CIVIL MARRIAGES

Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1928, Page 3

CIVIL MARRIAGES

PROTEST AGAINST SECOND CEREMONIES. WELLINGTON, April 11. The marriage <>l persons already married by a Registrar was a matter discussed al some lengili at today’s meeting of the Wellington I’resbvierv. The Moderator (the Rev. .1. 11. Min ■keir'.ic), who siihmitted the following resolution as an overture to the General Assembly aL its next meeting in Auckland in November, characterised a second ceremony as being meaningless and lareienl. " Whereas ministers are Irom time to time requested to marry persons already married by the civil authority, and whereas it is unlawful under penalties to impugn in any way the validity of such civil marriage, and whereas the parties concerned are remarried under their married names and sign the said names in the register, the form setting forth that they were previously married on a certain date, and whereas it is unseemly that , a sacred service should he linked with a meaningless marriage ceremony, Lhis Presbytery overtures the Assembly to take these premises into consideration and enjoin that all ministers discourage these remarriage functions, and that a religious ceremony <d benediction he offered in place thereo, or that the Assembly resolve otherwise as to its wisdom may seem best.”

Mr Mackzenie said that lit l brought, the matter before tiie Presbytery becaiise lie believed there was a real necessity for it. Some of their ministers had been ashed to remarry persons already married by the Registrar. More than that, some of their ministers had performed this second marriage others also had refused, and he thought it was well they should be clear on the matter, and that the Assembly should give some pronouncements. ft gave rise t.i the question | of how any man could perlorm a second marriage without distinctly challenging the first marriage as being a right and legitimate marriage. One could hardly conceive of anything being more farcical. The proceedings were meaningless. The parties were a ready married. There was not a shadou of doubt about that, and at the second ceremony the couple were married ;,s if they had not been married before. Tie thought it was undesirable. The Rev. Mr Rlaiichan! (St. John's) said Jjiat in Western Australia it was distinctly set out in the Marriage Act that parties might he married again Since coming to Wellington he had made enquires as to the legn position from the Registrar, who had stated that as the Marriage Act did not j prohibit such a ceremony U was permitted The second ceremony he took it would be perfectly legal but the . marriage certificate, as the Registry had pointed out. would have to state that the parties had been previously married on a certain date. In answer to a question. All Ala< , Uenzie said that there was no doubt , that the first marriage was t l)e one. that would be recognised m a

to “ftcr some further discussion, a committee was appointed to consider the position further and submit a repoit a future meeting of the Presbyter}.