“Dangerous Precedent’ ’

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 153, 19 September 1927, Page 1

“Dangerous Precedent’ ’

Auckland Religious Leaders Against Marriage Amendment WHY NOT ENTIRELY CIVIL CEREMONY? UNDER the new marriage laws amendment ten members of a congregation can apply to the Minister of Internal Affairs to have one of their number officiate in the ceremony of matrimony. Auckland religious leaders, when invited by THE SUN to-day to express their views, almost to a man were emphatic against the amendment. Why was it necessary, it was asked, for the Government to make any change in the law at all?

Rev. Dr. Ranston, president of the Methodist Conference: If sufficient care is not taken to see that these religious bodies are properly constituted the marriage laws must he brought into contempt. If the ceremony is going to be entirely civil why is it not performed by an officer of the Government? Canon Grant Cowen, vicar of E!t. Matthew’s, City: A thousand pities. Our marriage laws are far to loose now. I consider this latest movement to be a dangerous precedent. And why should the number be 10? Soon it will be live, and then one. so anyone will eventually be able to perform this ceremony! This loosening of our marriage laws is fatal. I consider the present threeyears’ separation in divorce a great mistake, and hope to see an amendment to the Act whereby young couples will have to be married at least live years before they can apply for a divorce. The present law does uot give young people a fair chance at all!

1,3 hedged with difficulties. Ten people might call themselves goodness knows what, but, of course. It might be a very different matter to have them recognised as a religious congregation. Dr. Cleary, Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland: I have nothing to say for as far as I can sec: the amendment does not affect the Catholic Church in New Zealand in any way at all. The Rev. W. G. Monckton, Vicar of Takapuna: I think 10 is an absurd number. The law should have insisted on at least 100. At any rate, with only 10 members in a religious community, even providing that it comprises five women and five men, the marrying of these people would not be very lucrative, would it? LAWS QUITE WIDE ENOUGH! It is not unknown for people to leave a church, suffering under a sense of Injustice as they are not able to accept all the tenets of that church . . . The Church of England will not marry In a house, unless in exceptional circumstances, neither will the church marry divorced people. There may, therefore, be a demand from some quarters for the services of these new “ministers”' under the Act. The Rev. Thomas Halliday, Presbyterian. Grey Lynn: Distinctly dangerous. The marriage laws are quite wide enough without any further alteration. Ten Communists might set themselves up as a so-called religious body, and demand to have the right to celebrate marriages. I would rather see marriages take place in front of a registrar. A weakness rather than a strength to our marriage laws. Dr. Buxton, Administrator of St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cathedral: I cannot express any opinion as this

Colonel Toomer, Salvation Army: To my mind, it is lowering the standard. I do not think it. is at all right. There should be a greater number than 10 specified. I do not like it. "JUST A MERE FORM!” The Rev. Evan R. Harries, St. James’s PTesbyterian: I think the amendment is dangerous. I see difficulties in defining the term “religious.” There is the possibility of reducing the marriage ceremony to a mere form if this kind of thing continues. Rabbi Goldstein: What I want to know is why is this amendment going through? What is the motive or reason behind it. I have read of no complaint from the small sects. Personally, I don’t like the amendment. It

is a matter of policy for the bishops. Canon James, St. Mary’s Cathedral: To my mind the solution is this. The State requires that every marriage should be registered. Therefore, I favour the French law which demands that the civil marriage should first take place. In our case it could be performed by the registrar. The religious ceremony could then take place in the church of the parties concerned. As for the new amendment to the law I consider it quite unnecessary. Major Gordon, Salvation Army: I can only speak as a social worker. Personally, I do not agree with it. ■ The Rev. Frazer Barton, Presbyterian: l do not see how any great difficulty can arise. This is probably a concession to small sects, a great number of which there undoubtedly are in New Zealand. Many of these sects have no ordained ministers and have to go outside their fold for ministers to officiate. The amendment is probably a concession to them. Elder Murdock, secretary-, Church of Jesus Christ (Latter Day Saints): I do not like it. I would prefer to see people go to some recognised church or authority. We have five or six of our people who have authority to perform marriages, and, in our work with the Maoris, this has been quite a satisfactory arrangement. The Rev. L. B. Fletcher, Congregational: There is just the possibility of something taking place in the nature of the “Marriage Shops” scandal of years ago in Sydney. There is always the danger of a minister, disciplined by his own church, gathering a coterie of ten people about him and carrying on. On the other hand, should we deny a small body of people, who conscientiously differ from the established churches, from having their own minister to celebrate marriages? Mr. W. Beattie, Catholic Apostolic Church: I would rather not say anything about it.