do the same rules apply to people who were married by the state?

No, they don't have to marry before joining the Church. I know of priests who refuse to marry couples living together unless they promise to stop having sex before marriage. Silly policy I think. No way to enforce it. Marry the couple and then they want be having sex outside of marriage.

quote:
If one member of a couple living together but not married wants to join your church, does your church require the person to either marry their partner or end the relationship in order to join the church? If so, and if the partner would be willing to enter into a civil marriage, but not willing to be married in the church (or does not qualify to be married in your church and is unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to qualify), would the civil marriage be enough?

Don't need to end the relationship to join the church. Should the couple get married? Yes. Are they living in sin? Yes.

quote:
If a family consisted of a husband and three wives, and they live in an area where polygamy is legal, and they all wanted to join the church, what would be required of the family? If such a family wanted to join the church, but they live in an area where polygamy is not legal, what would be required?

As the bishop of a diocese in the Midwest said a couple of years ago, "The Episcopal Church doesn't stand for much but be draw the line at incest and polygamy."

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Mmm.. but one could be living with someone of the same gender and it not be a problem with regard to holding office in the CofE (unlike being someone who is in a non-married mixed gender relationship)?

Yes it could be - very much. Hence the arguments over Jeffrey John and his sexuality when he was nearly appointed as Bishop of Southwark..

Some people will accept a gay priest, but by and large is back to 'don't ask don't tell'.

Somebody who was in an openly gay relatioship is not going to be accepted for training to the priesthood.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@Zacchaeus, I'm sorry to be difficult, but I wasn't talking about ordination - others were talking about offices such as church warden and reader.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

I would think a big application of the virtue of charity has to be involved in who you will or will not marry. And even in talking about same sex amrriage, marriage w/unbeliever ,or of a divorced person a LOT of discretion &/or common sense has to be brought into the room. [Votive]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Ok being a reader is a licensed public office and has selection processes and 3 year accredited training from the wider church. It is also be publically sanctioned by the diocesan bishop. So the criteria for readreship are stricter than for churchwardens.

Churchwardens are elected by the local community annually and they only critieria for them is that they are a 'fit and proper person' according to charity law. Also that they are church of England communicants.

There election depends on the local people thinking they are acceptible. It is not a public leadership or worhip office and so sexuality may not be an issue - that depends on the views of the local congregation.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In the CofE the priest is acting as a registrar on behalf of the state. So they would be unable to conduct a wedding that was against the rules of the state. So in England a church is unable to carry out a wedding without a state registrar and so cannot perform a wedding that is against government rules.

That's interesting.

Let me make sure I understand, though. If a couple wanted to opt out of the legal institution of marriage, but they wanted a religious marriage, would no church or religious institution in the UK be permitted to perform a wedding that did not involve the state? If, as a matter of conscience, a Christian minister refused to act as an agent of the state, or to allow the state to have any say in what happened inside the doors of the church, would that minister not be able to perform weddings at all?

In the US, of course, the state has no say at all about strictly religious weddings. You get no legal benefits from such a wedding -- but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired.

In the US, most churches, as a matter of policy, won't perform a religious wedding without doing the legal bits, too. But there are a few that refuse to do the legal bits, telling the couple to go do the state's business with the state separately. You're saying that's not possible in the UK, though.

quote:
They can of course carry our any number of ‘marriage’ blessings as their church rules allow (CofE rules would not allow a blessing of a civil union/same sex relationship, for example) but they would never be legal marriages in the eyes of the state, even if they were in the eyes of the church.

Here's where I'm not quite sure I'm understanding you. Can the CoE do the service of the Sacrament of Marriage, but not do the bits that make it a legal marriage in the eyes of the state? Or is there a separate rite or service to bless a relationship where a legal marriage isn't possible?

quote:
The CofE also treats a civil marriage in the same way as it does a religious one.

From what people are saying here, it sounds as though most churches in the US do, too.

Which I find extremely interesting. It's not what I was expecting.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@Josephine - as I understand it, only the state can sanction marriage in England and Wales (not sure of the situation in Scotland). It is not possible to have legal marriages outwith of the state, no.

A minister could presumably declare two people married, but that would have no legal validity without the presence of a registrar.

I think in some churches where there is no building certification, people are married in a state ceremony and subsequently have a religious ceremony - but without the registrar and the witnesses, you're not married.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I think the legal part is using the correct form of words in the oaths and the signing of the register.

I vaguely remember someone got into trouble because people had been married without saying the correct words - and there was a question about whether these people were actually legally married. But I might have made that up.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

It is only in the CofE where the priest is automatically the registrar too. In the past when people marrried in other churches, the couple had to arrange for the civil registrar to be there too. However nowdays there may be a perosn attached to the church who is the registrar for that church, this may or may not be the minister of the church.

I do know of a non CofE couple who had the civil, legal part of their service at the registry office and then the religious part later. This happens as a matter of course in some european countries, you must have the legal bit and then the church bit comes later if you want it.

For the wedding to be legal there are certian words that have to be said in front of the registrar. So in my expereicne a CofE belssing can be very similar to a legal wedding. But without the legal formalities being carried out it will not be a legal wedding.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Josephine
"In the US, of course, the state has no say at all about strictly religious weddings. You get no legal benefits from such a wedding"

Interestingly, I saw a documentary about this in some Muslim communities in England, apparently this is happening in their communities. They have their religious service and consider that the binding marriage and some of them did not even realise that it wasn’t a legally binding marriage in the eyes of the state.

"but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired"

That is interesting why would that be?

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think the legal part is using the correct form of words in the oaths and the signing of the register.

There must also be two adult witnesses and before hand the banns of marriage must have been published correctly or the appropriate licenses obtained.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
"but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired"

That is interesting why would that be?

Perhaps the couple have been living together for 25+ years. He wants to marry; she doesn't. He proposes regularly. She regularly declines. Then she develops terminal cancer. They take steps to protect him from the effects of her medical debt -- they don't want him to be homeless as well as alone after she dies. A couple of years down the road, she's in hospice, and may die at any time. And she says she wants to marry him before she dies.

At that point, it might very well take too long to do the paperwork for a legal marriage. And the legal marriage would undo the financial protections they had put in place. But the legal bit isn't what matters. She wants to give him herself, as his wife, to formally accept the love he has always given her as the final act of love that she can give him before she dies. So he buys a ring and arranges for clergy of her faith to come to the hospital that very day, and to perform the service of marriage before she dies.

Or perhaps he and she are both widowed, and have grown children, and they are in a community property state. They do not want to live in sin -- they genuinely want to marry. But they do not want to complicate their childrens' inheritances. They don't even think it's terribly important that they wouldn't be next of kin to each other -- if one or the other of them is hospitalized, their kids are going to be involved anyway. A religious marriage, without the legal bits, would seem to fit their needs.

I'm sure that other scenarios exist where someone might want a religous wedding, but not a legal one.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
"but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired"

That is interesting why would that be?

For some people being married in the eyes of God is a driving consideration while being married in the eyes of Cæsar is a matter of indifference.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Who sets the rules for marriage in your church -- your church, or the state?

If a marriage would be acceptable in your church, but the state forbids it (say, because of the specific degree of consanguinity), would your church perform the marriage?

If a couple's marriage is legal, but the church forbids it (say, because of divorce, or because one of the parties is a Buddhist), does your church recognize them and treat them as a married couple? Or are they considered to be living in sin?

If a couple has been married by the state, but not by any church, does your church recognize that marriage? If such a couple wants to join your church, are they required to be married in the church as part of joining your church?

If a couple is living together without having been married by the state or by the church, but they are raising children together, buying a house together, and otherwise living together in a manner that is very much like marriage, are they treated the same way as they would have been treated had they been married by the state, or differently? Why?

If a couple living together but not married wants to join the church, do they have to marry before joining the church (or as part of joining)? If so, is the general policy that they must live apart for a while before they marry and can move back in together? Do the same rules apply to people who were married by the state?

If one member of a couple living together but not married wants to join your church, does your church require the person to either marry their partner or end the relationship in order to join the church? If so, and if the partner would be willing to enter into a civil marriage, but not willing to be married in the church (or does not qualify to be married in your church and is unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to qualify), would the civil marriage be enough?

If a family consisted of a husband and three wives, and they live in an area where polygamy is legal, and they all wanted to join the church, what would be required of the family? If such a family wanted to join the church, but they live in an area where polygamy is not legal, what would be required?

In the United States, a minister has the power by law to process a a civil marriage, as do most judges, court clerks, and notaries. American law does not (indeed, could not, thanks to the First Amendment) force upon religious ministers the obligation to marry any person who comes before them, regardless of the requirements of that minister's religion.

So, for instance, the law of every state provides a procedure for divorce. It is open to any person, regardless of whether that person is part of a religion which itself forbids divorce or was married in a ceremony performed in a church that forbids divorce. Yet, if a Catholic who was previously married and then divorced by civil authorities comes to a priest and asks him to officiate at a new wedding, the priest has the right to refuse to perform the wedding if it is against the tenets of his church. By contrast, a justice of the peace does not have the right to refuse to perform a wedding under those circumstances, even if he or she is a practicing Catholic.

As for whether a church may perform marriages that would be invalid under state law (for reasons of consanguinity, polygamy, etc.)... no and yes. No, the persons married under the church ceremony would not be recognized as married under the law, and the clergyperson and witnesses would not be able to legally certify that the persons were married. However, under certain limited circumstances, there would be no actual criminal consequences for performing a wedding that was not recognized by law.

For instance, the law does not recognize a marriage between a living person and a departed soul, but, barring necrophilia, there is no practical crime in performing a ceremony and calling it a marriage. Similarly, because laws against adultery and fornication are rarely if ever enforced in the United States, a group of people could, theoretically, engage in some plural marriage ceremony which binds them together in the eyes of their church. It would not have any legal effect in civil courts, but it probably wouldn't violate any laws (at least practically) either for the church to perform that ceremony or for the members of that "marriage" to live out something resembling polygamy.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In the US, of course, the state has no say at all about strictly religious weddings. You get no legal benefits from such a wedding -- but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired.

I had assumed that this was the case in the UK too, but I am open to correction. It's just that we don't get much exposure to it. This stems from our history. The legal status of marriage and the Christian sacrament of Holy Matrimony, despite being two distinct things, have long been conflated in our culture (a) because we have a state church which for most of the past few centuries at least has by far held the majority of our religious affiliation, so there has been a close link between church and state, and (b) because this state church has a low sacramental view of Holy Matrimony, and would have no qualms about recognising for Christian purposes a civil wedding performed by a registrar in a register office.

Combined, these facts have the result that, in our culture, unless they confess a form of Christianity that has a very high sacramental view of Matrimony or else they belong to another religion that emphasises its own form of marriage as something distinct from the legal ceremony/arrangement, most people just don't conceive of any difference between a religious marriage and a legal marriage. The concept would seem alien to them and any suggestion of it would likely elicit a response of confusion.

Within churches that hold to a high sacramental view of marriage, on the other hand, it is not uncommon for couples to be legally married in a register office, and come to the Church for their Christian wedding on a separate occasion. They recognise that what happens in a register office is not the Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that in the eyes of the Church, a couple who have taken on that new legal status, while they may receive the legal benefits that it brings, are no more married than the Owl and the Pussy Cat. I know of a number of Orthodox couples who have done this. They only had the minimum required number of witnesses at the register office, and for them it was simply a formality for the legal benefits of marriage but the big event to which friends and family were invited was the Church wedding, and it is on this date that they celebrate their anniversary.

However, I have been to other Orthodox weddings which have had a registrar present at the Church wedding, which has been slightly modified to satisfy the law. I had assumed that this inclusion of the legal wedding within the church wedding, and also the fact that I have never known an Orthodox wedding to take place prior to the legal wedding but always either at the same time or some time afterwards, was to avoid social confusion and potential irregularity, given the deep-seated cultural understanding that I mentioned earlier. However, with other people's responses, I now wonder whether there may be some legal reason.

I find it difficult to imagine, though, that this could be the case. If a minister of religion is not purporting to be performing any sort of legal ceremony, then what right does the law have to interfere in the sacramental worship of a church?

This, incidentally, is why the indifference expressed in conversations with some (though by no means all) of the most traditionally-minded Orthodox people about recent proposals in the UK for the recognition of same-sex legal marriages may surprise some people. As far as some are concerned, this doesn't affect them or their church but is a legal matter to do with tax, inheritance rights, and so forth, and they're just not going to go into anaphylactic shock about it. A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.

[ 15. May 2012, 22:47: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Ok being a reader is a licensed public office and has selection processes and 3 year accredited training from the wider church. It is also be publically sanctioned by the diocesan bishop. So the criteria for readreship are stricter than for churchwardens.

Indeed. Because in my old church, we went through the whole formal announcement and period for people to object to the proposed appointment of a reader, and object they did - on the grounds he was in a gay relationship.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Within churches that hold to a high sacramental view of marriage, on the other hand, it is not uncommon for couples to be legally married in a register office, and come to the Church for their Christian wedding on a separate occasion. They recognise that what happens in a register office is not the Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that in the eyes of the Church, a couple who have taken on that new legal status, while they may receive the legal benefits that it brings, are no more married than the Owl and the Pussy Cat. I know of a number of Orthodox couples who have done this. They only had the minimum required number of witnesses at the register office, and for them it was simply a formality for the legal benefits of marriage but the big event to which friends and family were invited was the Church wedding, and it is on this date that they celebrate their anniversary

I believe the claim by the church that there is a 'Christian Sacrament of marriage' that is different from the state one is an unjustified one. AFAIKS, marriage is a creation ordinance, given by God to all, and nothing to do with the church as such; we are acting as priests of the creator God - not presbyters of the Church - when we bless such marriages. This enables me to welcome non-Christians (i.e. unbaptised people) to my church to get married - they are asking for God's blessing on their marriage, which God invented and makes available to them. It's in that context that the church should be getting concerned at the state trying to pretend that it has the right to redefine what God has laid down.

On the issue of polygamy, it's my understanding that the Episcopalians turned up at one of the Lambeth conferences suggesting that they would turn a blind eye to that issue in Africa if the Africans would ignore gay relationships in the USA... I think Ken's right about the present African policy: no further women to be added to the family, but respect the condition of the family when they do join the church. Again this derives from the idea that marriage is a creation ordinance, and polygamy, whilst not the ideal, is not so wrong as to be needing to be repented of.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
In the United States, a minister has the power by law to process a a civil marriage, as do most judges, court clerks, and notaries. American law does not (indeed, could not, thanks to the First Amendment) force upon religious ministers the obligation to marry any person who comes before them, regardless of the requirements of that minister's religion.

The accuracy of this statement depends on what you mean by "process". Most American states consider clergy to be legitimate witnesses to the signing of the state-issued marriage license which makes a marriage legal in the U.S. Clergy cannot, absent such a license, perform, process or in any other way create a legally binding marriage.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.

Now I'm wondering which churches don't see any space between a legal marriage and a Christian marriage.

I understand that the CoE doesn't, and given their history, I understand why.

The Orthodox and Catholic churches see them as two distinct things, and either one can exist without the other. (At least, I think the Catholics see it that way. I'm open to correction.)

I think the very conservative churches that do not recognize the marriage of divorced persons must see them as two distinct things.

But apparently many churches see them as exactly the same thing. I didn't realize that. But it would explain why some churches want to be able to set the rules for the State -- because they have allowed the State to set the rules for the church.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Within churches that hold to a high sacramental view of marriage, on the other hand, it is not uncommon for couples to be legally married in a register office, and come to the Church for their Christian wedding on a separate occasion. They recognise that what happens in a register office is not the Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that in the eyes of the Church, a couple who have taken on that new legal status, while they may receive the legal benefits that it brings, are no more married than the Owl and the Pussy Cat. I know of a number of Orthodox couples who have done this. They only had the minimum required number of witnesses at the register office, and for them it was simply a formality for the legal benefits of marriage but the big event to which friends and family were invited was the Church wedding, and it is on this date that they celebrate their anniversary
I believe the claim by the church that there is a 'Christian Sacrament of marriage' that is different from the state one is an unjustified one. AFAIKS, marriage is a creation ordinance, given by God to all, and nothing to do with the church as such; we are acting as priests of the creator God - not presbyters of the Church - when we bless such marriages. This enables me to welcome non-Christians (i.e. unbaptised people) to my church to get married - they are asking for God's blessing on their marriage, which God invented and makes available to them. It's in that context that the church should be getting concerned at the state trying to pretend that it has the right to redefine what God has laid down.

I don't think that you and I disagree that much about the place of Matrimony in creation but rather about the place of the Church in relation to that. From an Orthodox perspective, at least, God's saving work is for the redemption of the whole of creation, and there can be no real distinction drawn beteween priests of God's Church and priest's of God's creation. The former exists for the redemption of the latter. Dr Margaret Barker's work on Temple Theology touches on this. She really is quite an amazing lady in more ways than one, but I digress.

Anyway, I only really wanted to say that I think we agree on marriage as a creation ordinance but that the healing and drawing of creation to its fullness and especially mankind into the likeness of God happens through the life in Christ, in the Church, and marriage is no exception to this.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.
Now I'm wondering which churches don't see any space between a legal marriage and a Christian marriage.

...

apparently many churches see them as exactly the same thing. I didn't realize that. But it would explain why some churches want to be able to set the rules for the State -- because they have allowed the State to set the rules for the church.

I think you're exactly right, Josephine.

As far as which churches distinguish between the two and which do not, I'm not entirely sure. As you say, the Orthodox and Catholic churches do and the Church of England does not. Perhaps its "continuing" offshoots also do not - I'm uncertain.

I strongly suspect that, in the UK, the equivalent to what I think our American friends would call the mainline churches would not distinguish between the two. To do so would seem to run contrary to their general approach. There is often a strong focus on inclusiveness and acceptance in these churches - a good focus in itself - but which sometimes seems to supersede other things, such as the need to correct what is unhealthful. I cannot see them saying to a couple married in a register office that they need to be married in church, and think that they would instead adopt the less confrontational policy of recognising the civil marriage as Christian.

Without direct knowledge myself, and welcoming input from members of these churches, you may also find that, for the purposes of marriage, they have adopted the Latin approach of identifying specific "ministers of the sacrament" for marriage (something I'm guessing they do not explicitly do for other sacramental rites), because in this instance, identifying the ministers as the bride and bridegroom allows for (but does not necessitate - see the RC approach) acceptance of marriage outside of church as Christian Marriage.

Interestingly, these seem to be the same churches that would not try to influence the state on the matter. So who knows?

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
"but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired"

That is interesting why would that be?
For some people being married in the eyes of God is a driving consideration while being married in the eyes of Cæsar is a matter of indifference.

Yes but most people who are in a permanant relationship would want to be the one who is considered as the legal next of kin.

For example, they would want be the one who was consulted about the turning off a life support machine. Without the legal marriage this is not the case.
I can see from what geraldine says there may be people who don't mind about the legal bits, but by and large most people would want to be the one that was to be consulted about their loved ones life.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.
Now I'm wondering which churches don't see any space between a legal marriage and a Christian marriage.

I understand that the CoE doesn't, and given their history, I understand why.

The Orthodox and Catholic churches see them as two distinct things, and either one can exist without the other. (At least, I think the Catholics see it that way. I'm open to correction.)

I think the very conservative churches that do not recognize the marriage of divorced persons must see them as two distinct things.

But apparently many churches see them as exactly the same thing. I didn't realize that. But it would explain why some churches want to be able to set the rules for the State -- because they have allowed the State to set the rules for the church.

Well, I expect there's a great deal of intertwined history on both sides here, because the attitude of the State towards Church marriage varies from country to country, as well as the Church attitude towards State marriage.

In many countries, the State doesn't recognise a religious marriage at all (much of continental Europe for example). Which would more or less force a Church to consider its own marriage ceremony as separate even if it wanted to consider them as the same.

[ 16. May 2012, 07:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes but most people who are in a permanant relationship would want to be the one who is considered as the legal next of kin.

For example, they would want be the one who was consulted about the turning off a life support machine. Without the legal marriage this is not the case.
I can see from what geraldine says there may be people who don't mind about the legal bits, but by and large most people would want to be the one that was to be consulted about their loved ones life.

Sorry for the tangent, but could a medical shipmate comment, please? I have been admitted to hospital several times in the past couple of years and I have given my partner of 22 years as my next of kin with absolutely no problem/comment from the person filling in the admission documentation. Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin? How would the hospital know to consult her about life support etc?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I don't think that you and I disagree that much about the place of Matrimony in creation but rather about the place of the Church in relation to that. From an Orthodox perspective, at least, God's saving work is for the redemption of the whole of creation, and there can be no real distinction drawn beteween priests of God's Church and priest's of God's creation. The former exists for the redemption of the latter. Dr Margaret Barker's work on Temple Theology touches on this. She really is quite an amazing lady in more ways than one, but I digress.

Anyway, I only really wanted to say that I think we agree on marriage as a creation ordinance but that the healing and drawing of creation to its fullness and especially mankind into the likeness of God happens through the life in Christ, in the Church, and marriage is no exception to this.

I really don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying that a 'Christian marriage' is the same thing as a 'secular' one, or not? In Roman Catholic there does appear to be a difference, to the point where a Catholic can freely divorce from a marriage that wasn't done by a Roman priest. This to me is an abomination. AFAICS, having a 'church wedding' makes no ontological difference - though it might be more 'blessed' by God in some sense.

For the record, where Orthodoxy is the established religion (i.e. Greece) the church has to follow what the state says about divorcees, being required to remarry anyone who has a state divorce. This is not one of Constantine's more helpful legacies.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In the Netherlands, the church isn't allowed to marry people, only to give its blessing to a (civil) marriage. Usually, the written liturgy sheet will call it something like "Service to ask God's blessing for the marriage of ... and ..."

Officially, the preacher should even ask for the civil wedding certificate of the couple before (s)he's allowed to hold such a cerimony, although in practice this is seldom asked for.

The Netherlands have been recognising gay marriages for over 10 years now. It depends a bit on the congregation whether they'll hold a cerimony for a gay couple. I guess a significant number of mainstream congregations within the PKN had conversations about this within the community, and they will. But that took a couple of years.

Services for second or third marriages after a divorce are usually not a problem, save in very orthodox (small o) congregations.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Morlader:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes but most people who are in a permanant relationship would want to be the one who is considered as the legal next of kin.

For example, they would want be the one who was consulted about the turning off a life support machine. Without the legal marriage this is not the case.
I can see from what geraldine says there may be people who don't mind about the legal bits, but by and large most people would want to be the one that was to be consulted about their loved ones life.
Sorry for the tangent, but could a medical shipmate comment, please? I have been admitted to hospital several times in the past couple of years and I have given my partner of 22 years as my next of kin with absolutely no problem/comment from the person filling in the admission documentation. Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin? How would the hospital know to consult her about life support etc?

That's a legal question, the answer to which would depend on the law that applies where you are. After all, people end up in hospital for all sorts of reasons and are not always in a position to be able to name a next-of-kin. In the days before civil partnerships in the UK, I recall reading of cases of people being admitted to hospital unconscious and their same-sex partners of many years being refused any access to them in their dying days by next-of-kin, who were blood relations who disapproved of the relationship. As with this case and the case of the lady mentioned by Zacchaeus who wanted to be a reader, we tend to grow so accustomed to our own life situations that we forget that official rules do not always see this as "normal", and it often only comes to light when a situation arises to highlight the discrepancy, bu which point it is often too late.

Living as I do in England, were I in the sort of position you describe (in a relationship of many years but with an undissolved legal marriage to another person), I would perhaps try to regularise the legal situation to reflect the reality of my life, so as to avoid the potential horrors that could arise. However, I recognise that there are all sorts of other factors that may be preventing this, and that it isn't our place here to ask, nor are you under any obligation to share. I would strongly recommend checking out the laws of your country, though.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.

I suspect many of the people who object to 'redefining marriage' are that section of the population that ticks 'Christian' in answer to the question about religion on the census form but never feels the need to darken the doors of a church except when being hatched, matched or dispatched. Certainly a lot of people in my parents' generation would feel this way - they don't go to church themselves but they have very strong views about what the C of E Ought To Do.

[ 16. May 2012, 08:06: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I don't think that you and I disagree that much about the place of Matrimony in creation but rather about the place of the Church in relation to that. From an Orthodox perspective, at least, God's saving work is for the redemption of the whole of creation, and there can be no real distinction drawn beteween priests of God's Church and priest's of God's creation. The former exists for the redemption of the latter. Dr Margaret Barker's work on Temple Theology touches on this. She really is quite an amazing lady in more ways than one, but I digress.

Anyway, I only really wanted to say that I think we agree on marriage as a creation ordinance but that the healing and drawing of creation to its fullness and especially mankind into the likeness of God happens through the life in Christ, in the Church, and marriage is no exception to this.
I really don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying that a 'Christian marriage' is the same thing as a 'secular' one, or not?

I'm saying that it isn't. Civil marriage is a social and legal arrangement. There is nothing wrong with it and I believe it can be and usually is beneficial. However, it is something different from the marriage ordained by God, by which two people become one flesh, and grow in Christ. Personally, I think that the use of the same term for both is unhelpful and would prefer to see civil union used for the secular arrangement, but we're kind of stuck with the culturally inherited terminology and it isn't going away, so we just have to work with it.

quote:
For the record, where Orthodoxy is the established religion (i.e. Greece) the church has to follow what the state says about divorcees, being required to remarry anyone who has a state divorce. This is not one of Constantine's more helpful legacies.

I didn't know this. This is unfortunate. Presumably, an ecclesiastical divorce, which would usually be within the bishop's discretion, would have to be granted in situations where bishops would normally not be willing to grant one. Canonically, by economy, we can allow that up to a certain number of times, so I wonder what would happen in Greece if, due to circumstances, somebody's marriages kept falling apart and that number were exceeded.

[ 16. May 2012, 08:12: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I don't think that you and I disagree that much about the place of Matrimony in creation but rather about the place of the Church in relation to that. From an Orthodox perspective, at least, God's saving work is for the redemption of the whole of creation, and there can be no real distinction drawn beteween priests of God's Church and priest's of God's creation. The former exists for the redemption of the latter. Dr Margaret Barker's work on Temple Theology touches on this. She really is quite an amazing lady in more ways than one, but I digress.

Anyway, I only really wanted to say that I think we agree on marriage as a creation ordinance but that the healing and drawing of creation to its fullness and especially mankind into the likeness of God happens through the life in Christ, in the Church, and marriage is no exception to this.
I really don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying that a 'Christian marriage' is the same thing as a 'secular' one, or not?
I'm saying that it isn't. Civil marriage is a social and legal arrangement. There is nothing wrong with it and I believe it can be and usually is beneficial. However, it is something different from the marriage ordained by God, by which two people become one flesh, and grow in Christ. Personally, I think that the use of the same term for both is unhelpful and would prefer to see civil union used for the secular arrangement, but we're kind of stuck with the culturally inherited terminology and it isn't going away, so we just have to work with it.

Thanks for the clarification - and that's exactly where we disagree. I believe that the biblical evidence is that a 'secular' marriage is a marriage in God's eyes.

1) Paul tells people married before they were Christians to stay together

2) Jesus uses the passage in Genesis about them 'becoming one flesh' of, in effect, secular marriages. That's when the 'creation ordinance' was ordained.

3) Similarly the phrase about 'one flesh' is used by Paul of the relationship created with a prostitute - there's nothing especially 'Christian' about it.

Given all this, I'm convinced that the state sanctioned marriage is the creation ordinance; the church may add a blessing - though personally I'm with the Reformers in denying this the status of 'sacrament'. And, of course it's this logic that leads to vocal opposition to states changing the definition of marriage; it's not for them to mess with. But what we can't do is try to claim the word 'marriage' back from the state: that's who it's been delegated to.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In Roman Catholic there does appear to be a difference, to the point where a Catholic can freely divorce from a marriage that wasn't done by a Roman priest. This to me is an abomination. AFAICS, having a 'church wedding' makes no ontological difference - though it might be more 'blessed' by God in some sense.

This is not accurate - it's a shadowy rendition of what is the case, but not a correct one. In the first place, a "Roman" priest is not absolutely necessary for a valid Catholic marriage. In the second place, any Catholic can freely divorce. In the third place, a 'church wedding' is not required in order for the Church to accept the marriage.

The Catholic Church's position on marriage is akin to what Michael describes, although we are not quite as separatist about the rest of humanity as he implies ("they are no more married than the owl and the pussy cat"). The Catholic Church accepts as valid marriages - marriages according to nature - those contracted in other religions and even in civil registers, where these comply with the essential nature of marriage. The Catholic Church does not set itself up against those and regard them all as invalid unless and until they are performed in a Catholic Church. Should two Anglicans marry and subsequently become Catholics, their marriage is not affected by their conversion. They are married.

There are certain principles that bind Catholics, however. The assumption is that Catholics will want to celebrate a sacrament as well as the contract of marriage: the two are very distinct things. A Catholic who marries a Muslim, for example, may well contract a completely valid, wholesome and laudable marriage - but they do not celebrate a Christian sacrament. Firstly, to suggest they do insults the Muslim party, but more fundamentally because the other sacraments are dependent upon baptism. A marriage may be a Christian sacrament, but it does not have to be. Even a valid Catholic marriage may be a sacrament, but it does not have to be. The Orthodox operate something similar when it comes to the remarriage of divorcees: the first marriage is regarded as the sacrament, and any subsequent marriage is not - even if it is recognised by "economy".

For a Catholic to celebrate a valid Catholic marriage, four essentials are required: they need to be married to another Catholic, before a Catholic minister, in a Catholic Church, using a Catholic ceremony. That's the base line. Each of those (or even all of them), however, can be dispensed. It's a similar principle to what the Orthodox call "economy" - we just happen to have a more precise set of norms governing such a setting aside of the basic norm, which we do by a formal "dispensation".

If such a dispensation is not obtained, then the Catholic will not have fulfilled the requirements for a valid Catholic marriage. If they just forged ahead and married in a registry office, their marriage is accepted by the Catholic Church as a legal marriage, but not a valid Catholic marriage. It is someone in this situation who may then divorce and be remarried in Church. Had the dispensation been obtained, however, then they would not be free to marry again.

If someone is unbaptised when they marry and subsequently converts, their marriage is indeed recognised by the Church. It is not, however, a sacramental marriage. What could then be done is what we would call a convalidation: in other words, making a legal marriage also a Catholic marriage. In effect, most Catholic marriages on the continent are convalidations: the legal or civil contract is made before an official of the State, and then the marriage ceremony takes place in the Church. In places like England, some Catholic churches are licensed for the purpose of marriage, and they then have to have a "named person" who acts as the registrar. That may be the priest, but need not be. I frequently preside at weddings, but legally I am not the person who is the registrar - either an official from the registrar's office or a named person from that church has to be present.

What we do not do is a blessing of a marriage which is contracted irregularly.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Somewhere in thread the question came up about non CofE weddings and where the legal bits fit into there service.

At one family wedding, the legal words were woven into the service, in another they were done in the vestry when the couple went through to sign the register. I am assuming that it was because, in the second case, the official registrar for the church was not the minister who conducted the wedding.

I may be wrong in that assumption and if anybody knows anything about it I'd be glad to be corrected!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Morlader:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
[qb] Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin?

I am not a lawyer, and you don't live in England, but as far as I know here in England that's almost certainly the case. And even if it isnt, as Michael said, there is a huge potential for trouble and grief. Over hospital decisions, inheritance, and all sorts of other things.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
because this state church has a low sacramental view of Holy Matrimony, and would have no qualms about recognising for Christian purposes a civil wedding performed by a registrar in a register office.

I would argue that to recognise a civil marriage could just as well imply a 'high' sacramental view. The couple are the ministers, their vows are sacramental whether or not a priest of the church is present.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
It is only in the CofE where the priest is automatically the registrar too.

And it has to be a priest legally recognised by the C of E. In other words, a visiting American Episcopalian will not do; his/her orders must be recognised by the English bishop (so a priest, male or female, ordained by a female bishop is not accepted) and s/he must have the bishop's licence.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Morlader:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
[qb] Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin?
I am not a lawyer, and you don't live in England, but as far as I know here in England that's almost certainly the case. And even if it isnt, as Michael said, there is a huge potential for trouble and grief. Over hospital decisions, inheritance, and all sorts of other things.

I had an uncle in that situation, and when he was incapacitated by a stroke, and lost the power of speech, it indeed caused all manner of trouble and grief. I would urge anyone in a relationship that is legally irregular to consult a lawyer and, if the relationship can't be regularized, to do enough paperwork to minimize the risk of grief.

My uncle had done the paperwork necessary in the event of his death, but he didn't do the paperwork necessary in the event of disability.

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Morlader:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
[qb] Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin?
I am not a lawyer, and you don't live in England, but as far as I know here in England that's almost certainly the case. And even if it isnt, as Michael said, there is a huge potential for trouble and grief. Over hospital decisions, inheritance, and all sorts of other things.

Thanks Ken. And thanks Michael. We come under the laws of England here so the three of us have a problem. Our arrangements suit us, we are all on good terms with each other and inheritance has been legally sorted - from when I was not expected to last long ...
I shall take legal advice, but it does seem to be uneccessary, and potentially expensive and painful, state interference in our 'arrangements'.
Thanks again.

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Perhaps the couple have been living together for 25+ years. He wants to marry; she doesn't. He proposes regularly. She regularly declines. Then she develops terminal cancer. They take steps to protect him from the effects of her medical debt -- they don't want him to be homeless as well as alone after she dies. A couple of years down the road, she's in hospice, and may die at any time. And she says she wants to marry him before she dies.

At that point, it might very well take too long to do the paperwork for a legal marriage.

It can take a bit less than 24 hours for a registrar to arrange a wedding for a couple where one is about to die in the UK. A strict demarcation of civil ceremonies as non-religious would mean that it could not have any religious aspect to such a ceremony - including prayer, religious songs, religious symbols. It would of course, as you say, rewrite their legal and financial arrangements immediately. As an aside, the idea of needing to protect a loved one from your medical debt is deeply shocking. Gosh.

The idea of a religious wedding which is not recognised by the state is not a concept I come across in the UK. There are religious communities which are not registered to perform marriages who would therefore offer a wedding ceremony which would necessarily be separate from the act of marrying in the eyes of the state. I have not personally come across an instance of this where the civil ceremony did not also take place.

'frin

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

Morlander, you're very welcome. I hope things work out with a minimum of angst.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The Catholic Church's position on marriage is akin to what Michael describes, although we are not quite as separatist about the rest of humanity as he implies ("they are no more married than the owl and the pussy cat"). The Catholic Church accepts as valid marriages - marriages according to nature - those contracted in other religions and even in civil registers, where these comply with the essential nature of marriage. The Catholic Church does not set itself up against those and regard them all as invalid unless and until they are performed in a Catholic Church. Should two Anglicans marry and subsequently become Catholics, their marriage is not affected by their conversion. They are married.

Ok. Yes. I admit to overstating the case to emphasise my point that there is a distinction.

I think the ultimate result of our slightly different approaches is much the same. Generally, we don't comment on what happens outside the Church or the nature of unions outside of it. We would properly only say that we cannot recognise it as a Christian Sacrament of Matrimony. If a Methodist-Anglican couple were to marry and they were later to become Orthodox, while I am sure they would be able to have an Orthdox wedding if they wished, I don't think I know of any bishop who would insist on it in his diocese. It would be seen as being covered by economy. That, however, says nothing about it prior to their entering the Orthodox Church other than that there is a union of sorts in the first place to work with.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thanks for the clarification - and that's exactly where we disagree. I believe that the biblical evidence is that a 'secular' marriage is a marriage in God's eyes.

1) Paul tells people married before they were Christians to stay together

You're welcome. Thank you, as well, for laying out your understanding so clearly.

I think that the exhortation to those married before conversion to stay together is just pastoral good sense, and in fact emphasises what I said before, about the life in the Church drawing people into the fullness of life in Christ, marriage included. The Body of Christ is the channel for such unions, and for the theosis of those involved therein.

quote:
2) Jesus uses the passage in Genesis about them 'becoming one flesh' of, in effect, secular marriages. That's when the 'creation ordinance' was ordained.

I confess to not being well versedin the culture of the time but, having re-read Mark 10 and Matthew 19, it seems that it was the Pharisees who raised the question. I assume that it was religious weddings that were being discussed. This suggests to me that this was the Church of the Old Covenant rather than someting secular.

quote:
3) Similarly the phrase about 'one flesh' is used by Paul of the relationship created with a prostitute - there's nothing especially 'Christian' about it.

Ok. I don't think this necessarily undoes the distinction between what happens in law and what happens sacramentally in Church.

I am glad that civil marriage exists in our society: that two people can enter into a legal arangement with social support, and I think that Christian married couples should certainly take part in both, but I just don't see the two as the same, and leaving aside for the time being questions of what I believe actually is, I also see problems with conflating the two. Your example about the situation in Greece and the big to-do about same-sex civil marriage are just two. I'm sure there are others.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
because this state church has a low sacramental view of Holy Matrimony, and would have no qualms about recognising for Christian purposes a civil wedding performed by a registrar in a register office.
I would argue that to recognise a civil marriage could just as well imply a 'high' sacramental view. The couple are the ministers, their vows are sacramental whether or not a priest of the church is present.

The hole in that argument, though, is that this particularly Latin doctrinal understanding belongs specifically to the Roman Catholic church - not even the Eastern Catholic churches with which it is in communion hold to the same view - and even the RC church does not recognise such marriages as a Christian sacrament.

Other churches may now adopt this terminology of the bride and bridegroom being the "ministers of the sacrament" when it comes to marriage, even if talking in terms of defining who the minister is in each sacrament is usually out of character for them and they don't do it for any other sacrament. This would suggest to my cynical side that they have adopted it in this particular instance not because they generally hold to a high sacramental view but because it provides a non-confrontational solution to the question of how, from their inclusive perspective, to deal with a wedding between two agnostics performed by an atheist registrar, as an example.

The obvious answer that it isn't to be accepted as the Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony would be unthinkable from that pespective.

[ 16. May 2012, 15:40: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Ok being a reader is a licensed public office and has selection processes and 3 year accredited training from the wider church. It is also be publically sanctioned by the diocesan bishop. So the criteria for readreship are stricter than for churchwardens.

Churchwardens are elected by the local community annually and they only critieria for them is that they are a 'fit and proper person' according to charity law. Also that they are church of England communicants.

There election depends on the local people thinking they are acceptible. It is not a public leadership or worhip office and so sexuality may not be an issue - that depends on the views of the local congregation.

Not wishing to start a tangent but cannot let this pass - Readers are LAYpeople and Issues In Human Sexuality allows lay people to enter into gay relationships if it is in accord with their consciences. Some bishops misinterpret this and withdraw licenses but they shouldn't.

On the other hand, i know of a lesbian-in-relationship churchwarden who was democratically elected at an APCM but vetoed by her incumbent.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Morlader:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes but most people who are in a permanant relationship would want to be the one who is considered as the legal next of kin.

For example, they would want be the one who was consulted about the turning off a life support machine. Without the legal marriage this is not the case.
I can see from what geraldine says there may be people who don't mind about the legal bits, but by and large most people would want to be the one that was to be consulted about their loved ones life.
Sorry for the tangent, but could a medical shipmate comment, please? I have been admitted to hospital several times in the past couple of years and I have given my partner of 22 years as my next of kin with absolutely no problem/comment from the person filling in the admission documentation. Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin? How would the hospital know to consult her about life support etc?

Depends where you are. In the UK, they'd prioritise your wife. Unless you get a divorce and then have a civil partnership.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

Continuing the tangent. Apparently 'Next of kin' is like 'common law wife'not a legally defined comcept concept in English law. According to the Advice Now webpage you can nominate whoever you choose to be your next of kin.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

quote:
2) Jesus uses the passage in Genesis about them 'becoming one flesh' of, in effect, secular marriages. That's when the 'creation ordinance' was ordained.
I confess to not being well versedin the culture of the time but, having re-read Mark 10 and Matthew 19, it seems that it was the Pharisees who raised the question. I assume that it was religious weddings that were being discussed. This suggests to me that this was the Church of the Old Covenant rather than someting secular.

Why on earth do you assume that it relates only to religious marriages? The Pharisees turn up and ask for Jesus' teaching on a topic of hot discussion at the time in the Jewish 'academy'. He answers by referring to the origin of marriage in the original creation story, and establishes THAT as the gold standard to which to conform. He then says of their religious marriages:

quote:
Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Mt 19:8-9
So FROM THE BEGINNING the ideal was no divorce and remarriage. That's what the creation ordinance is about. And that's why the church - as the visible representative ('priest'!) of the Creator on earth - has a special role in declaring the true nature of marriage against the states that want to mess with it.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

This is worth reading. It briefly describes the role of the Protestant reformation in redefining marriage.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
This is worth reading. It briefly describes the role of the Protestant reformation in redefining marriage.

Unfortunately the author is ignorant of the history of marriage in English-speaking countries, so the article is nonsense as far as we are concerned. It might well be true of Germany or France or Italy, I don't know.

Both before and after the Reformation most people in England did NOT get married in church. Marriage was considered to be between the couple. Any religious minister was a witness to it, not the person who performed it. There was such a thing as Christian marriage, it was often considered an ideal, but it was by no means either compulsory or universal. Church weddings were useful for people with property to be able to establish that a marriage had taken place (for inheritance and so on) but not relevant to most.

The rich tended to marry privately in front of a clergyman, the poor tended to marry publically, often in a pub. As in many places clergy were the only literate people it was useful to get one to witness the wedding and record it in case of future disputes, but they did not make the marriage valid in the eyes of the law. In early moidern times, especially the late 17th and early 18th century there was a notorious trade in clandestine weddings. There were corrupt clergy who would witness a marriage for a fee, in private houses, in public houses, sometimes even in brothels. It was one way for a clergyman who had lost his living to make ends meet.

In Protestant England the government did NOT nationalise marriage at the Reformation. They hardly changed anything about the law of marriage. They did not regulate marriage till the 1750s, when (amiong other things) they tried to maake church weddings compulsory, which they had never been in Catholic times. The exact opposite of what that web page claims. Civil registration of marriage didn't come in in England till the 19th century. Far from a side-effect of the Reformation, it came at a time of Catholic revival, and one of the reasons it was introduced was that Catholics wanted to legitimise their marriages without involving Protestant ministers.

The article is plain wrong.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
On the other hand, i know of a lesbian-in-relationship churchwarden who was democratically elected at an APCM but vetoed by her incumbent.

I woudln't want to encourage a stereotype - but if every lesbian churchwarden in the Diocese of Southwark had been kicked out of their job, most of our churches would have rotted away decades ago.

Not that those stern but caring old women ever called themselves lesbian. Well, not in public, anyway.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis:
Continuing the tangent. Apparently 'Next of kin' is like 'common law wife'not a legally defined comcept concept in English law. According to the Advice Now webpage you can nominate whoever you choose to be your next of kin.

Not if you are unconscious and bleeding to death in the street after a car hits you you can't.

Which is why, if you think you are every likely to want to, it probably makes sense to put it in writing and get it witnessed in some way.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by frin:

The idea of a religious wedding which is not recognised by the state is not a concept I come across in the UK. There are religious communities which are not registered to perform marriages who would therefore offer a wedding ceremony which would necessarily be separate from the act of marrying in the eyes of the state. I have not personally come across an instance of this where the civil ceremony did not also take place.

It's an interesting point. Maybe having a legally binding marriage offers the kind of social respectability that a religious marriage within a new sect doesn't. However, considering that so many British couples happily do without marriage altogether, it's ironic that Christian couples from new churches or religious groups should go to the trouble of having two ceremonies, just to cover all bases!

In France, perhaps having a religious ceremony but avoiding the legal one may be more commonplace. I once knew a French lady whose stepdaughter married a Muslim in a religious ceremony, but didn't bother with the legal ceremony. Practicing French Catholics have a reputation for being socially conservative, so perhaps they almost always have a legal ceremony as well, but maybe it's different for other religious groups.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
In the United States, a minister has the power by law to process a a civil marriage, as do most judges, court clerks, and notaries. American law does not (indeed, could not, thanks to the First Amendment) force upon religious ministers the obligation to marry any person who comes before them, regardless of the requirements of that minister's religion.
The accuracy of this statement depends on what you mean by "process". Most American states consider clergy to be legitimate witnesses to the signing of the state-issued marriage license which makes a marriage legal in the U.S. Clergy cannot, absent such a license, perform, process or in any other way create a legally binding marriage.

It's a little confusing. Typically (states may vary and I can't speak for all of them) a couple goes down to the county courthouse or town clerk and requests a marriage license. They pay their $50 and sign papers saying that they are not currently married to someone else, or closely related to each other, and are of lawful age to enter into a marriage. The clerk then issues a marriage license.

The couple is not married at this point. The marriage must be "performed" by some person authorized by state law to preside over a marriage. This can be a priest, pastor, rabbi, judge, clerk, or even a notary in some cases. His or her job as far as the civil law is concerned is to ensure that the bride and groom properly consent to the marriage in conformity with state law and that the marriage is properly witnessed. The marriage must ALSO be witnessed by two outsiders to the marriage (e.g. friends of the bride and groom).

The minister is not merely a witness. He or she has specific state authority which authorizes him or her to give the marriage legal effect.

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis:
Continuing the tangent. Apparently 'Next of kin' is like 'common law wife'not a legally defined comcept concept in English law. According to the Advice Now webpage you can nominate whoever you choose to be your next of kin.

Thank you for that link - very valuable. As the admission form is very clear and even asks for the relationship, I think the 'next of kin' IS the person who one specifies, at least where we live*. I don't think I need to take specific legal opinion on the point after all.

* By the way, "Morlader" (no 'n') is Cornish for "Pirate".

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I'm no lawyer, but your situation is complex. I wouldn't ignore proper legal advice because you've clicked on a link or someone has said something on a website.

Posted by CJ (# 2166) on :

On the next of kin issues there are possibly two concepts being mixed up here. In the UK 'next of kin' is whoever the patient says they are. Spouse, partner, family member, friend (I had a patient recently whose next of kin was his landlord). Equally, it is entirely up to a (competent) patient who they don't want given information. I have been in the very tricky situation before of patients forbidding me to give information about their condition to close family members or refusing to allow them to visit. I absolutely cannot breach their confidence in that situation.

However being next of kin does not, contrary to popular belief, give you any specific rights to information or decision making if the patient is unable to make decisions or communicate. The responsibility of the medical team then is to seek and take into account the views of those close to the patient on what the patient would want. That is where confusion can arise if there is conflict between family members both of whom claim to know what the patient's wishes would have been.

If you want to avoid that situation you can consider appointing your partner (or whoever you wish) as a health and welfare lasting power of attorney, in which case they do have the ability to make decisions on your behalf. Information here

Hope that's some help Morlader

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
This is worth reading. It briefly describes the role of the Protestant reformation in redefining marriage.

Hmm - what it fails to discuss is:

1) How the early Christians celebrated their marriages. Given that there was complex state matrimonial law in the Roman Empire, how did they fit into that.

2) Why Luther and Calvin argued that marriage is a matter for the state, not the church. Just assuming that those Reformers were wrong whilst the church that was burning their followers was right on the issue, whilst convenient, hardly makes for a coherent argument.

From a biblical perspective, it is perhaps interesting to consider whether marriage was a religious ceremony in the Old Testament. Given that the ONLY legitimate place for public religious events was the temple, and there is no suggestion that all weddings should be occurring there, it makes sense to suggest that Jewish weddings were secular occasions. At least worth a look! Given that, it makes the idea that Christian weddings are in some special way religious harder to sustain.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
This is worth reading. It briefly describes the role of the Protestant reformation in redefining marriage.
Hmm - what it fails to discuss is:

1) How the early Christians celebrated their marriages. Given that there was complex state matrimonial law in the Roman Empire, how did they fit into that.

Hmm. Well, according to Ken, it was worse than that. I'm not much of a historian. But, for your question, as best I can remember at the moment (with no books handy to verify anything in), the church part of a wedding involved the couple presenting themselves together for the Eucharist at a normal Sunday service. That was the church part. The legal/secular part was done the same way anyone else did it. (Or didn't -- lots of folks weren't entitled to be married, because of their social class or other impediments.)

quote:
2) Why Luther and Calvin argued that marriage is a matter for the state, not the church.

Were they arguing that Christians, and churches, didn't have anything to say regarding who could or couldn't get married, or what the rules should be? That it was, or should be, totally a secular thing?

quote:
From a biblical perspective, it is perhaps interesting to consider whether marriage was a religious ceremony in the Old Testament. Given that the ONLY legitimate place for public religious events was the temple, and there is no suggestion that all weddings should be occurring there, it makes sense to suggest that Jewish weddings were secular occasions. At least worth a look! Given that, it makes the idea that Christian weddings are in some special way religious harder to sustain.

Why? You could use that to make the case that Jewish weddings aren't (or weren't) religious. But what does that have to do with Christian weddings?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

From a biblical perspective, it is perhaps interesting to consider whether marriage was a religious ceremony in the Old Testament. Given that the ONLY legitimate place for public religious events was the temple, and there is no suggestion that all weddings should be occurring there, it makes sense to suggest that Jewish weddings were secular occasions. At least worth a look! Given that, it makes the idea that Christian weddings are in some special way religious harder to sustain.

I've come across one Christian writer and church planter who seems to think that the concept of the 'church wedding' is somewhat absent from the NT. It's an interesting issue to consider, because over time Christians have developed a possessive view of marriage, and even civil marriages are somehow tainted with the whiff of marriage as a 'sacred' act, full of symbols. The fact that modern weddings are usually so expensive, even civil ones, suggests that we overburden marriage with complexity and contradiction - and perhaps all the more so for living in largely secular societies.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Ken's comments definitely reflect what I have read a number of times - that only people with property to pass were involved in church weddings, and that everyone else would have a 'common law' marriage.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

English law (now Marriage Act 1949) provides that getting married according to the rites of the Church of England is to be married in the eyes of the law. So, so far as the C of E is concerned, you couldn't have a situation of being married in the eyes of the church but not of the law. If you didn't follow the rites of the C of E, you wouldn't be married in the eyes of either.

As others point out, there was a time when alternative means of getting married in the eyes of the law disappeared; since the 19th century new alternatives have been recognised.

With the same-sex marriage proposals, there is talk of creating a legal distinction between relilgious and civil marriage which doesn't exist in law at the moment.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

CJ wrote

quote:
If you want to avoid that situation you can consider appointing your partner (or whoever you wish) as a health and welfare lasting power of attorney, in which case they do have the ability to make decisions on your behalf. Information here

Indeed. But I would advise you to get your skates on. It took the courts 15 months to process my mother's application to give me lasting power of attorney.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ken's comments definitely reflect what I have read a number of times - that only people with property to pass were involved in church weddings, and that everyone else would have a 'common law' marriage.

"Only people with property" is a considerable overstatement I think, orfeo. I believe the point is that it was of particular benefit to them so they would be the ones most likely to conform. Plenty of other people with no great properties (including plenty of my antecedents) jumped through the hoops of church marriage.

Incidentally it is worth bearing in mind that understandings and practice of common law marriage vary quite widely in countries where it applied.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
From a biblical perspective, it is perhaps interesting to consider whether marriage was a religious ceremony in the Old Testament. Given that the ONLY legitimate place for public religious events was the temple, and there is no suggestion that all weddings should be occurring there, it makes sense to suggest that Jewish weddings were secular occasions. At least worth a look! Given that, it makes the idea that Christian weddings are in some special way religious harder to sustain.

But there were also religious practices which place at home. The earliest prayer for a marriage is in the Apocryphal book of Tobit, which was probably written in the second century BC. Here is Tobit 8:5-8.

quote:
Tobias began by saying,
‘Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors,
and blessed is your name in all generations for ever.
Let the heavens and the whole creation bless you for ever.
You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve
as a helper and support.
From the two of them the human race has sprung.
You said, “It is not good that the man should be alone;
let us make a helper for him like himself.”
I now am taking this kinswoman of mine,
not because of lust,
but with sincerity.
Grant that she and I may find mercy
and that we may grow old together.’
And they both said, ‘Amen, Amen.’

Judaism was not just a matter of temple worship; it permeated life.

Moo

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Yes, Moo, I quite accept that religious activity was a major part of Jewish life in OT times. But the absence of a specific procedure for weddings anywhere - at the temple or otherwise - indicates to me that they were not seen as a religious activity, rather they were seen as an ultimately secular occasion, to which a religious bit might, or might not, be attached. Note that there are laws about establishing that a woman was a virgin on her wedding night(!) but nothing about a religious service for the occasion. Remember, what I'm seeking to prove is that all marriages - whether Jewish or otherwise - count as a creation ordinance to which all humanity has access, NOT some special religious marriage to which only the people of God have a claim. I believe this offers support for that view contra the Catholic / Orthodox position.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I believe this offers support for that view contra the Catholic / Orthodox position.

Have you read my post above? I don't think you actually understand the Catholic position about which you are trying to be contra.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ken's comments definitely reflect what I have read a number of times - that only people with property to pass were involved in church weddings, and that everyone else would have a 'common law' marriage.
"Only people with property" is a considerable overstatement I think, orfeo. I believe the point is that it was of particular benefit to them so they would be the ones most likely to conform. Plenty of other people with no great properties (including plenty of my antecedents) jumped through the hoops of church marriage.

Most people, even the poor, had some personal property. Though few owned land which is where the real legal hassle kicked in. (And still does in England, land ownership is the number one political thing that distinguishes Them from Us round here). And lots of people would had a church wedding.

The real point isn't that the poor didn't have church weddings - at least some of them did - but that the church was not neccessary to make a marriage valid in the eyes of the law. What was neccessary is that a man and a woman, neither married to anyone else, freely consented to marry each other before witnesses, and that the marriage was then consumated. The form of words was important (you had to say "I will" and not "I do" or anything else) but the witnesses did not strictly speaking have to be clergy, even though they often were.

Neither was the consent of parents required. Parents had no legal right to choose their children's spouses. Of course in practice they often did, especially for women, and the richer they were the more they tried to. By the time you get to great landowners and royalty, young women were effectively being moved around as pawns in their original version of the "Game of Thrones". But most people probably didn't do that.

And all that seems to have been the case before the Reformation. I don't know how far back it goes - certainly to "time immemorial" (*) - maybe to before the English first arrived in Britain - but it was like that for centuries before Protestants turned up, as well as after.

The law was changed, and church weddings made compulsory, in 1753. Over two hundred years after the Reformation, when England was a thouroughly Protestant country. the opposite of the assertions in the Slate article.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But, for your question, as best I can remember at the moment (with no books handy to verify anything in), the church part of a wedding involved the couple presenting themselves together for the Eucharist at a normal Sunday service. That was the church part. The legal/secular part was done the same way anyone else did it.

Not in late mediaeval and early modern England as far as I know. Church weddings weren't always done at the Eucharist or during any normal service. Or even inside the church building at all. I've got a vague memory that they were done at the church door - not that that means they didn't count as a sacrament, after all baptisms have often been done there. If there was to be a Eucharist the wedding party them moved inside for it.

In fact it seems that weddings inside the church in the context of a service only became common in England after the Reformation. Again, the exact opposite of what that article suggested. Though maybe the writer was thinking of some other European country.

(*) 1189 as ne fule kno

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

There was something that always puzzled me during my time in parish ministry. At that time it was rather more difficult for divorcees to marry in church than it is now. It was rather more common in those circumstances for the clergy to offer a blessing following a civil marriage.

And that's exactly what struck me as odd. A CofE minister at a wedding has two functions: the religious function which mostly centres around the prayers and the nuptial blessing; and the secular function where s/he acts as a civil registrar, overseeing the egal registration of the marriage.

So why did the Church allow us to perform the religious function for divorcees, but deny us the secular function? Shome mishtake, shurely? [Paranoid]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Indeed so, Ken. I was really only wanting to qualify orfeo's statement.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Remember, what I'm seeking to prove is that all marriages - whether Jewish or otherwise - count as a creation ordinance to which all humanity has access, NOT some special religious marriage to which only the people of God have a claim. I believe this offers support for that view contra the Catholic / Orthodox position.

I must have done a lousy job explaining the Orthodox position. We certainly don't think that marriage is something that only we have, and nobody else has. We baptize babies, to make them part of the Church and bring them into the Kingdom of God, but that doesn't mean we're under the delusion that we're the only people on God's green earth that have babies. Likewise with marriages -- we celebrate a sacrament of marriage, taking what you'd call the creation ordinance, something natural and good and available to all humanity, and we bring it into the Church.

The fact that we bring our marriages into the Church doesn't mean we don't think no one else is really married. A Hindu couple or a Muslim couple or an atheist couple is just as married as I am -- but I expect that they would agree with me that their marriage has not been brought into the Orthodox Church.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There was something that always puzzled me during my time in parish ministry. At that time it was rather more difficult for divorcees to marry in church than it is now. It was rather more common in those circumstances for the clergy to offer a blessing following a civil marriage.

And that's exactly what struck me as odd. A CofE minister at a wedding has two functions: the religious function which mostly centres around the prayers and the nuptial blessing; and the secular function where s/he acts as a civil registrar, overseeing the egal registration of the marriage.

So why did the Church allow us to perform the religious function for divorcees, but deny us the secular function? Shome mishtake, shurely?

I must admit that this has often puzzled me too...

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Yes, Moo, I quite accept that religious activity was a major part of Jewish life in OT times.

I think it's more the other way around. Jewish life *is* religious, at least for the more observant.

quote:
But the absence of a specific procedure for weddings anywhere - at the temple or otherwise - indicates to me that they were not seen as a religious activity, rather they were seen as an ultimately secular occasion, to which a religious bit might, or might not, be attached. ...

It could also indicate that the procedure was so well-known and understood that there was no need to mention it. Or it could indicate that there wasn't any set procedure at all. In a Jewish wedding, the canopy symbolizes both the hospitality of the home and God's blessing upon Abraham. So, secular or religious? And just because something can be both at times doesn't mean it can't still be either / or in other situations. OliviaG

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There was something that always puzzled me during my time in parish ministry. At that time it was rather more difficult for divorcees to marry in church than it is now. It was rather more common in those circumstances for the clergy to offer a blessing following a civil marriage.

And that's exactly what struck me as odd. A CofE minister at a wedding has two functions: the religious function which mostly centres around the prayers and the nuptial blessing; and the secular function where s/he acts as a civil registrar, overseeing the egal registration of the marriage.

So why did the Church allow us to perform the religious function for divorcees, but deny us the secular function? Shome mishtake, shurely?

What an interesting question! But if you were in parish ministry and didn't have an answer, how is anyone else supposed to know? How would you have answered a couple if they'd asked you why you were willing to perform a blessing, but not a marriage?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Question: if someone has been married by the state outwith of the church building (ie by a registrar), in what sense has that not been done 'before God'?

I don't believe in sacraments, least of all marriage as a sacrament. Hogwash.

If God knows my heart, he knows whether I'm faithful to my wife at any given moment, whether or not I said the right words at the right place before the right person.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Oringinally posted by ken:
Not in late mediaeval and early modern England as far as I know. Church weddings weren't always done at the Eucharist or during any normal service. Or even inside the church building at all. I've got a vague memory that they were done at the church door - not that that means they didn't count as a sacrament, after all baptisms have often been done there. If there was to be a Eucharist the wedding party them moved inside for it.

In medieval England, clergy did not "perform" weddings at all, though they would bless them. For most people, this meant going to the church the day after the wedding, and receiving the blessing at the church door. The wealthy, who liked more pageantry, might have a priest give the blessing on the wedding day itself. But as ken said, all it took to be married was for the couple to state to each other their intent to be married. The change to formal public ceremonies (preceded by the reading of banns, etc.) was in large part a response to the problem of secret marriages, which could lead to "he said, she said" lawsuits and other headaches.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

the long ranger wrote:

quote:
If God knows my heart, he knows whether I'm faithful to my wife at any given moment, whether or not I said the right words at the right place before the right person.

I'm sure God certainly does know the secrets of our hearts, TLR. But you are omitting to give adequate consideration that this declaration is made in a public place, and is relevant in that context as much as it is to the internal life of the couple. IMHO of course.

As to sacraments - well, we are a varied lot. Some will flat out disagree with you, some will agree, some will agree that marriage may not be a dominical sacrament but disagree with your take on sacraments.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There was something that always puzzled me during my time in parish ministry. At that time it was rather more difficult for divorcees to marry in church than it is now. It was rather more common in those circumstances for the clergy to offer a blessing following a civil marriage.

And that's exactly what struck me as odd. A CofE minister at a wedding has two functions: the religious function which mostly centres around the prayers and the nuptial blessing; and the secular function where s/he acts as a civil registrar, overseeing the egal registration of the marriage.

So why did the Church allow us to perform the religious function for divorcees, but deny us the secular function? Shome mishtake, shurely?

Are you sure it was the Church that denied you the dual function for divorces? Or was it the State? After all, it's the State's function.

Otherwise, you've got the peculiar and unusual (but not impossible) situation of the State conferring a function that the Church is refusing to take.

I'm not saying one way or the other, as I'm not up on the relevant details of UK/England law. But State recognition of churches for starting marriages doesn't automatically imply State recognition of churches for ending them!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

My recollection is that divorce in England was a matter for the consistory courts until the 1850s. The jurisdiction then went to a civil court; certainly a Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the Supreme Court was established either directly by the Judicature Act of 1872 or quite shortly thereafter. I can understand the joinder of Probate and Divorce, both being originally ecclesiastic in origin. Quite how Admiralty became a part is lost in the mists of time.

Marriage is now a civil act in most countries. Here, marriage celebrants are required to be licensed under Federal legislation. As a matter of practice, ministers of the mainline religious groups are licensed automatically. Lay people and those of less well known religious groups are required to undergo a course and be examined. After that, they need to provide character references (something I've been asked to do a couple of times), and if all is in order, they are licensed.

AIUI, most European countries insist upon a civil ceremony as the defining event. Parties have the option of a later religious ceremony. Again, AIUI, it used be rare for both ceremonies to be the same day. Those of a religious frame of mind would "wait" for the religious ceremony.

Marriage and divorce are real actions and for that reason alone need to have their base in civil law.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I should have added that a surviving vestige in NSW of the ecclesiastical nature of the probate jurisdiction is to be found in the Probate and Administration Act s.61; pending a grant of probate or letters of administration, the property of a deceased person vests in the Public Trustee "as it used vest in the Ordinary in England".

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Marriage is now a civil act in most countries. Here, marriage celebrants are required to be licensed under Federal legislation. As a matter of practice, ministers of the mainline religious groups are licensed automatically.

Not true of nonconformist ministers in Britain, as the churches have to designate an "Authorised Person" for the wedding to be legal. These have to be trained by the civil authority and they can be ministers or lay people. In many respects it is more convenient if they are lay people as they can "do the paperwork" as the service is proceeding, leaving the speaking to the minister.

I often tell the couples I marry that "If I drop dead, it isn't a problem, as anyone can read the service. But if my wife (who is one of our APs) drops dead, then we have a problem!"

Of course, there's nothing to prevent you having a legal Registry Office ceremony first, followed by a church "marriage service" without an AP. Some small denominations do this, as it means they don't have to licence their buildings for weddings or provide an AP.

[ 18. May 2012, 10:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There was something that always puzzled me during my time in parish ministry. At that time it was rather more difficult for divorcees to marry in church than it is now. It was rather more common in those circumstances for the clergy to offer a blessing following a civil marriage.

And that's exactly what struck me as odd. A CofE minister at a wedding has two functions: the religious function which mostly centres around the prayers and the nuptial blessing; and the secular function where s/he acts as a civil registrar, overseeing the egal registration of the marriage.

So why did the Church allow us to perform the religious function for divorcees, but deny us the secular function? Shome mishtake, shurely?

The traditional stance of the CofE was that divorcees could not be remarried. Period. In 1928 or so, Parliament added a rider that gave parish priests the right to remarry divorcees - over the vocal opposition of the bishops. In practice it seldom happened. Later, as the spirit of the age became more liberal, CofE clergy came to adopt the theologically incoherent practice of blessing the weddings of divorcees but refusing to use the 1928 ruling. In doing so they were using an unregulated form of service, and so were beyond the reach of canon law. This tradition has continued - a lot of churches seem willing to bless 'irregular' marriages which the state actually performs but not actually conduct them, apparently in a attempt to keep a figleaf of conformity to the official teaching of the CofE, which opposes such remarriages. Interesting my usually hard line priest was willing to remarry a divorcee under some extreme circumstances (the marriage had collapsed over 15 years earlier etc etc).

Is it any wonder that the church isn't taken seriously?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

For churchgoers / those of faith, though, the Service of Blessing was a huge comfort for those who remarried or who married a divorcee.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

Is it any wonder that the church isn't taken seriously?

What would your solution to this problem be?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

Is it any wonder that the church isn't taken seriously?
What would your solution to this problem be?

This is one of the areas where Rome gets it right in theory i.e. no divorce and remarriage - though then cocks it up in practice by allowing 'annullments' too easily. But certainly their rejection of the 'blessing' route is well done. Incidentally the Orthodox at least have the excuse that 'it may not have been so from the beginning, but Constantine allowed it because of his desire to get rid of his wife'. To be fair it was Constantine V not the first one... and of course Luther's succumbing to the pressure to endorse polygamy was one of his many mistakes. Incidentally Cramner gave Henry VIII an annulment, NOT a divorce. Yes it's tough - but at least it doesn't leave conservatives trying to tell gays they can't have relationships whilst their congregations are replete with remarried divorces.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0