Thread: Who gives this woman? 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=030194
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Later in the service, the groom was told he could now kiss the bride.
Both of which (but the former specifically) grated incredibly in this day and age. Why is someone allowed to "give away" a woman as if they re property to be transferred? What sort of message does this give about a womans place and position? Why is the groom "allowed" to kiss the bride, rather than them both being allowed to kiss?
They did finish by declaring them husband and wife, so it was clear that they are quite prepared to change and adapt. And yet the giving away of a daughter like a car to a new owner felt incredibly patronising.
Lets be clear, the couple have been living together for years, so I think it even loses any symbolic sense - a sense of supporting them joining together.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Interesting story here:
quote:
The Crown Princess of Sweden has upset the country's church leaders by announcing she wants to be given away by her father when she marries next month, a practice which the Swedes consider sexist.
[...]
The decision has prompted the head of the Swedish church, Archbishop Anders Wejryd, to take the unusual step of issuing a public statement expressing his disapproval at the adoption of such an Anglo-Saxon practice.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Traditional it may or may not be. But not part of the authorized liturgy (at least in the Church of England).
It is not a feature of either of the services in Common Worship (the 'new' one, or the Series One service). And the rubrics of the BCP almost preclude it.
[ 14. August 2016, 13:04: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Schroedinger's Cat
IMO the couple wanted something 'traditional' precisely because they were already living together. They wanted a wedding that seemed like more than a formality, more than just a bit of paper. They wanted to indicate that this really was a new, different stage in their lives.
Most British couples don't get married in churches these days, and recapturing a sense of tradition is one of the main reasons for doing so. This is probably frustrating for churchgoers at the more radical end of the spectrum, especially in the CofE, but there's not much of a market for radical church weddings.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
That is in the 1662 BCP. It is optional in the Common Worship one. quote:
Later in the service, the groom was told he could now kiss the bride.
As far as England and Wales is concerned that is not traditional. It is an innovation which has only spread in the last 40 years or so. I think it's been picked up from films, which means it may have been the custom in California.
I suspect it stems from some sort of hypocritical wish to make people think the couple had abstemiously avoided any form of physical contact at all until that moment. Or perhaps it represents a symbolic consummation, bearing in mind one can't really have people having an actual one in public.
It is not in either the BCP or the Common Worship form of service.
quote:
Both of which (but the former specifically) grated incredibly in this day and age. Why is someone allowed to "give away" a woman as if they're property to be transferred? What sort of message does this give about a womans place and position? Why is the groom "allowed" to kiss the bride, rather than them both being allowed to kiss?
They did finish by declaring them husband and wife, so it was clear that they are quite prepared to change and adapt.
Why or how is that changing or adapting? In the 1662 BCP the priest says "... I pronounce that they be Man and Wife together .... ". The Common Worship version says 'proclaim'.
Or did the couple make that statement themselves, rather in the manner of Napoleon putting his crown on his own head. That would be taking rather more of a risk. It is just possible, though unlikely, that that could imperil the marriage's validity. I also can't see why anyone would want to do that. quote:
And yet the giving away of a daughter like a car to a new owner felt incredibly patronising.
Lets be clear, the couple have been living together for years, so I think it even loses any symbolic sense - a sense of supporting them joining together.
Provided they choose options within the law, aren't these choices, though, the couple's to make rather than for each individual guest to come to their separate opinion about.
After all, there are quite a lot of things I'm a bit sniffy about but that doesn't entitle my inner Victor Meldrew to insist that people can't do them.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Later in the service, the groom was told he could now kiss the bride.
As far as England and Wales is concerned that is not traditional. It is an innovation which has only spread in the last 40 years or so.
As has the practice of applauding after the Minister has declared them man and wife.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by S Cat:
They did finish by declaring them husband and wife, so it was clear that they are quite prepared to change and adapt.
Why or how is that changing or adapting? In the 1662 BCP the priest says "... I pronounce that they be Man and Wife together .... ". The Common Worship version says 'proclaim'.
[/QB]
Husband and Wife (both defined in relationship to each other).
Man and Wife (one defined by what he is, one by relation)
Woman and Husband (ditto but reversed to likely bias)
Man and Woman (both defined by what they are)
I understand that Wif(e) was the original (english) word for woman. So the cause and effect strictly speaking is backwards.
[ 14. August 2016, 14:20: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
For the weddings of all 3 daughters we used "who brings ..." not "who gives." The latter is a throwback to a woman's property being transferred to her husband, along with her. It's not been a legal requirement since the 1884 Married Women's Property Act - although there are still significant financial issues involved in becoming married (aside from the cost of the ceremony) that is). In the absence of written (and witnessed) authority, all previous wills are revoked and intentions overruled.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
It felt like a CW-style service (it was definitely not BCP language). The last 3 weddings I went to were different for all sorts of reasons, but the church one was broadly similar though. I don;t go to enough CofE weddings to know the subtle differences.
I don't know why they chose a traditional-style wedding, but it may have been for the brides family. I don't believe that the couple would have chosen it for themselves if there was no consideration for others (which is a perfectly good reason, of course, but I don't think it was for the couple themselves).
In many ways, the whole celebration was about the two families coming together, in the form of the couple at the centre. To me, that is what it was all about, and I think to them - a celebration of their ongoing commitment. Whereas the service itself seemed more like the "traditional" handing over of a daughter to a new owner.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
One of my friends in university, a fairly conservative Catholic who did not agree much with feminism had St Paul's admonitions for wives to submit to their husbands, as the reading for her wedding, as a possible slight against the feminist revolution.
I held my tongue so that I did not respond that if it weren't for the feminist revolution, she would probably not be working on her doctorate right now. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Couldn't the question just have been omitted?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Traditional it may or may not be. But not part of the authorized liturgy (at least in the Church of England).
It is not a feature of either of the services in Common Worship (the 'new' one, or the Series One service). And the rubrics of the BCP almost preclude it.
It's part of the BCP service - see page 3 of this pdf
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or did the couple make that statement themselves, rather in the manner of Napoleon putting his crown on his own head. That would be taking rather more of a risk. It is just possible, though unlikely, that that could imperil the marriage's validity.
From The Catholic Encyclopedia (yes, I know we're talking about an Anglican wedding):
quote:
The Church from the beginning realized that Matrimony was in its essence a contract between individuals. So far as regarded the external forms which gave validity to that contract, the Church was ready to approve all that was seemly and in accordance with national custom, recognizing that an engagement thus lawfully entered upon between two baptized Christians was elevated by Christ's institution to the dignity of a sacrament.
Italics added.
Thus, the couple does essentially marry themselves by declaring before witnesses that they are husband and wife. The Church merely ratifies the bond that they themselves have contracted.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I've been to weddings where both parents walked the bride down the aisle and both answered, "We do."
"Who gives this woman?" can be a transfer of property, but it can also be viewed as a passing of care and responsibility but it probably should apply both ways. My MIL told me how much less she worries about her children once they're married, so when I married her 28 year old son she was gratefully "giving" me this young man to take care of. She had this attitude in spite of the fact that he was a military man who had been out on his own for ten years.
"Now, you may kiss the bride," always just sounded to me like, "This is the place in the ceremony where you do that." It never occurred to me that anyone was pretending we hadn't kissed before. My husband just hugged me due to an overwhelming fear of getting lipstick on his face. Something about an episode where Popeye married Olive Oyl.
Why is it brides get all upset over these traditional lines, but still want that $5000 dollar mess of white netting and lace that represents virginity? Parents probably wonder why they can't put their foot down over that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why is it brides get all upset over these traditional lines, but still want that $5000 dollar mess of white netting and lace that represents virginity?
White symbolising virginity is a recent, and incorrect, assumption. Queen Victoria wore white, to use some lace she fancied, and influenced "tradition" thereafter. Prior it was any colour.
BTW, the colour of purity at that time was blue.
quote:
Parents probably wonder why they can't put their foot down over that.
If they are paying, they can complain about the cost.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
Giving the bride in marriage is a BCP thing and I have no trouble with it. View it as a father giving away his "possession" to another man, or view it as parents ceding their care of a loved one, or don't do it at all; I'm not much bothered. My sister was given away by our mother (our father being long-departed this world) back in the mid-1980s and it didn't seem a strange thing even then.
The snogging at the altar though... yuk. It's not part of the marriage service and it's not (as far as I can see) an appropriate inclusion in the service either. It reminds me of countless GCSE papers I've marked where ill-taught pupils seem to think that the marriage service includes all-out copulation on the altar because "the marriage don't count til the bride and groom have sex".
If a bride and groom choose to exchange a quick peck once they've "done the deed" that's fine, but saying "you may now kiss your bride" seems to be an invitation to engage in a game of profound tonsil tennis that is not appropriate. Save it for later, loves.
I was once (early 80s) attending at the altar as an old parson delivered the sacrament, at the end of which the groom leaned forward and asked "Aren't you going to say 'you may now kiss the bride'?"
Father paused, looked at them both, then he too leaned forward and said... "No!" Quite right too!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Couldn't the question just have been omitted?
Vietnamese weddings (including my own) have a senior family representative answer, one from each. So you get "Who gives this man..." and "Who gives this woman" and the patriarch or matriarch of each side answers publicly. The point of it is to underline that the families are supportive of the new couple, and to try to forestall the various tugs-of-war that often develop later on when some relative tries to get one spouse to put birth family above the marriage.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I loved it when Mr. Lamb got "given away." His older brother had to speak for him, as his parents were not living.
It's maybe worth noting that in the Vietnamese culture marriages link two families, not just two people, and it is a vanishingly rare marriage that goes on in the complete absence of any input (good or bad) from the couple's relatives. I'm sure you can all imagine the bad, but I've also seen marriages saved by the intervention of in-laws to stop their son or daughter being an asshole.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Couldn't the question just have been omitted?
It does make sense to me - it is then about the parents both accepting that their children are now someone else's primarily responsibility. And by including it, it involves the families (I am all for the families to be involved, to be seen to be joined as well).
It is not the fact of a transfer or a fact of the couple kissing that is the problem for me. It is the one-sided nature - that the bride is given away, the groom isn't; that the groom may kiss the bride, not that they may kiss each other.
I suppose it struck me in this case, because I know who is the boss in their relationship, and it is not the groom. Apparently, in the rehearsal, when they got to the part about "You may kiss the bride", she replied "Does he have to?"
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Having someone not in the family 'give' the bride away is quite old. Read up on Charlotte Bronte's wedding -- it was her father's church in fact, but Rev. Bronte whether from ill health or a fit of the sulks refused to even show up, never mind give his daughter away. (The distance from Haworth parsonage to church is measurable in yards.) So one of her female friends was promoted from attendant to giver-away.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Traditional it may or may not be. But not part of the authorized liturgy (at least in the Church of England).
It is not a feature of either of the services in Common Worship (the 'new' one, or the Series One service). And the rubrics of the BCP almost preclude it.
It's part of the BCP service - see page 3 of this pdf
Mea culpa. Of course it is - reading fail when I checked!
Though nevertheless it is less obviously a big deal than it is often treated as - no indication as to any sort of response, verbal or otherwise.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I know that half of the fun of going to weddings is making fun of the choices of the couple. Still, in this case, I'd write it off as a personal choice and butt out.
I suppose that, at some point, a priest could suggest that a church wedding isn't what a couple really wants. But you, humble guest, don't have that prerogative.
My wife is very liberal, and no one is under the impression that she is anyone's property. She wanted to be presented by her dad, and she wanted me to get his blessing when I proposed. If she hadn't wanted those things to happen, I would have payed attention.
People are entitled to decide for themselves what is important to them.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
My sister-in-law walked down the aisle alone, as the Minister was of a modern bent and was against the practice of giving away the bride. I see no problem with it, but then again in my household Ma Preacher is a liturgy critic par excellence, so I have a different perspective on things.
As a past Chair of Session, my attitude was 'tradition within reason' was always the best way, there are brides like Og's and who am I to stand in their way? If someone isn't clear on anything, than tradition is always best, as they won't be disappointed that they didn't get what they expected.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Schroedinger's cat: quote:
Apparently, in the rehearsal, when they got to the part about "You may kiss the bride", she replied "Does he have to?"
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Boy, the honeymoon was over years ago!
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I believe that after Prince Albert's death, Queen Victoria gave away one of her daughters at the wedding.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Og - I am not criticising the choices. I am quite happy with them having any form they want.
What I have a problem with is the CofE still including this type of wording as a reasonable option for a service.
I was at a humanist wedding a couple of months ago, and, while I might not agree with the basis of the humanism, I was perfectly happy with everything that was said. It was their choice, and there was nothing I could disagree with.
Whereas this wedding should have been more comfortable, and yet I found it more disturbing.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Couldn't the question just have been omitted?
It does make sense to me - it is then about the parents both accepting that their children are now someone else's primarily responsibility. And by including it, it involves the families (I am all for the families to be involved, to be seen to be joined as well).
It is not the fact of a transfer or a fact of the couple kissing that is the problem for me. It is the one-sided nature - that the bride is given away, the groom isn't; that the groom may kiss the bride, not that they may kiss each other.
Ah. I see what you mean. I think I misread the original anecdote by Moo.
I agree that the 'transfer' of both bride and groom encourages a strong sense of family involvement on both sides. Of course, for many modern Western families, nothing is really being 'transferred'. People will marry or not regardless of their parents' consent, and most couples are already living together.
As for what the CofE should agree to, the drop in church weddings probably means that there's a great reluctance to reject requests, especially those involving customs with a certain degree of longevity.
OTOH, I don't suppose the CofE allows brides to promise to 'obey' any more.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
For the weddings of all 3 daughters we used "who brings ..." not "who gives." The latter is a throwback to a woman's property being transferred to her husband, along with her. It's not been a legal requirement since the 1884 Married Women's Property Act - although there are still significant financial issues involved in becoming married (aside from the cost of the ceremony) that is). In the absence of written (and witnessed) authority, all previous wills are revoked and intentions overruled.
Over recent years, we've seen a major trend to "bring", and most of the time now, it's both mother and father of the bride. We've told Dlet that if ever the time comes when some poor unfortunate agrees to marry him, we would together bring him to the service also.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I got to attend a Spanish wedding in Mexico, no idea where specific behaviors came from but parents were seated up front at their own special places - hers just to the side of the bride, his just to the side of the groom. The ceremony was clearly about the families coming together not just about the bride and groom as if they are entirely separate from any families. I liked it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
.... Thus, the couple does essentially marry themselves by declaring before witnesses that they are husband and wife. The Church merely ratifies the bond that they themselves have contracted.
That's straightforward CofE doctrine too, but it isn't actually the issue I was commenting on.
Because a CofE wedding takes effect legally, without any involvement by the Registrar, and because a CofE clergyperson can marry people without having to be appointed a deputy registrar, the arcane issue which the pedantic discuss from time to time, is which bits of liturgical irregularity do or don't put at risk the validity of the marriage?
Yes, the couple marry each other. Nevertheless, having a celebrant who is either a validly ordained priest or a validly appointed registrar is necessary if the marriage is to take effect in law. Failure to meet this test means the couple will not be married. Whatever the position in other jurisdictions, that is the position in England and Wales. I don't know, and wouldn't want to answer the question, whether someone else other than the celebrant stating that the couple are now husband and wife brings the validity into question or not. It probably doesn't, but I would certainly discourage anyone from taking that risk.
Lamb Chopped, whatever people's avowed sociological views, and however much they may claim to be very modern and not like that, a very large number of marriages in England are to this day marriages between families as well as couples. Although we select our own spouses rather than have arranged marriages, people ingest a very clear understanding from childhood, that is so implicit in society that they are not aware of it, that they are expected to fall in love with and choose somebody that their families will like, approve of and accept. The tensions between that and peoples' feelings drive the plots of a hundred soap operas and keep agony aunts in business.
I can't imagine that isn't the same everywhere else in the western world.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Og - I am not criticising the choices. I am quite happy with them having any form they want.
What I have a problem with is the CofE still including this type of wording as a reasonable option for a service.
I was at a humanist wedding a couple of months ago, and, while I might not agree with the basis of the humanism, I was perfectly happy with everything that was said. It was their choice, and there was nothing I could disagree with.
Whereas this wedding should have been more comfortable, and yet I found it more disturbing.
You are happy with their choice, you would just prefer that they not be allowed that choice if they want to be married in your church.
You have said a lot about what would make you comfortable or happy. We haven't heard anything about the bride. Did she look annoyed or happy at the line in question? Did you ask her or her dad (or someone else in the know) about what went into including that line, or did you just grouse quietly and take it to the web the next day?
It would be condescending to include the line in every wedding, without any input from the bride. But I would argue that it would be equally condescending to tell brides that they can't have a presentation, no matter what it means to them and how much time they have spent discussing and considering the line, because other people who weren't in on their discussion and discernment and who know zilch about their thoughts and feelings on the matter might be offended.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
OTOH, I don't suppose the CofE allows brides to promise to 'obey' any more.
1662 is still a legally authorized form of service. The 1662 service contains "obey".
I'm not entirely clear on whether a couple is allowed to insist on a particular form of service, though.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
A couple of years ago I conducted a wedding (with a family I know well) in which the father did intend to "give away" the bride.
Well, that was the idea ... except I got ahead of myself in the service and forgot to ask the question! So we went through the rest of the wedding, I declared them man and wife - and it was only during the next hymn, with dad smiling broadly at me, that I realised the blunder.
So, after the hymn and before the Bible reading, I fessed up and then asked, "Who gave this woman ...?" to which the dad magnificently replied, "I did"! (Cue applause all round the church).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
.... Thus, the couple does essentially marry themselves by declaring before witnesses that they are husband and wife. The Church merely ratifies the bond that they themselves have contracted.
That's straightforward CofE doctrine too, but it isn't actually the issue I was commenting on.
Because a CofE wedding takes effect legally, without any involvement by the Registrar, and because a CofE clergyperson can marry people without having to be appointed a deputy registrar, the arcane issue which the pedantic discuss from time to time, is which bits of liturgical irregularity do or don't put at risk the validity of the marriage?
Yes, the couple marry each other. Nevertheless, having a celebrant who is either a validly ordained priest or a validly appointed registrar is necessary if the marriage is to take effect in law. Failure to meet this test means the couple will not be married. Whatever the position in other jurisdictions, that is the position in England and Wales. I don't know, and wouldn't want to answer the question, whether someone else other than the celebrant stating that the couple are now husband and wife brings the validity into question or not. It probably doesn't, but I would certainly discourage anyone from taking that risk.
Lamb Chopped, whatever people's avowed sociological views, and however much they may claim to be very modern and not like that, a very large number of marriages in England are to this day marriages between families as well as couples. Although we select our own spouses rather than have arranged marriages, people ingest a very clear understanding from childhood, that is so implicit in society that they are not aware of it, that they are expected to fall in love with and choose somebody that their families will like, approve of and accept. The tensions between that and peoples' feelings drive the plots of a hundred soap operas and keep agony aunts in business.
I can't imagine that isn't the same everywhere else in the western world.
In England and Wales for a marriage to be valid the following must be present/done
- the couple must be able to marry - ie not already married, have capability, uk residency, i/d must be proven
- notice of marriage have been posted at least 28 days before the ceremony and within the last 6 months. This can be by Banns (CofE) or publicised at the local Registrar office. If not married in a CofE church the Registrar must issue a Blue Form for each party given permission to perform the ceremony
- the ceremony takes place between 8 am and 6 pm in a valid location and with a Registrar (or authorised person present)
- the doors must be kept open
- there must be at least 2 independent witnesses (apart from the Registrar and couple)
- an authorised form of words must be used (there are several legal choices). The parties must agree that they are free to marry, the opportunity for objectors to come forward must be given (very few grounds for a valid objection), and the parties must contract ("I take you to be my wedded wife etc.").
That's the legal minimum. What particular churches or denominations expect is added to that. It is possible (I've done it) to perform the minimum legal ceremony in about 5 minutes.
The one thing most people don't know is that raising an objection is a serious matter. The wedding service confers a change of legal status. Any objection is effectively a challenge in law and must be addressed. Frivolous objections are a breach of the peace and result in a summons for Mr Plod to attend. It's best to suggest to suggest to jokey friends that this is not an opportunity for a quick laugh - they will be lucky to get away with a verbal reaming from the Police. Unlucky and they will get a criminal record - false objections count as crimes against the state, whom the Vicar/Minister is representing in the service.
Special licences can be obtained at short notice - the shortest being (I think) 24 hours in the case of an Archbishops Licence. This is only used in extremis - e.g for a hospital wedding when one party is dying.
The one thing that's always puzzled me is the door open bit. I know why it's there (possibility of objection) but how can weddings behind closed doors (e.g Royalty/celebs) be valid? There's no opportunity for public objection in a chosen guest list. Anyone help here?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Two answers.
1. Wedding times: Section 114 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 removed the restriction on hours for weddings. However the CofE are still covered by other legislation so have to remain within the 8am-6pm timeslot. It's not clear what the position is for Nonconformist churches; however the Home Office has apparently said that "neither local authorities nor religious groups are required to provide services outside of the traditional hours".
2. As far as the "open doors" policy is concerned, apparently "the Registrar general interprets this to mean that the public must have unfettered access to witness the marriage and make objections prior to or during the ceremony". In practice doesn't happen, especially in (say) celebrity weddings, but surely the point is that they are not secretive private affairs. And AFAIK, all weddings have to be announced publicly by means of Banns or by notice being pinned up in Registry Offices - theoretically this means that people can hear or see and then eject. (I believe that Wallis Simpson got divorced in Ipswich rather than London so that no-one would see the public notice of her intention).
Intersting article here by Joshua Rosenberg.
[ 15. August 2016, 07:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Thirty seven years ago my Dad walked me down the isle, dropped me off with my husband, turned round and conducted the ceremony.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
When we set off he pulled me back and whispered 'slow down and enjoy it' - wise words for brides who wish to run down the isle and for life in general.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... theoretically this means that people can hear or see and then eject.
I meant "object" (whoops).
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
It was the practice in one Anglican team I worked with - if the bride wanted to be 'given away' by Dad or indeed anyone - was to ask 'who brings this woman to be married', rather than 'who gives...'. Although if required we'd ask the 'who gives...', though not in the liturgy.
Sometimes involving a person in relationship to the bride (parent, relative, friend) in handing her over formally (for want of a better phrase) can be a pastorally significant moment. I know it needn't involve anything being said at all, but I wouldn't be adverse at all to that. Also at that moment, it can be sort of symbolically significant if Dad and the husband-to-be shake hands.
Yes, the couple have probably been together - even living together for years. But it is good to mark that something formally, publically and covenantually is happening, so it's not entirely fair, I think, to accuse couples of hypocrisy for these apparently silly little traditions.
Besides where religion and human beings are concerned isn't there nearly always a shadow of hypocrisy in everything we do anyway? Hence the need for grace etc.
Of course, as a good feminist I am appalled(!) at the early meaning and establishment of 'giving away'; the bride indeed being part of a dowry arrangement whereby a portion of her inheritance/father's wealth was assigned to her husband, and the woman being regarded legally as chattel to the man. The idea of women only really being legitimately 'visible' in society as something that a man could either dispose of as part of a business deal, or acquire in a similar way is not pleasant to reflect upon!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
If we object to the bride being "given away", can we also please object (as I always do) to referring to the wedding as "the bride's big day"? There is a groom involved as well (except in SSM, but let's not go there in his thread) - so it's THEIR big day!
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
OTOH, I don't suppose the CofE allows brides to promise to 'obey' any more.
It certainly has at the 3 weddings I've attended so far this year (2 1662s and a 1928). One also had the Song of Solomon...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not entirely clear on whether a couple is allowed to insist on a particular form of service, though.
I think it depends how "churchy" the couple are. If they just want to get married in your church then it's likely that the incumbent can do a lot to steer the couple in terms of what happens.
OTOH, the most recent wedding I've been to specified 1928 BCP, pretty well the entire Song of Solomon, "have you got Hymns A&M because if not we'll be bringing our own?" and "please Mr Vicar can you sit this one out as we've got a few of our own vicars that we'd quite like to take the service in your church?"
I'd never seen 1928 done as a full Nuptual Mass, but I have now.
I think, really, if it's legal to be done in the CofE and you can get agreement then the couple can do whatever they want.
[ 15. August 2016, 09:20: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
If we object to the bride being "given away", can we also please object (as I always do) to referring to the wedding as "the bride's big day"? There is a groom involved as well (except in SSM, but let's not go there in his thread) - so it's THEIR big day!
Absolutely. While one accepts that there's more scope for the bride to get all prettied up and outshine her hubby, I sometimes wonder if the imbalance in the 'bride's big day' is possibly an indicator of the relationship. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard the bloke say, 'well, it's really for her, you know. So she can have her special day.'
Ref: the promising to obey. I think I've included that maybe twice or thrice in all the weddings I've done to date. I always offered it, as an option, in the modern CofE service and I promise (cross my heart!) I gave a generous orthodox exposition of how it was understood in scripture. But only two or three women chose to include it. And the reason given, as I remember, was 'because my mum said it at her wedding' or 'it's traditional'.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I don't think it's entirely clear to what extent the vicar or the couple are entitled to insist on things being done their way. People are expected to co-operate with one another. There is quite a lot of flexibility but what would be clear is that the couple is not entitled to insist on something that conflicts with the the permitted forms of service.
Query whether a service according to the 1928 book - which was never properly legal anyway - per se, rather than selecting Common Worship options that are close to it, would be permissible. Depending on what was done, it's taking a bit of a risk as to whether the marriage has 'taken'.
I'm fairly sure that no one can insist on importing their pet reverend over the head of the incumbent and without his or her agreement.
On 'obey', from memory, I think you can only have it if the husband also 'endows'.
[ 15. August 2016, 10:36: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
What grates with me is the insistence on having the signing of the registers in the middle of the service but out of sight of the congregation.
Why? Well, at many weddings the congregation assume this means the end of the service 'proper' so they chatter and getting them to settle down for prayers is nigh to impossible. If the registers are signed in the middle of the church at least people can see that this is part of the service, and they might be persuaded to shut up.
As for departures from the 'norm', the weirdest thing I've seen was a bride who entered with her pet goat which then stood by her side at the chancel step.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for departures from the 'norm', the weirdest thing I've seen was a bride who entered with her pet goat which then stood by her side at the chancel step.
Just to bring the thread full circle, was the goat giving her away?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What grates with me is the insistence on having the signing of the registers in the middle of the service but out of sight of the congregation.
I've never come across this. IME the Signing usually comes after the service proper, with the organist (or someone else) providing music until such time as the couple are ready to leave.
In our church the Signing is done within the church - we have a table at the front but towards the side (Anglicans might think of the location as a Lady Chapel) - this works well although it doesn't stop the chattering!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I think in Anglican services the usual place for signing is towards the end, just before the blessing and exit. Whether or not it's done in the vestry or on a side altar table, or wherever, I suppose is up to practicalities and/or what the minister wants to do. I think it's nice to have it out in the open, so that the couple when they've finished signing, can sit and listen to the music they're paying their soloists/choir/organist for.
But on the vestry side of the argument. It does offer a useful moment of respite from the tension of the event, recoup nerves and get ready for the big exit down the aisle, for the couple. A few relaxed moments out of sight of the congregation. It can depend, too, on how much room there is for registers and certificate books and the photographer prancing about.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
According to the Episcopal BCP (1979):
quote:
After the Declaration of Consent, if there is to be a giving in marriage, or presentation, the Celebrant asks,
Who gives (presents) this woman to be married to this man?
or the following
Who presents this woman and this man to be married to
each other?
To either question, the appropriate answer is, “I do.” If more than one person responds, they do so together.
This comes from the "Additional Directions," not from the service itself.
It's also a great trivia question for Episcopalians who are into those sorts of things. "Who says 'I do' at an Episcopal wedding?" It's (sometimes) the parent(s), not the Bride and Groom.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Perhaps it would be better to "present" rather than "give away" the bride.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I like that a lot ... but it still differentiates between bride and groom, which some folk might take issue with. Perhaps parents (or other older relatives) could present BOTH parties? There's no legal reason why they can't.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just to bring the thread full circle, was the goat giving her away?
And just to lower the tone, perhaps the goat was her previous boyfriend. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
A few years ago I attended a wedding where both the bride and groom had adult children from previous marriages, and the groom had a grandchild or two. (Neither had living parents.) Everyone from both families walked up the aisle together, and all of the family members participated in the presentation of either the bride or groom.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the Episcopal BCP (1979):
quote:
After the Declaration of Consent, if there is to be a giving in marriage, or presentation, the Celebrant asks,
Who gives (presents) this woman to be married to this man?
or the following
Who presents this woman and this man to be married to
each other?
To either question, the appropriate answer is, “I do.” If more than one person responds, they do so together.
This comes from the "Additional Directions," not from the service itself.
It's also a great trivia question for Episcopalians who are into those sorts of things. "Who says 'I do' at an Episcopal wedding?" It's (sometimes) the parent(s), not the Bride and Groom.
I always give the couple the option. I always explain why it's an option. The bride always chooses to have her father or parents give her away. In most cases, the bride also asks for me to announce the couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I always give the couple the option. I always explain why it's an option. The bride always chooses to have her father or parents give her away.
Always? That surprises me.
quote:
In most cases, the bride also asks for me to announce the couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.
I absolutely detest that! I wouldn't mind so much if they were introduced as "Fred and Ethel Mertz," but I did not give up my first name (aka my Christian name) when I got married. (I also kept my middle name, with which I had been baptized, rather than taking my maiden name as my middle name.) I think the "introduction" of the newly-married couple is more appropriately done by the emcee or whatever at the reception. (I've been to weddings where the priest does the Mr. and Mrs. bit, then an hour later the reception emcee or disc jockey does a big fanfare, introducing "for the first time anywhere" Mr. and Mrs. Whoever. I guess he wasn't at the wedding.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
In most cases, the bride also asks for me to announce the couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.
I absolutely detest that! I wouldn't mind so much if they were introduced as "Fred and Ethel Mertz," but I did not give up my first name (aka my Christian name) when I got married.
I wonder if there is a Pond difference here; IME that sort of formality seems almost extinct in Britain.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
The Common Worship notes for the Marriage Service say quote:
6 'Giving Away'
This traditional ceremony is optional. Immediately before the couple exchange vows the minister may ask:
Who brings [my emphasis] this woman to be married to this man?
The bride's father (or mother, or another member of her family or a friend representing the family) gives the bride's right hand to the minister who puts it in the bridegroom's right hand. Alternatively, after the bride and bridegroom have made their Declarations, the minister may ask the parents of bride and bridegroom in these or similar words:
N and N have declared their intention towards each other.
As their parents,
will you now entrust your son and daughter to one another
as they come to be married?
Both sets of parents respond:
We will.
I always ask the bride (in the absence of her father) whether she wants me to ask the question or not, and go with her choice. The person 'giving away' is not actually expected to say anything at all at that point - though they very often say 'I do'.
I don't invite the groom to kiss the bride since they've not needed my permission so far, and IMO kissing is a mutual activity. I tell them at the rehearsal that once I have proclaimed that they are husband and wife, then they may kiss if they wish.
It is fairly common practice in C of E churches for the signing of the register to take place immediately following the vows and nuptial blessing, and I definitely prefer it to be done in front of the congregation.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
OTOH, I don't suppose the CofE allows brides to promise to 'obey' any more.
It certainly has at the 3 weddings I've attended so far this year (2 1662s and a 1928).
How quaint! But again, I suppose it was more about tradition than anything else.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I've never seen the signing of the register done during the wedding itself (other than watching royal weddings on television). It's normally done in the Sacristy immediately following the ceremony. Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Always? That surprises me.
Young women want that sentimental moment with their fathers on their wedding day.
quote:
originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wonder if there is a Pond difference here; IME that sort of formality seems almost extinct in Britain.
That sort of formality is almost extinct in the US as well. You only see it at weddings and on envelops addressed by the elderly.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Query whether a service according to the 1928 book - which was never properly legal anyway - per se, rather than selecting Common Worship options that are close to it, would be permissible.
The Series One marriage service in Common Worship is more or less identical to the 1928 book.
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I absolutely detest that! I wouldn't mind so much if they were introduced as "Fred and Ethel Mertz," but I did not give up my first name (aka my Christian name) when I got married.
Assuming Ethel Smith married Fred Mertz, I can list among my friends and acquaintances women who prefer to be addressed:
- Ms Ethel Smith
- Mrs Ethel Smith
- Ms Ethel Mertz
- Mrs Ethel Mertz
- Mrs Fred Mertz
Some of the Mrs Freds get offended if you address her as Mrs Ethel, because that implies she's divorced. Some Mrs Ethels are offended (a la Pigwigeon) by Mrs Fred. (Most, but not all, of the Mrs Freds are retired.)
I can count at least one who uses Ms Ethel Smith professionally and Mrs Fred Mertz (or plain untitled Ethel Mertz) socially, and takes umbrage at any other combination.
Some of the Ms hate "Mrs", and some of the older Mrs hate "Ms".
Some of the Ethel Smiths use Mrs Ethel Mertz at their children's schools. Oh, and you can add a couple of divorced-and-remarried Ethels who use both their first husband and second husband's surnames (in whatever order) so that they have a surname that contains the surnames of all their children.
[ 15. August 2016, 19:52: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I don't invite the groom to kiss the bride since they've not needed my permission so far, and IMO kissing is a mutual activity. I tell them at the rehearsal that once I have proclaimed that they are husband and wife, then they may kiss if they wish.
At our wedding, the minister simply smiled, winked, and said in a quiet voice, "kiss."
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wonder if there is a Pond difference here; IME that sort of formality seems almost extinct in Britain.
That sort of formality is almost extinct in the US as well. You only see it at weddings and on envelops addressed by the elderly.
Well, if you'd sent my son a high school graduation present this past June (and didn't have the "Rev." thing going on), you'd have seen it on his thank-you note.
Yeah, he thought it was bizarre.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.
Which country are you in Pigwidgeon? Although there other sorts of occasions where it doesn't matter much, that would be very dangerous here for a wedding if anything went wrong and you got caught.
Besides, don't the couple expect to be photographed signing?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.
Which country are you in Pigwidgeon? Although there other sorts of occasions where it doesn't matter much, that would be very dangerous here for a wedding if anything went wrong and you got caught.
Besides, don't the couple expect to be photographed signing?
I believe Pigwidgeon is in the US, so it would be the marriage license being signed.
And no, no couple would expect to be photographed signing it. (If I recall correctly, the bride and groom never sign it in the state where i live; they signed the application for it.) A few times, I have seen a picture of the minister, maid/matron of honor and best man signing it. But it really is a non-event.
On re-reading, though, perhaps Pigwidgeon is referring to a parish registry, which would not be a legal document, so far as I know.
[ 15. August 2016, 20:40: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
(If I recall correctly, the bride and groom never sign it in the state where i live; they signed the application for it.)
Oops. Should have checked before posting; the bride and groom do sign the license here. I know my wife and I didn't sign it after the wedding, so we must have done so prior to, as Pigwidgeon suggests.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.
Which country are you in Pigwidgeon? Although there other sorts of occasions where it doesn't matter much, that would be very dangerous here for a wedding if anything went wrong and you got caught.
Besides, don't the couple expect to be photographed signing?
Yes, couples expect a photograph of the license signing. Why not? Photographers cost money. Might as well get as many pictures as possible.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.
Which country are you in Pigwidgeon? Although there other sorts of occasions where it doesn't matter much, that would be very dangerous here for a wedding if anything went wrong and you got caught.
Besides, don't the couple expect to be photographed signing?
I'm in the U.S. I guess the thinking is that since the officiant hasn't signed it, it isn't legal yet. (But I know one priest who almost always forgot to sign -- I don't know if he had the bride and groom sign in advance or not.) Apparently too many brides and grooms take off after the ceremony and are hard to track down (which would make signing during the ceremony sensible).
I only know of one couple who was photographed signing the register (I was on the Altar Guild for that one). The photographer was one of those who thought the whole wedding was a photo opportunity, and rules did not apply to him. He decided to get a good view of the register signing by standing on a folding chair -- which immediately clamped down on his leg and wouldn't let go. I had to leave the room since I couldn't refrain from laughing.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
On re-reading, though, perhaps Pigwidgeon is referring to a parish registry, which would not be a legal document, so far as I know.
Yes, I meant the parish register. The license is signed on the day by the officiant and the witnesses.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
In our congregation (Lutheran in US) we normally put the license and fancy schmancy faux certificate (provided by state--we don't do faux) on the altar along with a pen. Then we grab the designated witnesses to sign right after the ceremony, before any picture taking begins. (I don't think our state expects the couple to sign on the day of--that is for the witnesses, who are often part of the bridal party.)
Then the pastor's wife (i.e. me) makes darn sure the pastor signs the thing and clutches it to my bosom until it can be dropped into a mailbox on the way to the reception. That's because the man who married the two of us confided he had forgotten to send one in for over a year, until the state contacted the couple to ask whether they were living in sin or what... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
In certain areas of evangelicalism, the giving away of women is still depressingly common, and it is about women in some sense belonging to men. Since I personally regard this as BS, I pre-empted the situation by making it clear in advance that I was not going to be given away. Failing that, had the question been asked, I would have answered that I was giving myself away, but this would have created an awkward scene at the happy event so it was best avoided . I was a thirty-five year old woman who had been living independently for years and it just seemed a bit ridiculous to me. I might have minded less if I had been twenty and getting married straight out of my parents’ home.
Ours being a French wedding, and religious marriages having zero validity in the eyes of the French state, we were already married by time we arrived at the religious ceremony. Consequently we organised the procession in more or less the traditional French manner: flower girls looking cute; witnesses (mixed pairs of groom’s witnesses and bride’s witnesses); parents (usually groom’s mother is with bride’s father and vice versa – we didn’t do this for purely practical reasons related to parental disability); happy couple. I find this an excellent arrangement.
I have heard of couples getting married at the Town Hall, and then splitting up again so that groom waits at the altar and bride arrives with her father. Again, I found this a bit ridiculous. Someone did try to give us some explanation about getting married in the eyes of God, but I wasn’t buying it. I think people mostly do it because they’ve seen it in (American) movies. It’s looks less absurd if the civil and religious ceremonies aren’t on the same day, but when you’ve just been to the Town Hall in your wedding clothes, said I do and signed a load of papers that make you legally married, it isn’t working for me.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The only solution to that confusing environment is for French people who are legally married to cease holding any religious ceremonies that looks like weddings.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Since a French marriage is an entirely and exclusively secular affair, as LVER has explained, I see no reason why a religious ceremony should not follow. (And it's certainly far better than the queer hybrid you have in the UK).
In protestant circles in France everyone is entirely clear that this is a service to bless an existing marriage and not the actual wedding; more often than not, this is explicitly stated.
However, to echo a comment above by Lamb Chopped, in a Catholic wedding there is (as I discovered when conducting an ecumenical one a few years back) a "fancy schmancy faux certificate" signed in full view of the congregation, so you could well be led to believe it had some official value.
tangent/
The big insight I gained from this was that as an institution, the Catholic church in France still hasn't really come to terms with the 1905 separation of Church and state, and still behaves in many respects as if France is a Catholic Country™. This mindset is reflected, amongst other things, in recent burkini-banning decisions, and is to my mind pretty crucial to overturn if we're going to make any headway here in combating radicalisation.
/tangent
[ 16. August 2016, 10:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But you've just highlighted the French problem; everyone may know that the religious ceremony is legally irrelevant, but couples and churches treat it as if it were a 'wedding', and still include old-fashioned wedding rituals. So there's obviously an awkward form of hybridity there.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
When I take a wedding I always ask the couple if they want these two bits to be included, making it clear they are not part of the modern service. They all want "You may now kiss", and almost all want "Who gives". As others have said, it is often an emotional father-daughter moment, however much we all disagree with the original meaning behind those words.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But you've just highlighted the French problem; everyone may know that the religious ceremony is legally irrelevant, but couples and churches treat it as if it were a 'wedding', and still include old-fashioned wedding rituals. So there's obviously an awkward form of hybridity there.
I believe marriage to have both a sacred and a secular aspect. I don't think the French solution to this dilemma is any more ungainly than the British one in this respect and makes it clear that marriage is open to all, not just believers.
There's no reason to take a passing swipe at our system in the context of this thread, especially as the official ceremony doesn't have any of this "giving away" business.
(Neither do any religious ones I've been to here of any stripe, either. I was happy to walk one of my daughters down the aisle this spring but I didn't need to do any giving*).
==
*Apart from for the bills.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I wasn't taking a 'passing swipe' at your system. I think it's probably for the best that the religious and legal sides of marriage are separated in France, and in some other countries.
But la vie en rouge's comments suggest that separating the two doesn't automatically imply that supposedly anachronistic or illogical rituals will disappear (or won't be introduced from elsewhere) just because the religious service isn't a 'real' wedding.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I think the French system is jolly sensible - marriage is at least a legal property contract and that makes it plain.
Secular weddings in the UK are positively encouraged to have all sentimental razzmataz of church weddings at their worst.
The last wedding I attended was a secular one presided over by a registrar with more liturgical sense than many vicars.
Since the bride said she was a feminist, I was rather surprised to hear the registrar say something along the lines of "X (the bride) is going from the care and protection of Y (the father) to Z (the groom)."
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
It's a long time since we've been to one such, but I've heard that brides in some services still promise to obey - and even to submit! In 2016!
As to the religious/secular divide: a majority of weddings here are now conducted by marriage celebrants. A marriage gains its legal validity from having been conducted by an authorised celebrant, whether or not that person is clergy or secular. Secular celebrants are required to undergo training before being authorised. Most clergy are all but automatically authorised and need no further training. No restriction as to place as long as it's Australian territory (including of course an embassy etc). Many are conducted in parks.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Since a French marriage is an entirely and exclusively secular affair, as LVER has explained, I see no reason why a religious ceremony should not follow. (And it's certainly far better than the queer hybrid you have in the UK).
Why hybrid? Have CofE ministers (I can't speak for other denominations) ceased to be registrars in Britain? As I remember it the whole wedding - including the legal bit - was down to clergy, who act as state registrars during the service.
In Ireland, there is what technically what might be called a hybrid approach to marriage; in that it's the state registrar (and clergy are not used in that capacity) who registers everything legally and receives the couple's declarations on two separate occasions. A marriage in a church (as in the non-legal but holy bit) can't happen without the state paperwork being presented and then sent off afterwards. It's a great system as it leaves the legal nuisances to the state officials and gives the religious officiants less fuss. I think also, as it sounds like in the US, the appropriate papers can be signed 24 or 48 hours ahead of the religious ceremony.
Of course, in many people's minds, it's the purely state aspect (the certification/registration etc) that is the not-so-real bit. Making vows before God, for some folks at least, is the bit that really matters; and all that making it legal business is just to keep the beaurocratic requirements for the state happy for legal purposes.
It was a long time ago, but once upon a time ordinary low-status couples merely had to exchange vows in the presence of their clergy person somewhere in the vicinity of the church building for it to be recognized by their local community that they were 'man and wife'.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In protestant circles in France everyone is entirely clear that this is a service to bless an existing marriage and not the actual wedding; more often than not, this is explicitly stated.
I have been to several "weddings" which have been separate from the legal bit with the government's registrar. In all cases, the couple did the legal bit with a couple of witnesses, then had the big public affair afterwards. Mostly, they wanted to do things in their "wedding" that were not at the time legal for a registrar-operated one, I think.
In all cases, the person presiding over the big ceremony referred to the trip to the registry office (which was done in suits, but not the wedding clothes in most cases) as something like "legal formalities", and the promises made in front of assembled friends and family in the big foofy white dress as the "real wedding".
They were very clear that the thing done with the registrar was some technical detail done to satisfy the local apparatchiks, and rather contemptuous of the uppity state for insisting that their hoops were jumped through.
ETA: None of these weddings were French.
[ 16. August 2016, 13:54: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Having someone not in the family 'give' the bride away is quite old. Read up on Charlotte Bronte's wedding -- it was her father's church in fact, but Rev. Bronte whether from ill health or a fit of the sulks refused to even show up, never mind give his daughter away. (The distance from Haworth parsonage to church is measurable in yards.) So one of her female friends was promoted from attendant to giver-away.
Exactly. That's what I was trying to say about the white dress. I know brides didn't always wear white and it didn't always symbolize virginity, but it did for some time. All of these "traditions," have changed meaning over the years, so why keep the big-white-dress tradition, one that costs a fortune, all so the bride can pretend she's a princess for a day, while making a fuss about a tradition of "giving the bride away," when it, too, has meant something different from generation to generation and from wedding to wedding.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Why hybrid? Have CofE ministers (I can't speak for other denominations) ceased to be registrars in Britain? As I remember it the whole wedding - including the legal bit - was down to clergy, who act as state registrars during the service.
From where I'm sitting, it looks hybrid precisely because ministers of religion can act as registrars. That's mixing up church and state in a very un-French way.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
the person presiding over the big ceremony referred to the trip to the registry office (which was done in suits, but not the wedding clothes in most cases) as something like "legal formalities", and the promises made in front of assembled friends and family in the big foofy white dress as the "real wedding".
I think this and Anselmina's post are further evidence that a lot of our assumptions about marriage are extremely culture-specific.
I suspect they also vary in proportion to the extent to which marriage is viewed as a sacrament.
For my part, I think venbede has an excellent point, which is that when you look into it, a huge part of marriage is about the protection of the rights of the people involved. Not unity candles, fancy dresses, the number of bridesmaids, or who gets to give away whom.
If the "legal stuff" is merely "tiresome bureaucracy", why get (legally) married at all? And if you're going to get (legally) married, why should it be shocking that you have to go through the proper formalities?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I know brides didn't always wear white and it didn't always symbolize virginity, but it did for some time. All of these "traditions," have changed meaning over the years, so why keep the big-white-dress tradition, one that costs a fortune, all so the bride can pretend she's a princess for a day, while making a fuss about a tradition of "giving the bride away," when it, too, has meant something different from generation to generation and from wedding to wedding.
You could say that the personal significance of much church liturgy and doctrine has changed from generation to generation, yet historical denominations continue to hold on to those words.
This being the case, brides are only doing the same thing when they perpetuate certain customs while rejecting their precise original significance.
One aspect of postmodernism is that apparently secularised people take religious symbols, rituals, and language, and invest them with a meaning of their own. The wedding ceremony is one clear example of that.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
AIUI the white dress tradition doesn't go all that far back and has little, if anything, to do with 'purity' or any of that nonsense.
All but the poorest brides expected to have a new outfit for their wedding: making it white (or at least pastel) was a sign that you had sufficient funds to have other clothes.
The white bit came from the dress Queen Victoria wore when she married Albert, and other society girls followed suit, wearing for their wedding the dress in which they were presented at court, which was always white or ivory.
Men wearing tails for weddings has the same origin in court dress of standard black tails, stripey trousers, grey waistcoat, white shirt and sober tie - never wing collar and white tie in the day unless you are a waiter, a schoolboy or sitting Oxford exams.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Should I ever get married(!) I would be very offended at someone referring to my wedding in fucking 'scare quotes' or as hybrid.
France, I accept, does have some peculiar challenges where state and religion are concerned, so what might be in one culture the very natural exchange of vows before God in a holy place conveniently and efficiently integrated with the legal business in the person of the cleric may well seem strange to someone like Eutychus. It doesn't mean it's a 'hybrid'. Or as Leorning Cnit puts it a 'wedding' to the people who are actually getting married and to whom it has real significance.
I don't think, either, that the legal business is a negligible part of the whole thing. If people could be trusted - which they can't - and if (feminist cliche coming up) women hadn't needed some protection from being abused as mere possessions for so many thousands of years, solemn vows in a holy place might have held more value than they often seem to, sadly. So Ven Bead is certainly right there.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In my state (possibly it varies in the US among states) the clergyman is required by law to have the marriage license in hand, before solemnizing the union. Our rector has been burned on this before and is now a stickler. There was a wedding once in which the groom left the license on the kitchen table, at home half an hour's drive away. The rector refused to proceed without it. So the groom drove home to fetch the document, while all the guests and wedding party went downstairs to have the reception and eat and drink. An hour later, refreshed and tiddly, they all trooped upstairs again to have the actual ceremony.
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
How PC can you get?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In my state (possibly it varies in the US among states) the clergyman is required by law to have the marriage license in hand, before solemnizing the union.
As a Nonconformist church in Britain, we must have the two forms from the Registrar (= his and hers) in hand before the wedding can go ahead. Sometimes we get them weeks in advance; often at the rehearsal a couple of days before the ceremony. I've never been given them on the day and in fact that could make things quite difficult, as time would be needed to go through the details with the couple.
By the way, it's not the Clergyperson's presence that makes the wedding legal in our set-up, but the presence of a duly Authorised Person from the church or a Registrar from the local authority. I have been such a Person in the past, but it's much easier if someone else does the form-filling.
[ 18. August 2016, 18:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just to bring the thread full circle, was the goat giving her away?
And just to lower the tone, perhaps the goat was her previous boyfriend.
And if it's kissed by a pure maiden under a full moon, it will turn back into a handsome prince.
And now, I will show you a more excellent way.
Kidding. But here's how the Orfies do it. As you will see there is no giving, no obeying, and no kissing.
{bride and groom stand at rear of church}
Priest: {lots of prayers}
Priest: Josephine, have you promised yourself to any other man?
Bride: Nope.
Priest: Do you enter into this marriage willingly?
Bride: Yep.
Priest & mousethief: {same thing}
{All walk to center of church}
Priest: {lots of prayers including tons of stuff about rings from the Bible, including Tamar }
Priest: {takes ring} {3x} This ring is given to the handmaiden of God Josephine in the name of the F & of the S & of the HS. {puts ring on her finger}
{same for mousethief}
Priest: {lots of prayers about marriage including famous married couples throughout the Bible, and a hope for sprogs "should that be God's will."}
Priest: (taking crowns) {3x} The handmaiden of God Josephine is crowned unto the servant of God Mousethief in the name of F/S/HS.
{same for mousethief}
{everybody (priest, bride, groom, sometimes best man and maid of honor) walks three times around the table in the middle of the church while the choir sings about Isaiah}
{Bride and groom drink from a common cup}
Priest: {lots of prayers followed by} Y'all can go over to the parish hall; we've got to sign some papers.
There you have it. No giving, no vows, no kissing.
___________
The "crowns" can be woven of leaves, woven of fake leaves (as ours are), or actual brass crowns the church has on hand for weddings in general, which are borrowed and returned to the church. They symbolize the crowns of martyrdom, and that both the husband and the wife must "give themselves" for the other. They are actually tied together with ribbons (some feet long of course to allow freedom of motion within bounds), which has its own symbolism that is left for the reader to infer.
[ 18. August 2016, 19:00: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Mousethief if I told you a crowning ceremony complete with ribbons was included in my daughter's wedding to a Maronite this spring, would it make you happy? That must make me at least a little bit almost-Orthodox by association, surely?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Mousethief if I told you a crowning ceremony complete with ribbons was included in my daughter's wedding to a Maronite this spring, would it make you happy? That must make me at least a little bit almost-Orthodox by association, surely?
Well I'll be happy if your daughter has a long and happy marriage. How she got there is far less important. But it makes me happy that you shared this. As for making you almost-Orthodox, nah. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Should I ever get married(!) I would be very offended at someone referring to my wedding in fucking 'scare quotes' or as hybrid.
My "wedding" was in quotes because in purely legal terms it wasn't a wedding - the legal wedding had happened earlier that day or the day before in the presence of the local registrar, the statutory witnesses and nobody else.
As far as the couple were concerned, the important thing was the ceremony where they made promises in front of their friends. They viewed that as their wedding, and it was a wedding in every sense except the legal one.
The thing that the law would refer to as their wedding was the thing that took less than ten minutes with the registrar, and the couple concerned viewed it as a bit of necessary but uninteresting bureaucracy, and no more exciting or significant than opening a joint bank account or changing the names on their passports.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Traditional it may or may not be. But not part of the authorized liturgy (at least in the Church of England).
It is not a feature of either of the services in Common Worship (the 'new' one, or the Series One service). And the rubrics of the BCP almost preclude it.
The words "Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?" are indeed part of the 1662 BCP's solemnization of Holy Matrimony.
"You may kiss the bride," however, appears to be a Hollywood addition which has taken root in real life.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I have heard an British Orthodox priest say that for an Orthodox wedding, it is necessary to attend the registry office first to make the wedding valid in British law just because the Orhtodox service includes no vows.
A civil partnership requires no vows, but if the same sex partners are prepared to be faithful to each other, there is nothing to stop them.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have heard an British Orthodox priest say that for an Orthodox wedding, it is necessary to attend the registry office first to make the wedding valid in British law just because the Orhtodox service includes no vows.
A civil partnership requires no vows, but if the same sex partners are prepared to be faithful to each other, there is nothing to stop them.
I'm pretty sure that vows are not required by English law for marriage (and I assume Scottish likewise). Most people choose to have them for a civil ceremony of course.
But the legal requirements are pretty minimal I understand - a confirmation that the partners can be married legally (i.e. are not already married and are not closely related) and that they both freely assent to their marriage.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I am fairly sure that exactly what Mousethief describes wouldn't be valid as a wedding in England and Wales, even if the Orthodox priest is authorised to solemnise weddings as a deputy registrar. It's not, though, the vows that are critical. It's that I'm fairly sure the law requires some version of each party saying separately, 'I ... take you ... as my wife/husband'. Exactly what is the bare minimum statement required I don't know, but there has to be one.
A marriage can't be caused to come into existence between two people without that. Otherwise it would be conceptually possible to produce a valid forced marriage.
If the form of Orthodox wedding used in England and Wales doesn't contain that, then it would be necessary to attend before a Registrar first. However, I suspect - but don't know, of course - that this is included in Orthodox weddings here.
Despite the more than slightly mystifying use of the weirdly inappropriate word 'hybrid', what Eutychus describes in France would cause a problem for the CofE. If the couple are already married civilly before the wedding, then the form used in church should be a 'An Order for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage'. It strikes me that it would be a fairly bad nonsense for a couple to ask the clergy to pretend to go through a wedding as such for them, if they are already married.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
"Kiss the bride" has been replaced with "you may give each other a sign of love" in some weddings, which means kiss each other on joint initiation I suppose.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Despite the more than slightly mystifying use of the weirdly inappropriate word 'hybrid', what Eutychus describes in France would cause a problem for the CofE.
I'm surprised at the amount of reaction this word has generated.
"Hybrid" means quote:
of mixed character; composed of different elements
The way a CoE wedding is arranged comprises both temporal and spiritual aspects, governed by two different sets of authority and required to contain different elements that satisfy both sets. How is that not hybrid?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I believe that having a civil wedding followed by a church "marriage" (which is really a blessing and I don't know if it contains vows made "before God") has been the norm in Holland for several centuries.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The thing that the law would refer to as their wedding was the thing that took less than ten minutes with the registrar, and the couple concerned viewed it as a bit of necessary but uninteresting bureaucracy, and no more exciting or significant than opening a joint bank account or changing the names on their passports.
I disagree with this attitude very strongly. My civil wedding was not a bit of tedious bureaucracy. It made me married, and if (God forbid) our relationship ended in divorce, it is this bit that would have to be undone. A civil ceremony ought to be taken very seriously. I understand that the spiritual elements of marriage are important to people (they are to me), but OTOH the New Testament seems fairly clear to me that worldly authorities are established by God and we ought to submit to them so far as they are not in conflict with our faith. I don't buy that God was somehow not paying attention to 'Do you, Mademoiselle firstname middlename la vie en rouge take Monsieur firstname middlename extra Catholic middlename Parisien for spouse? - Yes' because the mayor was asking and not a minister of religion.
A number of European countries have this set-up. I wonder if people tend to have a different outlook on it when it's the norm.
(And returning to the OP a bit, a civil ceremony here has no official parental involvement whatsoever nor anything remotely resembling 'giving away'. The sine qua non cast is composed of the couple, between two and four witnesses, the mayor and an official who looks after the paperwork. The idea seems a bit absurd and I think that maybe says something about the real status/meaning of 'giving away'.)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Enoch wrote: quote:
I am fairly sure that exactly what Mousethief describes wouldn't be valid as a wedding in England and Wales, even if the Orthodox priest is authorised to solemnise weddings as a deputy registrar.
Yes, I think so - in fact, having posted earlier, I now have a dim recollection of hearing about an Orthodox wedding ceremony where the priest had to explain to family visitors from abroad (the wife's family was Greek IIRC) that there would be a few extra bits they may not be familiar with, so that the ceremony would also comply with the legal requirements, so that no separate civil ceremony would be needed. But I'm a bit hazy on that and can't quote a reference.
Another reason for having two ceremonies (religious + civil) is that any venue also has to be legally registered for the purposes of marriage ceremonies. (My local pub is so registered!) Probably most churches are by now, but maybe a few are not.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I don't understand having a civil service. Isn't just saying "aye" and signing papers enough? Does there have to be a service? I guess I'd like to ask what this civil service consists of.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
mt - Here's a link to a paper I found on a local authority website concerning suggested scripts people can use. I guess you can make your own up provided it includes the legally required words.
I'm guessing of course, but I suppose that if you elect to get married in a non-church setting, some sort of enhancement of the de minimis legal requirements would seem appropriate. If you are getting married in a church afterwards, the absolute minimum is probably the option - or it would be for me at least.
In the UK context, if you choose to have a civil marriage, you are not allowed to have religious content, so "service" is probably the wrong word in that case.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
In France the civil ceremony involves the mayor or their deputy reading out the relevant sections of laws covering marriage, checking the identity of the parties and whether there is any pre-nup agreement, and gaining their assent to get married. They then sign the register and are declared married.
That's the legal minimum, but the presiding official usually adds a few words about recognition of the civil institution, the locality, and life together in the community. He may present the couple with some memento of the locality.
It doesn't take long, and is performed with a greater or lesser degree of enthusiasm, but what it does do is emphasise that marriage is a social reality in civil society.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Thanks y'all. I am strongly of the opinion that we need to disentangle the civil and religious aspects of marriage, so this is interesting to me.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I disagree with this attitude very strongly. My civil wedding was not a bit of tedious bureaucracy.
I am not reporting the opinions of my friends as normative - merely reporting that yours is not the only opinion.
quote:
A civil ceremony ought to be taken very seriously.
The marriage ought to be taken seriously. I don't think it necessarily follows that registering your marriage with the local bureaucracy has to be any more special than any other piece of administration.
For comparison, I found the birth of my children to be enormously significant. I found the moment I filled out the paperwork to register their existence with the US and UK authorities to be of rather less significance - even though those are the bits of paper that they will use to prove their citizenship.
This is almost identical to my attitude towards the legal part of a marriage, and certainly similar to the attitude of those friends who I mentioned.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think it necessarily follows that registering your marriage with the local bureaucracy has to be any more special than any other piece of administration.
The bit that's missing from my (French) perspective is the recognition that marriage peforms a function in civil society in addition to any personal or religious sense the couple seeks to ascribe to it.
By having a civil ceremony, you're saying "we want to be recognised in civic life as a couple".
As I've already said, there is obviously a cultural aspect to this, but the French perspective is one I'm happy to defend.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I frankly don't see the need for a ceremony at all. I don't have to listen to someone preach about the civil responsibilities of automobile operation in order to get my driver's license, nor about the place of restaurateurs in civil society to get my food handlers permit.
It seems to me the government should not be in the ceremony business at all, unless maybe it's swearing in officials (I cede this grudgingly). Otherwise give me the papers, and if I want a ceremony, I will go find someone to give me one -- whether that's religious or non-religious.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Mmm. You are not a teenager in the US hoping to get your first driver's license. In my jurisdiction you get your learners permit after showing up for a brief lecture by a judge, with your parents in tow. The idea is to get the little brats to take it seriously.
The state has an interest in proper and responsible marriage. Even putting aside all of the family/children stuff -- there are significant benefits that accrue only if you are married. Social Security benefits, inheritance, even the ability to get into the hospital room to stand beside the bed of your spouse -- this is why gay people agitate not for living-together, but marriage. Before they give these to you it is not unreasonable to hope that you've got your head screwed on right about it.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Speaking for myself, I would take it even further and suggest that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely, given that it has no formal views on what marriage is or what it concerns, though this is only relevant to the UK. It would leave the marrying to those who would bring meaning to the event, such as churches, the British Humanist Association etc.
Some take the opposite view, ie. that the church should not be in the business of marrying people, but they will have to argue their case themselves.
(ETA - crossposted with Brenda Clough)
[ 19. August 2016, 16:39: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mmm. You are not a teenager in the US hoping to get your first driver's license. In my jurisdiction you get your learners permit after showing up for a brief lecture by a judge, with your parents in tow. The idea is to get the little brats to take it seriously.
Maybe things have changed since I got my DL, or maybe I just don't remember that part. My parents gave me plenty of lecture about taking it seriously, however.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
By having a civil ceremony, you're saying "we want to be recognised in civic life as a couple".
...and by registering my child's birth with the UK authorities I am saying "I want him to be recognized in civic life as British".
I tell various government bureaucrats things all the time - where I want them to consider as my home, how much money I made last year, and so how much tax I'm proposing to pay them, which people are authorized to collect my children from their school, the fact that no, I'm not entitled to serve on your jury, and so on.
I don't see my telling the government "this person is my wife" or her telling them "this person is my husband" as being qualitatively different.
I'll happily acknowledge that the state occupies a rather different role in the French mindset than it does in mine, but I still don't see registering a marriage as being any different from registering a birth or a death.
The state's role in my marriage is to say "thank you for telling us, Mr. Cniht."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Speaking for myself, I would take it even further and suggest that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely, given that it has no formal views on what marriage is or what it concerns, though this is only relevant to the UK.
Speaking as a USian, I disagree. The state has a vested interest in keeping society humming smoothly along, and a great deal of smoothness of humming is effected by the various trappings of civil marriage (child welfare and disposition of one's estate being two that come immediately to mind).
The church also has a vested interest in marriage, at least historically.
The thing is, while these two circles of interest overlap, they do not coincide. So I think there is reason to keep both (at least if one is religious), but not to have them have anything to do with one another.
And speaking just as a USian, having an ordained minister act as an agent of the state hurts every First Amendment bone in my body.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mmm. You are not a teenager in the US hoping to get your first driver's license. In my jurisdiction you get your learners permit after showing up for a brief lecture by a judge, with your parents in tow. The idea is to get the little brats to take it seriously.
Maybe things have changed since I got my DL, or maybe I just don't remember that part. My parents gave me plenty of lecture about taking it seriously, however.
I learned that things can vary widely from state-to-state when one of my daughter's best friends, who lives elsewhere, got her driver's license on her 16th birthday without ever taking any driver's ed classes. Here, to get a license at 16 requires driver's ed and 60 hours behind the wheel while you have a permit.
No lectures, though.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Speaking for myself, I would take it even further and suggest that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely, given that it has no formal views on what marriage is or what it concerns, though this is only relevant to the UK.
Speaking as a USian, I disagree. The state has a vested interest in keeping society humming smoothly along, and a great deal of smoothness of humming is effected by the various trappings of civil marriage (child welfare and disposition of one's estate being two that come immediately to mind).
The church also has a vested interest in marriage, at least historically.
The thing is, while these two circles of interest overlap, they do not coincide. So I think there is reason to keep both (at least if one is religious), but not to have them have anything to do with one another.
And speaking just as a USian, having an ordained minister act as an agent of the state hurts every First Amendment bone in my body.
I agree. And the current not-so-neat-and-tidy intermingling has had a lot of ill effects, including arguably capriciousness of RCC annulments in the US, and more recently the SSM angst. As mousethief said, the two spheres are both important, but have very different agendas and purposes which could be better addressed with greater separation. Although this may be a particularly American pov.
[ 19. August 2016, 17:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I agree. And the current not-so-neat-and-tidy intermingling has had a lot of ill effects, including arguably capriciousness of RCC annulments in the US, [..]
I'm not sure how much more separation you can actually get than the US situation. Right now in the US, couples have to obtain a marriage license from their local bureaucrats, which is the thing that allows a marriage to be performed, and then they return the license verifying that the marriage took place.
Is there a functional difference if we just say that the issuing of the marriage license is the legal wedding - a couple shows up at the county clerk's office, signs a piece of paper and is now legally married.
What difference would that make? Surely the church would still require people to get legally married in order to perform a wedding / blessing / whatever? I don't see how this would change the position of the RCC and annulments either - the RCC wouldn't bless the legal marriage of a couple that it considered married to other people, and a couple of Catholics could still legally have a civil wedding without being licitly married in the eyes of the church.
Because they're never going to be independent. No church is ever going to agree to "marry" you to someone whilst you are legally married to someone different.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What difference would that make? Surely the church would still require people to get legally married in order to perform a wedding / blessing / whatever?
Why? If we disentangle married-in-the-church and married-in-the-state, one could be in one category but not the other, or in neither, or in both. The fact that the church in your example demands a civil marriage proves that in your example they are not, in fact, disentangled. Your example is, in short, not an example of what cliffdweller and I are talking about.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Here, to get a license at 16 requires driver's ed and 60 hours behind the wheel while you have a permit.
No lectures, though.
You won't be surprised to learn that in France a similar system applies - with the lectures*. Just like for marriage (for which the "lectures" are a reminder above all of the legal implications of your decision).
==
*Which accompaniers have to attend too. It was here I learned, as an accompanying parent, firstly the difference between exceeding the speed limit and excessive speed, and secondly (in a tangent to another thread) that up until the 1970s in France, being DUI was considered a mitigating circumstance in an accident.
[ 19. August 2016, 19:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why? If we disentangle married-in-the-church and married-in-the-state, one could be in one category but not the other, or in neither, or in both.
Mathematically, sure - but I don't think the churches will permit it.
My primary contention is that no church will ever consent to church-marry a couple who are currently state-married to other people.
My secondary contention is that mainstream churches will require people that they church-marry to also state-marry. There probably are fringe groups who oppose the government's involvement in marriage who would forbid their adherents from state-marrying (but those people can already do that. You hold a religious service that has no legal effect.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why? If we disentangle married-in-the-church and married-in-the-state, one could be in one category but not the other, or in neither, or in both.
Mathematically, sure - but I don't think the churches will permit it.
My primary contention is that no church will ever consent to church-marry a couple who are currently state-married to other people.
I can imagine circumstances in which it might be permitted. A man is legally married to a woman who depends upon his pension, so he doesn't want to divorce her, but they've been separated for years and want nothing to do with each other in a marital way. He converts and is baptized. He meets a new woman and sets up housekeeping. Do you marry them or not? If you insist he divorce his state-married wife, you condemn her to penury and early death.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can imagine circumstances in which it might be permitted. A man is legally married to a woman who depends upon his pension, so he doesn't want to divorce her, but they've been separated for years and want nothing to do with each other in a marital way. He converts and is baptized. He meets a new woman and sets up housekeeping. Do you marry them or not? If you insist he divorce his state-married wife, you condemn her to penury and early death.
A state-divorce in these circumstances would include division of pension benefits, surely?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can imagine circumstances in which it might be permitted. A man is legally married to a woman who depends upon his pension, so he doesn't want to divorce her, but they've been separated for years and want nothing to do with each other in a marital way. He converts and is baptized. He meets a new woman and sets up housekeeping. Do you marry them or not? If you insist he divorce his state-married wife, you condemn her to penury and early death.
A state-divorce in these circumstances would include division of pension benefits, surely?
Not always.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A state-divorce in these circumstances would include division of pension benefits, surely?
Not always.
I'd suggest that that is a problem that needs fixing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A state-divorce in these circumstances would include division of pension benefits, surely?
Not always.
I'd suggest that that is a problem that needs fixing.
True but irrelevant.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
True but irrelevant.
Is it irrelevant? You're suggesting a change in US laws to make marriages a civil-registration-only thing, and citing as your example for the gains this provides the case of someone who needs to remain legally-married to his ex in order to provide him/her with pension rights, but wishes to shack up in a religiously-approved fashion with a new partner. Apparently he's not bothered about the new partner's pension.
And it seems to me that your entire scenario is caused by inadequacies in the divorce law, and a simpler and more obvious solution to the problem is to fix the divorce law so that the couple's assets, including pension entitlements, are divided appropriately on divorce.
Because presumably in your scenario, the law will treat the civil-spouse ex as the legal partner for next-of-kin rights in hospitals and so on, rather than the new religious-spouse partner, and it's unlikely that that's what the parties involved want.
(There are probably harder-to-solve scenarios involving insurance: imagine an employed husband with a new love interest. The husband gets good medical insurance through his job, the wife takes care of the kids, and the new love interest is employed and has her own decent insurance.
It is clearly in the husband's interests for the mother and primary carer of his children to maintain good health insurance, and he can achieve this by remaining married to her. If he has actually left the marital home and is living with the new love interest, perhaps he is committing fraud (don't know - does family health insurance specify "same household"?), but he's unlikely to be caught.
We can give the ex some long-term expensive medical condition to spice things up.
Now, I'd say that this was yet another flaw with the way the US does healthcare, but that's a much harder fix than fixing the divorce law. I'm still not sure that I'd be happy with the church blessing the husband's relationship with his new partner in these circumstances, though, although this might be your best case.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
My example had not to do with divorce law but with pension plan rules. Which are a matter of law, corporate policy, union-negotiated terms of employment, and probably other stuff I'm not remembering. Changing marriage laws is a piece of cake compared to slogging through all that would be required to change those things.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
One of the things the USA sorely lacks ins single=payer health insurance. If we had universal health care, then people could marry and divorce and whatever without putting their health care on the line. Please God, may this happen in my life time.
Even putting healthcare aside, however, there are things like pension, real estate, and inheritance laws (which vary by state) which are all tied to the married state. My spouse inherits a certain set of assets, which my squeeze does not. George R.R. Martin (an acquaintance) got married after Game of Thrones hit it big. It wasn't because of any change in the relationship between his long-time companion and himself. It was because of tax and inheritance law.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
I do not see why a church would require someone to be legally married in order for the church to bless their marriage.
If, for some reason, my country outlawed marriage between people such as me and my husband, I would be annoyed from a legal perspective, but I would still feel perfectly entitled to have a church ceremony, and to call myself married at the end of it.
In the US, it was not that long ago that marriage between black and white people was outlawed. I would say that, if a mixed race couple went to a church and requested marriage, it would be the church's responsibility to say "Sure, God will bless your marriage anyway." rather than "Sucks to be you. Come back when it's legal."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I do not see why a church would require someone to be legally married in order for the church to bless their marriage.
I don't think we're really talking about illegal marriages, whether they're in some bizarre future where a state outlaws interracial marriage again, or outlaws same-sex marriage, or for that matter if a faith (FLDS? Muslims?) wants to conduct polygamous marriages.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It's certainly one aspect of it. If we decouple secular and religious marriage, then part of what we're talking about is people who can't be married civilly but can be married ecclesially. Certainly now there are people who can be married by the state who can't be married by certain churches -- for instance Catholics who have been divorced and not annulled.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
... which leads right into the interesting question of what happens when various churches refuse to recognize the non-state ecclesiastical marriages of others. What happens when you change denominations? Or when an ecclesiastically but not state-married couple wants to split up and one or both go on to other churches and ecclesiastically-marry new people while remaining married to one another in the eyes of their previous denomination?
I can see whole daisy chains developing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... which leads right into the interesting question of what happens when various churches refuse to recognize the non-state ecclesiastical marriages of others. What happens when you change denominations? Or when an ecclesiastically but not state-married couple wants to split up and one or both go on to other churches and ecclesiastically-marry new people while remaining married to one another in the eyes of their previous denomination?
I can see whole daisy chains developing.
Kinda like how churches now don't all recognize each other's baptisms?
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
"Sun City Weddings" (named after a large retirement area outside of Phoenix) have been known to be held in churches for couples, usually both widowed, where one party (usually the woman) will lose of good-sized pension if she remarries. The couple wants to marry, but if they do it legally the pension flies out the window. So they quietly marry in church without license or registration.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Since we're discussing wedding customs, may I rant about wedding processions? What I regard as the traditional British (i.e. correct) order is priest, bride and father, then bridesmaids. However, what I assume is an American import is creeping into weddings: priest, hundreds of little children, and finally bride and father. My main reason for disliking the latter is that I am an old curmudgeon, but I also find it messy. Without an adult they know to follow, the kids tend to wander everywhere (and there are often too many and they're too young). At one wedding recently, we had rehearsed the British way quite happily the night before, I'd asked for any questions and had no reply, and the next day the bride said she wanted the American style. Of course I let her, but chaos followed.
Am I right in thinking these are typically British and American? And does anyone have any idea how far back these customs go? (This being the Ship, I except someone to inform me that what I think has always been done in the UK was, in fact, imported from Honduras in 1985.)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
American weddings run like this:
The best man and the groomsmen have the duty of getting guests into their seats. When nearly everybody is in place (there are always tardy ones) the best man walks the mother of the bride down to the front pew. This is the signal to begin.
The priest, the groom and his groomsmen and best man, all wait up at the altar rail. The organ kicks in the wedding march, and the procession begins. There may be young children, a flower girl or a ring boy, but never more than one or two. Then the bridesmaids, one by one, followed by the maid of honor. Then at last the bride, on the arm of her father (or whoever is giving her away).
When these last arrive at the front the father (or whowever) hands the bride over to the groom and then sits down next to the mother of the bride. The priest does the rite -- the maid of honor's duty is to hold the bouquet at need, also to help the bride arrange her skirt if it is very long.
When they're done, they recess back down the aisle: bride on groom's arm, best man taking the maid of honor, and then the groomsmen with bridesmaids. If there was a ringbearer or flower girl they have usually bailed out by this point, joining parents in the pews. If they are old enough, they can either bring up the rear or go ahead of the bride scattering fake flower petals.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
I wouldn't say that the incorporation of 'masses of children' into the wedding procession is an American invention -- I've done the music for hundreds of US weddings in various faith traditions, and have only ever seen 2 or at most 4 children involved (flower girls and ring bearers). I can recall only 1 or 2 occasions when the priest (or minister) was in the procession. The custom seems to be for officiant, groom, groomsmen to enter from the sacristy just before the bridal procession (usually so-called) begins. That will usually be (in roughly this order) maybe processional cross & tapers, flower girl(s) scattering rose petals, bridesmaids in vague order of height, maid (or matron) of honor (or both, if really posh), and FINALLY after a significant pause as congo scrambles to its feet & hikes out cell-phone cameras, the bride and her father.
Some locales are getting trendier, but weddings are perhaps the most hide-bound bastions of conservative practice in US liturgical goings-on. (This is based on experience over 50 years in Chicago, Kentucky, North & South Carolina, in Episcopal, Methodist, RC, Presby, and you-name-it-if-you-can establishments. YMMV, obviously.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm a curmudgeon too, and I'm speaking as a father-in-law.
The groom and best man should have arrived first, and be in their pew. The best man should have the rings. Both should be sober. The priest should be standing at the front to receive the bride. The bride should enter with her father followed by bridesmaids - behind her, not in front. Child bridesmaids should be with adult ones, who have three important jobs to do. First, to look after the bouquet while the wedding is taking place. Second to keep any trailing train in the right place. And third, to manage the child bridesmaids, tell them what to do when, stop them picking their noses etc.
All should enter and come up the aisle as one party, not a whole series of separate entrances.
At the end, by the way, if both sets of parents are still alive, bride's father walks out next to groom's mother and groom's father with bride's mother.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I should have added. There's no need for extra men at the front in matching suits. The job of the ushers is to welcome guests and get them sitting in the right place.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I should have added. There's no need for extra men at the front in matching suits. The job of the ushers is to welcome guests and get them sitting in the right place.
The norm here is groomsmen equal in number to the bridesmaids, partially for the reasons given by Brenda Clough. More often than not, I see the groomsmen process ahead of the bridesmaids, with only the minister/priest, groom and best man entering from the side and waiting at the front.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And there is huge variation if the couple want to include the Doberman, have a bunch of children already, want to include the five extra parents from when Dad remarried, etc. The sky 's the limit, really, as long as they can get the officiating priest to play along.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
My father was aghast at the cost and ceremonials at my cousin's wedding. "Feel free to elope," was his advice to me.
Huia
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
What is the practice in the rest of Europe?
Standard practice here is for the priest/minister/celebrant to be waiting at the front. Celebrant most likely as the majority of weddings these days are non-religious.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
My wedding - very typical for Australia - had the groom, the priest, and the groomsmen all waiting at the front, and the bridesmaids entering, followed by me and my father.
It would never occur to me to have the priest as part of the procession. Never seen that done.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
Usually, but not always. The last wedding I attended (Episcopal), the procession was crucifer, choir, clergy, grooms (or was it grooms and then clergy?) There may have been another acolyte or two, I'm not sure. At any rate, no one was standing by the altar rail waiting for anyone else. It worked beautifully.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
Usually, but not always. The last wedding I attended (Episcopal), the procession was crucifer, choir, clergy, grooms (or was it grooms and then clergy?) There may have been another acolyte or two, I'm not sure. At any rate, no one was standing by the altar rail waiting for anyone else. It worked beautifully.
I have seen it done that way in one or two Episcopal weddings as well, but they have been the exception. The vast majority of wedding I have been to, including Episcopal weddings, the priest, groom, best man and possibly the groomsmen have come in from the side to wait at the front.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
Yep, that's the norm here. Always feels weird for me to go hang out with the guys in the moments before the wedding, but that's the way it's done.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I've been to weddings where the celebrant starts up front, and weddings where the celebrant processes alongside the groom. (then the wedding party in pairs, then the bride when everybody is situated up front)
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
In this one, the officiant waits up front, the groomsmen process in with the bridesmaids, and the bride is not given away...
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
My wedding - very typical for Australia - had the groom, the priest, and the groomsmen all waiting at the front, and the bridesmaids entering, followed by me and my father.
It would never occur to me to have the priest as part of the procession. Never seen that done.
I took weddings leading the bride in when I was in Oz. No body questioned it - maybe I ooze natural authority?
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm a curmudgeon too, and I'm speaking as a father-in-law.
The groom and best man should have arrived first, and be in their pew. The best man should have the rings. Both should be sober. The priest should be standing at the front to receive the bride. The bride should enter with her father followed by bridesmaids - behind her, not in front. Child bridesmaids should be with adult ones, who have three important jobs to do. First, to look after the bouquet while the wedding is taking place. Second to keep any trailing train in the right place. And third, to manage the child bridesmaids, tell them what to do when, stop them picking their noses etc.
All should enter and come up the aisle as one party, not a whole series of separate entrances.
At the end, by the way, if both sets of parents are still alive, bride's father walks out next to groom's mother and groom's father with bride's mother.
Speaking as a curmudgeonly priest, I almost entirely agree. I do precede the bride down the aisle, having met her at the door, partly to avoid some of these last minute bright ideas. I have a couple of spiels which I roll out at the rehearsal which often cure the 'but I saw it on Friends' tendency.
I remind the bride that when people turn in their seats they want to see her rather than me or the bridesmaids - so she and Dad need to leave lots of space after I have set off before they follow me down the aisle and the bridesmaids need to be behind her. And I tell the bridesmaids and bride together that their job on the day is to be maids to the bride. They are to sort out any dress/flower/train related issues and that means that they need to be behind her and available to help.
And anyone proposing to have petals scattered in their path is asked for the name of the member of the wedding party who will be cleaning them up, so that I can give them a dustpan and brush.
Anne
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... which leads right into the interesting question of what happens when various churches refuse to recognize the non-state ecclesiastical marriages of others. What happens when you change denominations? Or when an ecclesiastically but not state-married couple wants to split up and one or both go on to other churches and ecclesiastically-marry new people while remaining married to one another in the eyes of their previous denomination?
I can see whole daisy chains developing.
Kinda like how churches now don't all recognize each other's baptisms?
Generally speaking, they DO. The only case I can think of of "We don't recognize that baptism" has to do with people baptized as infants who later turn up to adult-baptism-only churches. And even then it's discrimination based on age--if someone (me, for instance) who was baptized as an adult (more or less) decided to jump ship and head for the Southern Baptists, they'd recognize my baptism, even though I came of an infant-baptizing church.
This is one of the encouraging things I try to keep in mind when I'm feeling down on the church in general.
But marriages--now that's another kettle of fish entirely.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The only case I can think of of "We don't recognize that baptism" has to do with people baptized as infants who later turn up to adult-baptism-only churches. And even then it's discrimination based on age--if someone (me, for instance) who was baptized as an adult (more or less) decided to jump ship and head for the Southern Baptists, they'd recognize my baptism, even though I came of an infant-baptizing church.
Not necessarily. Most Southern Baptist churches in these parts would not recognize your baptism even if you were baptized as an adult, but not immersed. And there are quite a few Southern Baptist churches around here who would require re-baptism to join that particular church, even if you were previously baptized in another Baptist church. (Though to be fair, that has less to do with not recognizing another church's baptism and more to do with a different understanding of baptism.)
Then there's the issue of not recognizing the baptisms of another denomination because of the possibility that a non-standard formula was used, such "in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer." (See the thread on male language.)
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
There are. Others will accept those triple-dunked with the F/S/HS formula. Depends on who's your bishop, and what jurisdiction he's in.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
There are. Others will accept those triple-dunked with the F/S/HS formula. Depends on who's your bishop, and what jurisdiction he's in.
Thanks. Will any accept baptism with the F/S/HS formula, but with pouring rather than triple-dunking?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
There are. Others will accept those triple-dunked with the F/S/HS formula. Depends on who's your bishop, and what jurisdiction he's in.
Thanks. Will any accept baptism with the F/S/HS formula, but with pouring rather than triple-dunking?
No, none that I've heard tell of, although there are microchurches (autocephalous* churches generally coterminous with a single nation, like Japan or Finland) that do things their own way, thank you very much. Except in cases of emergency, baptism is by dunking. Leading many churches to own or occasionally rent horse troughs for adult baptisms.
_______________________
*literally, self-headed. Not under the purview of any other church. Orthodoxy is not a single big church with one head like the RCC; it is a collection of inter-communing but self-ruling churches. Indeed the Patriarch of Rome thinking he was the head of all the ancient Patriarchates (which included Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople (later), Antioch, and one more I'm forgetting), rather prima inter pares (first among equals), that led ultimately to the Great Schism of 1054. Resulting in the Catholics, a single patriarchy under a single Patriarch, and the Orthodox, the remaining patriarchies, each under its own patriarch, as per the original arrangement. But now we are far, far afield.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
... And anyone proposing to have petals scattered in their path is asked for the name of the member of the wedding party who will be cleaning them up, so that I can give them a dustpan and brush.
That definitely gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Perhaps they could also be issued with a little bag like the ones people use for picking up their dog messes.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I know of a church near here which erected a new building. The baptismal area is built right in, behind the altar -- a long narrow pool, accessed by steps on either side. Any time someone feels like being baptized, they raise the curtain and send him in.
In our more traditional church there is a font, for ladling water over the baptismal candidate. And under the floor (you have to move the altar) is a hot tub, for dunking. A dunking baptism thus calls for forewarning and some organization (especially in winter when you definitely want the hot in the hot tub going). We have an entire suite of towels, keyed to match the carpeting.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Thanks mousethief.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
There are. Others will accept those triple-dunked with the F/S/HS formula. Depends on who's your bishop, and what jurisdiction he's in.
Thanks. Will any accept baptism with the F/S/HS formula, but with pouring rather than triple-dunking?
No, none that I've heard tell of, although there are microchurches (autocephalous* churches generally coterminous with a single nation, like Japan or Finland) that do things their own way, thank you very much. Except in cases of emergency, baptism is by dunking. Leading many churches to own or occasionally rent horse troughs for adult baptisms.
What about those of us who have been dunked, but not thrice-dunked?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
What about those of us who have been dunked, but not thrice-dunked?
Were you to wish to become Orthodox, you would have to be baptized with the triple-dunk method. Anything else doesn't "count" as a baptism at all.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I stand corrected.
Though the debate seems to be entirely about methods and not about "You did it, and we didn't, so it's invalid."
I presume that if I had been triple-dunked at the age of 30 using the F/S/S formula I'd be okay pretty much everywhere?
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
What about those of us who have been dunked, but not thrice-dunked?
Were you to wish to become Orthodox, you would have to be baptized with the triple-dunk method. Anything else doesn't "count" as a baptism at all.
Well, there go my chances of ever joining the Orthodox church. Ah well.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
What about those of us who have been dunked, but not thrice-dunked?
Were you to wish to become Orthodox, you would have to be baptized with the triple-dunk method. Anything else doesn't "count" as a baptism at all.
Well, there go my chances of ever joining the Orthodox church. Ah well.
And any chances of mutual respect of differing Christian traditions (and, yes, I recognise that Baptists can be naughty on this subject, too).
[ 27. August 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And any chances of mutual respect of differing Christian traditions (and, yes, I recognise that Baptists can be naughty on this subject, too).
An Orthodox could well ask, what kind of respect is it when a group departs from the age-old practice of the church, and then from that standpoint judges those who have held fast to the traditions handed down to them (as we are commanded to do in Scripture)? This game plays in all directions and one could argue it's not respectful to bring it up in most contexts.
A: What does your church believe about X?
B: Y.
A: I have lost all respect for you.
B: Hardly helpful.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Getting back to the OP, this afternoon I took a wedding. The bride's father was dead, so her son (aged 8?) walked in with her - and then gave her away. Not quite what I'm used to, but it was important for her.
(A lovely wedding, even if she did have American style bridesmaids.)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
It would be interesting, if one could live indefinitely, to witness just how long the shadow of patriarchy hangs over the human race, or even if it is ever fully discarded.
The idea that a woman is a thing to be 'given' must surely be the the root cause of sociological misogyny the world over. Being such an ancient cultural tradition it is understandable that many women, even in today's free society, are still unable to completely reject it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Until the care of children is viewed as being as natural for men as for women, even at a very early stage in a child's life, I think there will always be a sense that women need to be 'protected'.
Even pregnancy and childbirth are challenges to female liberty. The sci-fi freak hidden deep inside me feels that until pregnancy is divorced from the female body, and fears about paternity are banished, then patriarchal control will always exist in some form.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The concept has been thoroughly explored in the genre, certainly. In SF you can even split off the carrying and birth of the infant from the parents.
This is unlikely to happen any time soon in real life. I think the most important thing for women to get, and hang onto, is the vote. With equality in the law, we can manage everything else. I assure you that the giving away of the bride at the wedding is nowhere near the most difficult issue.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The concept has been thoroughly explored in the genre, certainly. In SF you can even split off the carrying and birth of the infant from the parents.
When I first read this I thought you meant San Francisco.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
That's what I was taught to do and I've never taken a service in America. At a team ministry where I was the Curate I was told that my colleagues in ministry led the bride up to the altar. My instinctive response was "they are here to see her, not me".
Also, if you nip in first you can give the organist the nod to tell him/ her that it's time to stop twiddling and to whack out the Bridal March in the way that God and Mr Richard Wagner intended, and also to give the evil eye to the groom and best man to stop lolling around and to assume the demeanour of a couple of captured resistance members being offered a last cigarette by the Haupsturmfuhrer in charge of the firing squad.
The only time I've interfered with the bridal procession is when a young and extremely faithful and able server was a student at the school at which the bride was a popular and fashionable teacher, and so I hastily invented a tradition of a crucifer leading them in, in order to give the server bragging rights about having had a key role at Miss Smith's wedding.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
I come from a low Anglican, happy clappy, guitars and tamborines type of tradition, but my wedding was from the 1662 prayer book - a completely trad white [just typed "s" instead of "w"!] wedding. I was given away by my Dad and I promised to obey my husband.
The reasoning behind this possibly bizarre choice is complex. Going old fashioned avoided any arguments with my Mum who hates anything a bit unusual. It was a peace-keeping device. It had the added advantage of surprising my university Christian Union conevo friends who thought we would have a Matt Redman-fuelled attempt to convert the heathen relatives. Also, I like the idea of being linked through the centuries with other couples who started their married life in that old church, by using the same form of words they did. If there were older words than the 1662 ones, I'd have used them (I think the church was built in the eleventh century)
I don't think either my husband or I ever took the promise to obey seriously... although I've never disobeyed him, because he never tells me what to do.
I can't remember what the Rector said at the end re kissing the bride, but we did have a little kiss. It was nice. To me, the actual substance of my relationships with my father and my husband is more important than what someone might have inferred from the form of words used at my wedding.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I don't think either my husband or I ever took the promise to obey seriously... although I've never disobeyed him, because he never tells me what to do.
Mrs Eliab promised to obey me. At the time (her views have since changed) she believed that the Biblical command that wives should submit to their husbands was binding on Christians, and finding that unpalatable, married someone who would never insist on it.
I viewed it (and still do) as a vow made to God, not to me. My job is to love and honour her, which I do imperfectly enough that I have no safe ground from which to criticise how she fulfils her promise to obey. If I were taking the vows again, I'd probably suggest that we both promise to obey each other. We'd both fail, of course, but maybe there would be times when the other person's expressed view, and the recollection of that promise, might be what was needed to motive the performance of an unwelcome moral duty.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It would be interesting, if one could live indefinitely, to witness just how long the shadow of patriarchy hangs over the human race, or even if it is ever fully discarded.
The idea that a woman is a thing to be 'given' must surely be the the root cause of sociological misogyny the world over. Being such an ancient cultural tradition it is understandable that many women, even in today's free society, are still unable to completely reject it.
I think this is an effect of the sociological misogyny, not the cause. Societies that do not have this feature still can have deeply embedded sexism. As I mentioned way upthread, there is no "giving" in the Orthodox marriage service. But we both know that Russian and Greek (etc.) societies are every bit as misogynistic as those in Western Europe (and indeed world over).
[ 09. September 2016, 05:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I come from a low Anglican, happy clappy, guitars and tamborines type of tradition, but my wedding was from the 1662 prayer book - a completely trad white [just typed "s" instead of "w"!] wedding. I was given away by my Dad and I promised to obey my husband.
The reasoning behind this possibly bizarre choice is complex. Going old fashioned avoided any arguments with my Mum who hates anything a bit unusual. It was a peace-keeping device. It had the added advantage of surprising my university Christian Union conevo friends who thought we would have a Matt Redman-fuelled attempt to convert the heathen relatives. Also, I like the idea of being linked through the centuries with other couples who started their married life in that old church, by using the same form of words they did. If there were older words than the 1662 ones, I'd have used them (I think the church was built in the eleventh century)
I don't think either my husband or I ever took the promise to obey seriously... although I've never disobeyed him, because he never tells me what to do.
The cynic in me thinks this might be one reason (among others) why church weddings have declined so much as a percentage. Many people probably don't want to prioritise tradition over making promises that they mean.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
Isn't it that way in Britain/Ireland, too? Was in all the churches I knew of. I've never led a bridal procession as minister. Can't imagine why the minister would need to?
I presume it's a left-over from the good old days when bride and groom just walked down the aisle together, in order to meet the witnesses and priest at the altar step to begin the ceremony.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think this is an effect of the sociological misogyny, not the cause. Societies that do not have this feature still can have deeply embedded sexism. As I mentioned way upthread, there is no "giving" in the Orthodox marriage service. But we both know that Russian and Greek (etc.) societies are every bit as misogynistic as those in Western Europe (and indeed world over).
It might appear then that misogyny, if that is what we want to call it, predates even marriage.
Looking at the earliest development of marriage we could even conclude that it was built into it from the start. Ancient records from Mesopotamia suggest the first ever marriage was carried out in order to Protect widows and orphans. Not sure where the widows came from ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I lead brides in, and have done so for a couple of decades now. We have a good long space between me and the bridal party because, as others have said, people want to see the bride, not the vicar. It helps the bride to know when to start off, and it also helps to regulate the pace.
Also, although the 1662 question was "Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?", the modern Church of England Common Worship form is a much more acceptable "Who brings this woman to be married to this man?"
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Svitlanav2 wrote:
quote:
The cynic in me thinks this might be one reason (among others) why church weddings have declined so much as a percentage. Many people probably don't want to prioritise tradition over making promises that they mean.
That makes perfect sense as a theory. The problem is that most people who choose to marry outside church seem to use the almost identical vows as are used in the church ceremony (which are the promises they make, and which are optional in a civil ceremony). So the reasons are more likely to be in the "among others" category I suspect.
Anyone wishing to use the "giving away" words will need to do so as a conscious choice, as they are not there in the standard liturgy.
(Oh, PS - agreed on that last point mousethief)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
rolyn:- quote:
It might appear then that misogyny, if that is what we want to call it, predates even marriage.
Sure. But this is one way of framing the issue, and any answers you get will be conditioned by that. If you want a fuller view you need to ask loads of other questions too.
Probably a good starting point might be a history of marriage, as understood in different places and different times. These books exist. There's a good one on the record of what women thought about marriage in the Elizabethan period in England, though I would need to go away and look up the details. And marriage is one of those things both understood and conducted on a different basis in different communities, let alone different countries.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
That makes perfect sense as a theory. The problem is that most people who choose to marry outside church seem to use the almost identical vows as are used in the church ceremony (which are the promises they make, and which are optional in a civil ceremony). So the reasons are more likely to be in the "among others" category I suspect.
Given that a lot of venues now allow you to have the ceremony in the same place as you have the reception, it's not difficult why people might want avoid the logistics of getting people from the church to the nice hotel which may well be several miles away.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
Isn't it that way in Britain/Ireland, too?
Not always...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I have never seen a Nonconformist wedding where the Minister came in with the bridal procession.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Ancient records from Mesopotamia suggest the first ever marriage was carried out in order to Protect widows and orphans. Not sure where the widows came from
War?
ETA: Wait, I see, you're saying it's a closed loop. "Widows" then must mean widows of what we'd call common-law husbands. Then they codify the marriage laws to protect same.
[ 09. September 2016, 17:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: Wait, I see, you're saying it's a closed loop. "Widows" then must mean widows of what we'd call common-law husbands. Then they codify the marriage laws to protect same.
Yeah. I read the origins of marriage a while back, and it only just came to me that you can't have widows unless you've already got marriage.
Coming to the here and now I think the whole concept of women needing to be protected runs much deeper than many are inclined to realise. Maybe it is something that has gotten all twisted up in our heads leading to a certain amount of marital strife. Dunno, just a thought.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think this is an effect of the sociological misogyny, not the cause. Societies that do not have this feature still can have deeply embedded sexism. As I mentioned way upthread, there is no "giving" in the Orthodox marriage service. But we both know that Russian and Greek (etc.) societies are every bit as misogynistic as those in Western Europe (and indeed world over).
It might appear then that misogyny, if that is what we want to call it, predates even marriage.
Looking at the earliest development of marriage we could even conclude that it was built into it from the start. Ancient records from Mesopotamia suggest the first ever marriage was carried out in order to Protect widows and orphans. Not sure where the widows came from
Can you supply a link? At best, this would be the first ever recorded marriage in Mesopotamia as marriage is thought to precede written records.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Not good with links LB.
It was many years ago when my own marriage sank.
If I remember correctly is was on seemingly well researched Catholic website.
To be fair it did not pinpoint the first ever recorded marriage. More like the first ever evidence of marriage was found in Mesopotamia, which is understandable as this was the place of the earliest known organised human civilisation.
The phrase 'protect of widows and orphans' stuck in my mind. Don't think I dreamt it. Admittedly it could have been based on assumption of the writer.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0