Sorry, your best man is gay

1356711

Comments

  • The Rogue wrote: »
    Shaking the dust off your shoes and walking away is the ultimate conclusion and it gives you closure. To re-visit it by going to the media breaks that which strikes me as being pointless and potentially damaging to yourself.

    I guess it depends if one believes there is a point of principle and whether further innocent people are being abused by the system if you stay quiet. For me this is outrageous.

    But I'm bolshy and don't give a shit whether it winds people up.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited February 2019
    Just when you think you've seen the limit of people's small minded pettiness, someone comes along and raises / lowers the bar. Shakes head sadly ...

    All the best to your friends as they figure this one out ... I could probably do them a deal on the world's most unphotogenic Baptist church with lovely vicar who wouldn't give a stuff who the best man was. Although we'd need to borrow a Registrar from one of the bigger churches in town ...
  • I can assure you that I only suggested going to press if (a) it was with the consent of the couple involved, and (b) that it be The Church Times rather than a mainstream paper.

    No, I don't have any illusions about the fourth estate: I have personal experience of the very worst excesses of journalists, from being chased down the street to the house being "burgled" (nothing of value taken and Plod convinced it was journalists too...) and everything in between.

    But, as said by many, if left to the Rural Dean (assuming s/he isn't one of the clerics in the parish) all is is likely to produce is hand-wringing and little else; the same is probably true of the Archdeacon, and the bishop can be relied upon to whitter platitudes about "love" and "disagreeing well" (whatever that means) and achieve damn all.

    I doubt there is anything on any document or paper which sets out any hard-and-fast rule about this: it would smack too much of a positive decision being made, which goes against the grain for the CofE in general and the House of Bishops in particular.

    Stories like this are guaranteed to bring the CofE even lower in the popular view, entirely deservedly: for far too long the public faces of the church - the bishops - have been so aligned with the most cruel parody that it is no longer a joke. The latest example (Bishop Henderson and his support/non-support for LGBTQI+ people, affirmation rite, etc) and the lack of anything at all following on from the "shared conversations" tell us exactly what the "official" church attitude is likely to be to anything unless they are shamed into doing the right thing.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    What's the dex save DC?
    It's a Wis save. Presumably that's why this lot are so worried.

  • The Rogue wrote: »
    Shaking the dust off your shoes and walking away is the ultimate conclusion and it gives you closure. To re-visit it by going to the media breaks that which strikes me as being pointless and potentially damaging to yourself.
    Time has shown that dealing with things quietly leads to the perpetuation of the problem.

  • As it might be useful knowledge for decisions as to which bishops are worth approaching, the full list of signatories of the letter from Bishop Julian Henderson, Bishop of Blackburn (pdf) to the Living in Love and Faith discussion are:

    Bishop Julian Henderson (Blackburn)
    Bishop Donald Allister (Peterborough)
    Bishop Paul Butler (Durham)
    Bishop Pete Broadbent (Willesden)
    Bishop Jill Duff (Lancaster)
    Bishop Alistair Magowan (Ludlow)
    Bishop Nick McKinnel (Plymouth)
    Bishop James Newcome (Carlisle)
    Bishop Mark Rylands (formerly Shrewsbury)
    Bishop Keith Sinclair (Birkenhead)
    Bishop Rod Thomas (Maidstone)

    The letter says:
    We are convinced that it is essential for LLF to clearly articulate and explore the traditional teaching of the Anglican Communion. The form of this is what Lambeth 1920 called a “pure and chaste life before and after marriage” and is expressed in the received teaching of the Church of England and summarised, for example, in Canon B30, the 1987 General Synod motion, and numerous Lambeth resolutions, most notably Resolution I.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference. We believe that this vision of (1) sexual intercourse as “an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship” (Lambeth 1988), (2) marriage as a union of a man and woman in a covenant of love marked by exclusivity and life-long commitment, and (3) faithful, sexually abstinent love in singleness and non-marital friendships, is the teaching of Scripture. It therefore expresses the character and will of God which is our guide in ordering our lives and in addressing public global ethical issues. We also believe that reaffirming this teaching offers us the best way of maintaining our unity-in-truth.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    As it might be useful knowledge for decisions as to which bishops are worth approaching, the full list of signatories of the letter from Bishop Julian Henderson, Bishop of Blackburn (pdf) to the Living in Love and Faith discussion are:

    GOOD GRIEF and they say liberals go in for meaningless waffly platitudes ...

    I certainly wouldn't approach anyone who wrote that letter for anything, it would take them half an hour just to say 'Good morning'. I can only salute you for picking out the only paragraph in that screed that can be said to mean something concrete.
  • @Curiosity killed I'm struggling to see what that has to do with anything at all.

    Even the most evangelical Bishop can surely not object to a gay witness to a marriage. Because that's stupid.

    Nothing whatsoever to do with discussions as to SSM.
  • I had a naughty thought ... just imagine there is a homeless person sleeping rough in their church porch, and in conversation they discover that he is gay. Will they immediately expel him into the cold wet darkness because his presence might sully their hallowed precinct? I can't imagine You-Know-Who doing that!
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    @Curiosity killed I'm struggling to see what that has to do with anything at all.

    Even the most evangelical Bishop can surely not object to a gay witness to a marriage. Because that's stupid.

    Nothing whatsoever to do with discussions as to SSM.

    Unless I've misunderstood @Eutychus, the church's objection is about the bride and groom's choice of friends rather than SSM.
  • No, I don't think it should mean anything, but if I was going to approach a bishop to discuss prejudice against a gay best man, I don't think I would choose to approach any of those bishops.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    But aren't they thinking that, by having a gay man as Best Man, they are in some way endorsing SSM? The whole thing would be ridiculous if it wasn't so sad.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    KarlLB wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    What's the dex save DC?

    8+ the Cleric's Wis bonus I think.

    Plus any circumstantial modifiers the DM wants to apply, so it seems prudent to ask for the final target. Next we should see if we have any Bards handy to give us inspiration dice.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    But aren't they thinking
    Putting it politely.

  • No, I don't think it should mean anything, but if I was going to approach a bishop to discuss prejudice against a gay best man, I don't think I would choose to approach any of those bishops.

    Wow. These bishops believe that being gay means that you are so morally corrupted that you can't attend a wedding because you might infect other people? Thats the sort of shite one might think they'd have grown out of by the time they are responsible for a diocese, but I guess I can still be surprised by Anglican hatred of other Anglicans.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    But aren't they thinking
    Putting it politely.

    [Like].
  • RooK wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    What's the dex save DC?

    8+ the Cleric's Wis bonus I think.

    Plus any circumstantial modifiers the DM wants to apply, so it seems prudent to ask for the final target. Next we should see if we have any Bards handy to give us inspiration dice.

    Presumably there's a bonus to the saving throw if an - erm - traditionally minded Cleric is effectively casting Matrimony on a same sex couple anyway?
  • Have they considered threatening to sue for breach of contract? If they've made any financial outlay because that vicar agreed to conduct their wedding on a specified date, they may have a claim. May get faster action than clerical hierarchy.
  • Have they considered threatening to sue for breach of contract? If they've made any financial outlay because that vicar agreed to conduct their wedding on a specified date, they may have a claim. May get faster action than clerical hierarchy.

    Good luck with that. I highly doubt a private court case would go anywhere at all, but I am not a lawyer.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    What's the dex save DC?

    8+ the Cleric's Wis bonus I think.

    Plus any circumstantial modifiers the DM wants to apply, so it seems prudent to ask for the final target. Next we should see if we have any Bards handy to give us inspiration dice.

    Presumably there's a bonus to the saving throw if an - erm - traditionally minded Cleric is effectively casting Matrimony on a same sex couple anyway?

    1 on a d20 for a critical miss.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    And I'd certainly be talking to the press - preferably when I was far enough away to be protected from any fallout.

    Unless you're concerned the clergy would physically go after you, there really isn't anywhere you'd be protected from any fallout, 'cause Internet and social media. If you wanted to totally drop out, change your name, and move to a tiny, non-touristy island somewhere, you *might* pull it off.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Have they considered threatening to sue for breach of contract? If they've made any financial outlay because that vicar agreed to conduct their wedding on a specified date, they may have a claim. May get faster action than clerical hierarchy.

    Buckley's chance of success in any legal action I'd say - what intention was there to enter into a legal relationship for a start. And it goes on from there.
  • @Curiosity killed

    Thanks for providing the link to the letter: I had read it but casting my eyes over it again I still got the same reaction - a feeling that I needed to take a long, cleansing shower. God only knows how any LGBTQI+ person reading it is meant to be persuaded that the CofE is "welcoming" to them, wishes to offer them pastoral love and support, etc, etc, etc *

    I am particularly struck by the paragraph that states
    Setting our consideration of LLF’s work in this wider context of mission and discipleship confirms its significance and alsosome of the distinctive features arising from its focus on “Human Identity, Sexuality and Marriage”. We again were reminded that these matters not only require serious intellectual engagement and much learning from us all, across the range of disciplines presented to Synod. They also touch us all deeply –theologically, socially and politically, relationally, and personally. We heard and felt afresh the depth and breadth of so many people’s pains, fears and hopes and the force of the wide range of understandings and experiences present. These present major challenges for us as, in relation to human sexuality, we seek to teach and learn and discern together what it means to live lives worthy of the gospel and to “bring the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and make Him known to those in our care”.

    Taking a machete to the sanctimonius verbiage, and reading the rest of the letter, what the bishops are saying is: the CofE official line is to be welcoming to people who are LGBT+ (they don't accept Q or I) but we state here and now that it can never be other than in the context that they cannot ever be in any kind of relationship other than a "faithful, sexually abstinent love in singleness and non-marital friendship". They can state they're "discussing" and wish for discernment all they like, the bottom line is they reject any possibility of a difference of opinion having any validity for anyone, period.

    * add as many of your own favourite episcopal platitudes as you wish/ can stomach.
  • Latest word is higher levels of church authority are investigating the matter. I hope (we can only hope) they can separate the wheat from the chaff and do something sensible.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    I wonder how they would interpret a rainbow appearing above the church. (This twee comment is to obscure a roaring dragon of an opinion that is bursting to get out.)
    I've been reading this, and sharing it with a friend, somewhat bemused by the concept of a blessing field accidentally affecting non-participants, and fuming at the horridness of the behaviour. (Strange how one comes across clergy and associates of clergy who manifest this sort of misplaced authority to hurt others - I know of others - and believe they can because the represent God in some way. There should be a way of preventing them getting into the position to do so.)
    I do hope and pray that the couple find a way to have a happy wedding, with the friends of their choosing, and no shadows upon the start of their life together. But a double rainbow on the photos.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Yes. It’s not a requirement in England where there’s no legal minimum age. The officiant needs to make a judgment about the prospective witness’s capacity.

    Oooh I think there is - you cannot witness a contract unless you are over 18. A marriage is the equivalent of a contract in law (and equity)
    As this page indicates it is not always a requirement that witnesses be over 18, and my previous post directly quoted from the published advice for the clergy (C of E) issued by the Faculty Office.

    Sorry I can see the examples you mention …. I must be missing it. I am very surprised that it can be under 18 (if true) as you cannot have a mortgage under that age for the very reason that you cannot enter a contract unless of legal majority. A witness has to know what the are witnessing hence the assumption of being 18.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Sorry I can see the examples you mention …. I must be missing it. I am very surprised that it can be under 18 (if true) as you cannot have a mortgage under that age for the very reason that you cannot enter a contract unless of legal majority. A witness has to know what the are witnessing hence the assumption of being 18.
    Extract from "Guide for Authorised Persons" under which Nonconformists operate (my italics): "Witnesses. 2.4 Two or more witnesses must be present at the marriage. There is no restriction on the number of witnesses, nor is there an age limit, but they must be able to understand what is taking place and testify if necessary as to what they have seen and heard".

  • BroJames wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Yes. It’s not a requirement in England where there’s no legal minimum age. The officiant needs to make a judgment about the prospective witness’s capacity.

    Oooh I think there is - you cannot witness a contract unless you are over 18. A marriage is the equivalent of a contract in law (and equity)
    As this page indicates it is not always a requirement that witnesses be over 18, and my previous post directly quoted from the published advice for the clergy (C of E) issued by the Faculty Office.

    Sorry I can see the examples you mention …. I must be missing it. I am very surprised that it can be under 18 (if true) as you cannot have a mortgage under that age for the very reason that you cannot enter a contract unless of legal majority. A witness has to know what the are witnessing hence the assumption of being 18.

    Ok but it would be weird if one could take on a the legal contract of marriage before 18 (which apparently one can, with permission) but not witness that contract. Right?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited February 2019
    BroJames wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Yes. It’s not a requirement in England where there’s no legal minimum age. The officiant needs to make a judgment about the prospective witness’s capacity.

    Oooh I think there is - you cannot witness a contract unless you are over 18. A marriage is the equivalent of a contract in law (and equity)
    As this page indicates it is not always a requirement that witnesses be over 18, and my previous post directly quoted from the published advice for the clergy (C of E) issued by the Faculty Office.

    Sorry I can see the examples you mention …. I must be missing it. I am very surprised that it can be under 18 (if true) as you cannot have a mortgage under that age for the very reason that you cannot enter a contract unless of legal majority. A witness has to know what the are witnessing hence the assumption of being 18.
    The relevant paragraph is the last one under 2.1.2

    As for mortgages, the fact that most contracts with minors are voidable at will by the minor means , I imagine, that no sensible mortgage provider would be willing to enter into such a contract at all, or at least not without an adult guarantor, but there’s not AFAIK a legal bar as such to a minor entering into such a contract.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Enoch wrote: »
    ...Journalists over simplify, distort and are mainly interested in 'the story' as it suits them. Having through work known rather more about the inside of quite a lot of stories that got into the media than most people do, I can assure Shipmates, that virtually all of them were markedly misreported. It would seem too much of a coincidence that this should only the stories I knew about. The more rational deduction is that this applies to virtually everything.

    Letting the media anywhere near is likely to misfire.
    Well, that's offensive. The news media are the best defense against bad behavior that I know of.


  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Latest word is higher levels of church authority are investigating the matter. I hope (we can only hope) they can separate the wheat from the chaff and do something sensible.

    I believe in miracles......
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited February 2019
    Unfortunately the bad behaviour the news media don’t protect you from is their own. Ask the family of Milly Dowler or of Madeleine McCann. Or ask Christopher Jefferies (scroll down to Media Controversy).

    Even if the media “like” your story, many people find the intense public scrutiny to be excruciating, and the social media storm even worse.

    I don’t suppose British media is worse than anyone else’s, but it’s doings were very widely and fairly recently exposed in the Leveson Enquiry.

    These are the very public face of things which are echoed in the unpublicised experiences of many (such as Enoch), and which make people very cautious about going to the news media.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Latest word is higher levels of church authority are investigating the matter. I hope (we can only hope) they can separate the wheat from the chaff and do something sensible.

    I believe in miracles......

    Dammit, I'm going to have that tune in my head all day now... you sexy thing you.
  • sharwsharw Shipmate Posts: 4
    Eutychus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    If it was me, I would be employing the biblical principle of shaking dust off my shoes and never going anywhere near it again.
    That would be my instinct too, but remember these people are well-integrated into their church community and have strong support from the congregation.

    Why should it be up to them to go into exile?

    Not mentioned so far is that in the C of E we are approaching the APCM season. (Annual Parochial Church Meeting). If they are within that church they will be on the electoral roll and they (or other supportive members) can raise the matter there.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Ohher wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »

    In further developments today, they have had another meeting at which it was suggested that the big worry was that the best man, with his significant other close by, might be attempting to get a tacit blessing on their union by standing near enough to the actual couple being married during the ceremony. Seriously.

    Sick, demented parody.

    What a loveless absolute shower of shit.

    There is no hope but for collapse to the core bitter cyanotic kernel.

    When is this shit going to get aerated in the Guardian?
  • BroJames wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Yes. It’s not a requirement in England where there’s no legal minimum age. The officiant needs to make a judgment about the prospective witness’s capacity.

    Oooh I think there is - you cannot witness a contract unless you are over 18. A marriage is the equivalent of a contract in law (and equity)
    As this page indicates it is not always a requirement that witnesses be over 18, and my previous post directly quoted from the published advice for the clergy (C of E) issued by the Faculty Office.

    Sorry I can see the examples you mention …. I must be missing it. I am very surprised that it can be under 18 (if true) as you cannot have a mortgage under that age for the very reason that you cannot enter a contract unless of legal majority. A witness has to know what the are witnessing hence the assumption of being 18.
    The relevant paragraph is the last one under 2.1.2

    As for mortgages, the fact that most contracts with minors are voidable at will by the minor means , I imagine, that no sensible mortgage provider would be willing to enter into such a contract at all, or at least not without an adult guarantor, but there’s not AFAIK a legal bar as such to a minor entering into such a contract.
    I think it's in the Law of Property Act (1925) but can't lay my hands on my copy at the moment.

    I am certain that if you are under 18 you can't get credit or even an overdraft, even with a guarantor. It's unenforceable in law.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    That's right, it was the Registrar, not anyone from the church.

    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.

    When Mrs Eutychus and I got married about a million years ago, in a Baptist church in the UK, we were told they were not licensed for weddings because they did not have a safe in which to keep the register. A Baptist minister conducted the wedding, and a registrar came to do the registry signing bit. Is that not how things work there now?

    I think @Baptist Trainfan is saying that some big non-conformist churches have selected members of the congregation who deal with the register in place of the official Registrar.

    As I've suggested, I'm not sure how many of those kinds of weddings are conducted these days anyway.

    We married in a non-conformist church where the minister was the AP. Himself was the AP at his previous non-conformist church despite not being a minister, however.
    Both setups are possible.
  • Correct. Basically the AP substitutes for the Registrar and acts as the State's representative. From the legal point of view, getting married in a Nonconformist church is closer to getting married in a secular 'venue' than it is to getting married in the CofE. Can't speak for Scotland where things are different.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    All these queries about what a minor can and can't do used to be much more of an issue back in the days when one didn't legally become an adult until one was 21. It changed to 18 as long ago as 1970.

    As far as England and Wales are concerned, a minor cannot enter into a contract and is not bound by a contract they and others may have thought they were entering into. There is an exception in the case of contracts for necessaries, e.g. food and essential clothes. In practice though, what this usually means is that what they buy for cash won't be questioned, but if you give a minor credit and they don't pay, you are unlikely to be able to sue them.

    A minor also cannot own an interest in land. A trustee will have to be appointed to hold it for them. Minors also cannot execute deeds, which means that in addition to the position on land, they cannot enter into a binding unilateral obligation.

    Curiously, a minor from 16-18 can get married but only with their parents' consent.

    This is all unlikely to be the same in Scotland, but I've no idea what happens there.


    On weddings, APs etc., I think I've mentioned before on the boards that I once went to a wedding where the building was registered for the purpose of weddings, but the denomination, as a matter of theology and praxis, does not have any 'authorised' ministers. So there was nobody who could be appointed as an AP. Their practice for weddings was that the couple would invite an esteemed and respected friend to take their wedding. Understandably, this was regarded as a great honour. It meant, though, that the Registrar also had to attend. He sat in a side room. He had given instructions beforehand what words must be used, and that the celebrant and the couple must say them really loudly so as to make sure he could hear them.

    At the end of the ceremony, they went into the side room, just as into a vestry in the CofE, to do all the signing in the normal way.

    Shipmates will be glad to hear that the couple in question have now been married well over 40 years and are grandparents.
  • @enoch as I said above, this is almost exactly what happened at my wedding.

    In my view, other than Anglican weddings, it is the way the vast majority now happen - either at hotels, other venues and registered religious buildings with no AP.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Enoch wrote: »
    The denomination, as a matter of theology and praxis, does not have any 'authorised' ministers. So there was nobody who could be appointed as an AP.
    No. A denomination's praxis may decree that only 'authorised' ministers may conduct weddings; but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal aspect. Being an accredited minister does not make you an AP, conversely there is no need for an AP to be a minister. This is very different to the CofE.

    I'm a minister; in two of my churches I've been an/the AP, in my other two it has been other people. Personally, as a minister, I prefer to concentrate on the service itself and have someone else seeing to the paperwork. I'm interested, though, in the example you mention: why couldn't the Registrar sit among the congregation as the ceremony progressed, and then move to a more convenient place for the signing of the registers? Was it such a "closed" sect that they didn't want a "secular" person present, or was it the Registrar's choice?

    On a final point: it's worth saying that - contrary to popular belief - it's not the signing of the register which makes a wedding legal and binding, but the saying of the words in public with the correct formalities having been observed. If a couple say the words and then have a spat on the way into the vestry, then there is a problem, as they are already married in the eyes of the law! (So, if they're going to have a spat, they must have it before the service begins - or, at least, before the Legal Words are spoken).

  • I think it is true that church denominations (or equivalent) who do not allow ministers (or anyone else) to act as state representatives for the purpose of registering marriage.

    In my wedding the registrar sat (iirc) in the deacons' room* with the door open, which was off the main sanctuary.

    * Or vestry or whatever it was called.
  • "Oh before I set a date for your forthcoming nuptials, could I just ask one.... er…… slightly delicate question? I just need to ensure that the best man's orientation is heterosexual, I mean sorry, but it's important to me."
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... On a final point: it's worth saying that - contrary to popular belief - it's not the signing of the register which makes a wedding legal and binding, but the saying of the words in public with the correct formalities having been observed. If a couple say the words and then have a spat on the way into the vestry, then there is a problem, as they are already married in the eyes of the law! (So, if they're going to have a spat, they must have it before the service begins - or, at least, before the Legal Words are spoken).
    @Baptist Trainfan I believe you're right. I've heard people argue otherwise but I think they're wrong. I've also heard people maintain that it's the "I pronounce them .... ' that concludes the marriage. I also think that is wrong. However, I know of no authority on the subject.

    Apart from the spat suggestion, the only other way it could be tested would be if one of the parties collapsed and died part way through the ceremony. How far does it have to have progressed for the survivor to be widowed, or if it was the bridegroom who died, and the bride was pregnant, for the subsequent child to be born legitimate.

    I think its probably the completion of the second, bride's 'take' sequence. However, might the property consequences be incomplete if it happened before the end of 'with all my worldly goods I thee endow' or its modern comparator?

    I'm quite surprised that so far as I know, there is no piece of melodramatic fiction or border ballad featuring an angry murder by an aggrieved father or jilted lover that turns on the point. If I were going to televise such, I'd find a church with a gallery at the back. At the key moment, there would be a bang, a clatter as the murderer rushed down the steps and onto his horse, and lots of blood. Would the producers of Poldark pay me royalties the idea?

  • IANAL, but...

    1) the contract: my understanding is that in English and Welsh law, a marriage is a verbal contract which is subsequently recorded on paper (the registers and certificate). If I had to speculate on when precisely the contract was completed, I would guess either when the second party agrees ('I do') or when the minister/celebrant/registrar (the person before who the vows were made) proclaims the parties to be married.

    2) Age of witnesses: witnesses don't enter into the contract. Rather, they are people who can be asked, in the event of a dispute, whether the purported contract was ever made, and if so, by who and on what terms. I don't see why you would have to be of age to carry out this role: you just need to be a reliable person who can confirm what happened.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    On a final point: it's worth saying that - contrary to popular belief - it's not the signing of the register which makes a wedding legal and binding, but the saying of the words in public with the correct formalities having been observed. If a couple say the words and then have a spat on the way into the vestry, then there is a problem, as they are already married in the eyes of the law! (So, if they're going to have a spat, they must have it before the service begins - or, at least, before the Legal Words are spoken).

    That is clearly the position under the Marriage Act here - it is the agreement between the parties using the authorised concepts which makes a binding marriage.
  • There's nothing about "goods" in the Nonconformist or Civil wedding ceremonies - at least, nothing with any legal value. The wedding is made once both parties have said the "contracting words": "I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, (name) do take thee (name) to be my lawful wedded wife/husband" or "I (name) take you/thee (name) to be my wedded wife/husband". The rubric then says that it is "customary" for the celebrant to then declare them husband and wife (or whatever) - but that isn't a legal thing.

    I don't know what would happen if Enoch's jilted lover shot (say) the bride after the groom had made his declaration but before she had done so ... in that case I don't think they would be married. However Poldark is set in the 18th century, before modern marriage laws came into effect and before Nonconformist chapels could hold legally-valid weddings.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Whether or not anything is said about goods (the current Church of England words just say “and all I have I give to you”), the legal situation is that all property is presumed to belong to the couple (even e.g. a house in the name of only one of them)
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... I don't know what would happen if Enoch's jilted lover shot (say) the bride after the groom had made his declaration but before she had done so ... in that case I don't think they would be married. However Poldark is set in the 18th century, before modern marriage laws came into effect and before Nonconformist chapels could hold legally-valid weddings. ...
    Poldark is set after Lord Hardwick's Act in 1753, and before the legalisation of 1836 which provided for registrars' marriages. So everyone except Quakers and Jews had to marry in accordance with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

    I agree though, that if the shot was before the bride had said her bit, they wouldn't be married.

  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    IANAL, but...

    2) Age of witnesses: witnesses don't enter into the contract. Rather, they are people who can be asked, in the event of a dispute, whether the purported contract was ever made, and if so, by who and on what terms. I don't see why you would have to be of age to carry out this role: you just need to be a reliable person who can confirm what happened.

    Quaker wedding certificates hold the signatures of everyone present - this is so that if all the older generation die off, the children present can attest to the marriage.
    I don't know if these are "legal tender" though, I assume not.
This discussion has been closed.