|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who gives this woman?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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."
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
... 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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
"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.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
My father was aghast at the cost and ceremonials at my cousin's wedding. "Feel free to elope," was his advice to me.
Huia ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
In this one, the officiant waits up front, the groomsmen process in with the bridesmaids, and the bride is not given away...
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
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? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
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
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
