On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:25:14 +0200, "John of Aix" 
wrote:

>August West wrote:
>> JAF  writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:36:06 +0100, August West 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know about Scottishland, but in England the church wedding
>>> has
>>> no legal standing at all.
>>
>> Er, surely that's simply not true; othersie you'd have to have a civil
>> one as well, as they do in France.
>
>I think he means it in the sebse that the church wedding itself has no 
>legal statius but as there is always someone there with an officialising 
>delegation, the vicar or a parishioner, it is they that make it legal 
>when the approprtiate papers are signed by all after the ceremony/ 
>
I thought that's what I said -"Dispensation is given to the incumbent for
the register to be signed in the vestry,"
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/monarchycost/

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:27:02 +0100, August West  wrote:

>But without the set wording, no marrriage.

Concede.
The following -

 I declare that I know of no legal reason why I, [your full name], may not
be joined in marriage to [your partner's full name].
or
by replying 'I am' to the question 'Are you, [your full name], free lawfully
to marry [your partner's full name]'.

I, [your full name], take you, [your partner's full name], to be my wedded
wife [or husband]. 
or
I, [your full name], take thee, [your partner's full name], to be my wedded
wife [or husband]. 

- must be included at some point.

All the mumbo-jumbo is still irrelevant.  That is, religious weddings are
meaningless under the law.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/monarchycost/

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:54:52 GMT, Fevric J Glandules wrote:

<snip>

> I'm sure you're both violently agreeing with each other, if only
> you'd stop bickering for a moment.

The fuck.


-- 
You get Fang, I'll get Horny.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:47:07 +0100, August West  wrote:

>JAF  writes:
>
>> All the mumbo-jumbo is still irrelevant.  That is, religious weddings
>> are meaningless under the law.
>
>Yes, the religious parts are irrelevant and varible - as are the
>self-penned "vows" I've heard people drivel at civil ceremonies; but the
>religious ceremonies are still full and legal wedding ceremonies, so
>hardly "meaningless under the law".

Maybe it's just me, but you seem to have contradicted yourself there.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/monarchycost/

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:14:06 +0100, August West  wrote:

> For your claim of legal meaninglessness to be correct, a
>sepereate civil ceremony would also be required; it isn't.

The religious parts *are* totally irrelevant, under the law.  The only part
that matters is the civil part, which is delegated to the incumbent, to save
the hassle of the local registrar having to attend.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/monarchycost/

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:16:06 +0100, snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:

>JAF  wrote:
>
>> the hassle of the local registrar having to attend.
>
>It's no hassle for the registrar (and mate) to attend, it's what 
>they're paid for. Besides, they charge more than enough to cover 
>their wages and expenses; you don't get owt for nowt in this world.

Avoiding the hassle of having to pay a ridiculous amount for the registrar
to attend?
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/monarchycost/