Also, Banns must be called a couple of weeks prior to a marriage, posted in the Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths. This allows objections and issues to be brought to the fore if there are people with unresolved issues with either party.
A marriage can take place in a church but the couple are not legally married until they sign the Government Register in the presence of the Registrar, who must attend all marriage ceremonies. Each marriage ceremony includes a challenge to the public that this is the last chance for anyone to object to the union.
Briggy
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2012 03:26PM by brigantia.
It's pretty much the same way here in the US. The marriage license is what marries you in the eyes of the government. That's why you can be considered legally married without ever having a religious ceremony. A religious ceremony only satisfies the requirements of religion. You aren't legally married if you only have a religious ceremony. Where the two cross over is that a marriage license needs to be signed by someone to whom the government has given authorization. That can be certain government officers (mine was signed by a federal judge friend of ours) or clergy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2012 03:30PM by Stray Mutt.
I think he was hoping that he could perform temple marriages but came unstuck when temples were still refused permission to conduct marriages. The reason was, and still is, that they are not public buildings.
Said bishop was relegated to performing the usual chapel weddings with a public official present. Whether or not he accompanied any of his newly wedded couples to the temple afterwards I don't know.
It makes sense of the part in the marriage ceremony about "if someone has reason . . . " and in all of the movies there's a nervous moment waiting for a possibe objection.
Too bad polygamists and mormons don't have this little safeguard.