Aibu to think if you want the legal protection of marriage then get married

[Sofabitch]

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about how widows allowance isn't paid to couples that weren't married, even if children are involved.

Aibu to think marriage is essentially the legal joining of people and if you want to be recognised legally and finacially then you should get married.

I guess the supreme court will ultimately decide if I am being unreasonable. But i can't help but think people dont realise the legal security marriage offers and they should.

There certainly aren't enough of them to warrant forcing an entire country to change everything about how weddings work!

Good for you.

But well done for turning a serious point about vulnerable Muslim women into a silly one about hippies at Glastonbury who probably all grew up in the UK and have degrees.

Other religions’ marriages can be recognised - the trustees of a chapel or a mosque have to jump through some not very difficult hoops first but many chapels and a few mosques are registered. The formalities are s bit different for Jewish and Quaker marriages for historical reasons.

Or you can have a civil marriage before the Registrar and then any religious ceremony you like.

The problem is that many Muslim, some Hindu and a few Jewish “marriages” are no such thing because the parties do not do the “civil paperwork”.

It isn't just a question of ignorance; there is also a cultural element of women being reassured that a civil ceremony is(n't) necessary because the community will look after them.

How would changing the structure of wedding ceremonies alter that? This whole thread is about people who have decided they don't need a formal marriage because they can deal with matters as they arise. Why would "don't worry about a civil marriage at all, it'll be fine" be changed by what's being proposed? If the claim is that Muslim women entering such arrangements are incapable of telling the difference - ie, lack the knowledge of what legal marriage entails - then do you think that encouraging them to enter into civil marriages is actually an improvement?

Legislation which makes certain forms of words spoken by certain groups of people in which they consentingly agree to things illegal is incredibly hard to police without persecuting people. I think it's perfectly OK for two people to agree to a thing which isn't a marriage, but looks in a certain light like one, without the law intervening. For example, I think that the not-weddings that were carried out in the gay community when marriage was illegal are absolutely fine.

The way you do this without “persecuting” minority religions is by removing the unfair discrimination in favour of the Church of England by requiring all couples who wish to be married to undergo a short legal ceremony before continuing their celebrations in any way they choose, and making it a criminal offence for any religious institution or person to perform something approximating a marriage ceremony without the couple being legally married. Like they do in France.

But obviously that is not going to happen, so the discrimination is here to stay.

I haven't suggested any of that at all, Cuboidal. I'd like to see more mosques and other places of worship formally licensed to conduct legally recognised weddings. I found it a privilege as a Christian to be able to marry in the place of worship of my faith and I think that should be extended further.

It's not in favour of the CoE, Christian religions perhaps.

The problem with that, Annie, is that it opens up a can of worms as to what is considered a religion and what is not (Jedi ministers performing legal marriages, OK or not?) and it would probably also mean that some non-Western religions would have to change the format/language of their wedding ceremonies to meet UK legal requirements.

BlueLady correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think a Catholic priest can perform the legal part of a marriage ceremony. Don’t they need a registrar present?

How is it in favour of the CofE? Again you don't know what you are talking about!
You can get legally married in a Catholic church. You can legally married in a synagogue and a quaker meeting house. You can get legally married in 1 out of 10 mosques and that number is increasing.

Mosques and any other worship place can apply for licensing.

So again there is no need to change the laws on marriages.

That is not my understanding but I am happy to be corrected by someone who gives the impression of knowing what they are talking about and is capable of making their point in a constructive manner.

It’s a moot point anyway, since the UK law on marriages is unlikely to change any time soon. But that doesn’t change my perfectly valid opinion that the French system works better and the UK could benefit from adopting certain aspects of it.

I clearly know a lot more about it than you do, since you can't seem to help being wrong every time you post.

The wannabe writer in me is thinking this would be an excellent subject for a tv drama, film or soap storyline - as well as interesting and entertaining it would reach a lot of people - especially if used in a soap, millions watch them.

Because the main problem seems to be people not understanding the differences legally and especially financially between being married and co-habiting.

Citizens’ Advice seems to suggest that I am correct on this one. (Unless you are in Northern Ireland.)

I take your point, Tokyo, but as we discussed upthread what you describe would require the disestablishment of the Church of England and I don’t see that happening any time soon. I’m therefore trying to be pragmatic. As Andrew pointed out the 1949 Marriage Act allows for the licensing of a place of worship for marriage, so no change to the law is actually required.

Funnily enough the Catholic Church is I think the only place in England & Wales where you can get married totally free of charge. Of course in reality virtually all couples make a donation but as the Church forbids priests from receiving payment for performing a sacrament they cannot, and do not, charge any fee at all.

The problem with that, Annie, is that it opens up a can of worms as to what is considered a religion and what is not (Jedi ministers performing legal marriages, OK or not?

Absolutely OK, and they can apply for registration any time they like.

My understanding of the position today is that the only advantage the Church of England has is that its ministers are able to perform marriages ex officio, and its premises (which have a legal definition) are all approved places for marriages without further ado, and you don't need to notify the registry office as it happens automatically.

For anyone else, if you want to hold marriages you can apply to your local authority to have the premises approved, and you can apply to be authorised as someone who can perform marriages (I'm not as clear about the details for that).

For “other registered religious buildings” I am told you need a registrar present to perform the legal part of the ceremony even if the rest of it is performed by your priest/imam/etc.

Citizens’ Advice seems to suggest that I am correct on this one. (Unless you are in Northern Ireland.)

No, it doesn't.

See that bit at the bottom where it says "any registered religious building (England and Wales only)". A lot of Catholic churches in England and Wales are so registered. It's just that in NOrthern Ireland they are all permitted, whereas in England and Wales they have to apply on a case by case basis. In practice, most are registered.

“Funnily enough the Catholic Church is I think the only place in England & Wales where you can get married totally free of charge.”

There is a registry fee, but you’re right, it doesn’t go to the priest/church.

For “other registered religious buildings” I am told you need a registrar present to perform the legal part of the ceremony

You're told wrong.

www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/religious-ceremonies

"Authorised officials, including ministers and priests of other religions, can register marriages."

Already addressed that, CuboidalSlipshoddy. Do keep up.

So what you’re saying is that they an only perform the legal part of the ceremony if they are also a registrar.

Well knock me down with a feather.

Already addressed that, CuboidalSlipshoddy. Do keep up.

Where? By claiming that it doesn't count because you need a registrar present, even though you don't?

This is getting really silly now.