MARRIAGES

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 68, 17 September 1927, Page 10

MARRIAGES

A NEW PROPOSAL

RIGHT TO OFFICIATE

OBJECTIONS IN COUNCIL

The proposal in the Marriage Amendment Bill enabling quasi-re-ligious bodies which have no officiating ministers to have marriages solemnised according to their views was subjected to further criticism in the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon after "The Post" had gone to press. Eventually the second reading was carried by a fairly large majority. Sir James Allen said that the principle had been established of Parliament setting forth in the schedule of the Act a list of bodies which should be permitted to perform marriage ceremonies, and it became a question as to how far they were justified in taking that • power out of tho hands of Parliament and placing it in the hands of the Minister of Internal Affairs. There was no definite principle on which to base their conclusions as to who, in j.the opinion of tho Minister, should be permitted to perform legal marriages. He thought it would be better if it j was provided that nobody but a Government official should perform marriages. Otherwise they would be opening tho door to practices which would uot be approved in a country like New Zealand. This view was supported by the Hon. W. AY. Snodgrass. PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. Eoplying to tho discussion, the Leader ox the Council (the Right Hon. Sir Francis Bell) pointed out that officiating ministers of certain religious ijodies were authorised by the Marriage Act to perform marriages. In addition, it was provided that any minister of religion not connected with the bodies enumerated in the Act, upon furnishing to tho Eegistrar-General a certificate signed by the recognised head in New Zealand of the religious body to which he belonged, or by ten adult members of that body, declaring that such minister was their officiating minister, should be entitled to have his name inserted in the list of officiating | ministers.

Sir Francis referred to the Society of Friends, which did not have officiating ministers, and therefore required a special section in the Act providing for the nomination of persons to be registered as qualified to perform marriages. That, he said, was a precedent for provisions to meet special cases. Parliament was now being asked to recognise that there were other bodies of people who quite seriously did not recognise any spiritual authority amongst themselves, all being equal. According to Mr. Isitt the provision in the Act for the appointment of ministers not actually enumerated in tho Act would permit of scalliwags being authorised. Mr. Isitt: "Oh, no. I did not refer to any particular Church: I was referring to any ten men outside the Church." SUFFICIENT PRECAUTIONS. "Yes," replied Sir Francis, "and that shows how illogical is the chargo that a serious proposal is under discussion. This Bill requires that tho body shall bo a religious body, and that it should satisfy thc-Minister of Internal Affairs that it is a religious body. It is exactly the same provision as in tho Marriage Act. All the dangers that havo been spoken of are dangers _ which exist, if at all, under tho provisions of section 10 of the Marriage Act. There is nothing askod for in this Bill that is not already provided for in the Marriage Act." In reply to the Hon. J. Barr, he said ho would be glad to move in Committee for the insertion of a requirement that persons nominated should be of goo-l character. Ho did not desire to limit the safeguards to tho placing on tho register of persons who were unfit to perform marriages. He thought there were sufficient precautions. Tho second reading was carried on a division by 21 votes to 8, the division list being as follows:— Ayes (21): Bell, Rhodes, Barr, Carrington, Clark, Collins, Craigie, Fleming, Garland, Hall-Jones, Hanan, Hawko, Lang, MaeGregor, Mackenzie, Mandcr, Moore, Sinclair, Stout, Triggs, Witty. Noes (8): Alison, Allen, Earnshaw, Isitt, Malcolm, Scott, Smith, Snodgrass.