Comment

Jump to comment 53 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

Comment 52 by Greyman

It's somewhat similar here in Australia. We have both secular or religious marriage celebrants, but since 1961, any marriage celebrant must be certified and registered by the government. Otherwise a wedding they perform is not legally a marriage.

Despite this, you'll still read letters to the editor espousing the view that the government should keep out of what has "always been a purely religious matter".

It really doesn't make any sense to me why there should be any problem.

Why can't it just be like this:

If you want a purely religious wedding and no state involvement, go ahead and do exactly as you wish. Your "marriage" is entirely your business. But bear in mind that if you don't want the state involved, your marriage won't be recognised under the state's law. This may cause you problems with legal issues such as establishing next of kin, etc.

If you want a purely secular wedding so that the legal status of your relationship is defined, just have the secular state marriage service.

If you want a religious wedding but you also want the state to legally recognise your relationship for legal purposes, have both your religious wedding and also the secular state wedding.

Simples.

Permalink Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:33:24 UTC | #947217