DOUBLE MARRIAGES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20381, 12 April 1928, Page 13

DOUBLE MARRIAGES.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH EXERCISED.

A MEANINGLESS CEREMONY,

(Special to Daily Times.) WELLINGTON, April 11

The marriage of persons already married by a registrar was a matter discussed at some length at yesterday’s meeting of the AVellington Presbytery. The moderator (the Rev. J. H. Mackenzie), who submitted the following resolution as an overture to the General Assembly at its next meeting in Auckland in November, characterised a second ceremony as being meaningless and farcical;—

‘‘ Whereas ministers are from 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 manned names and sign these 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 be linked witli a meaningless marriage ceremony, this presbytery overtures the assembly to take these premises into consideration and enjoin that all ministers discourage these remarriage functions and that a religious ceremony of benediction be offered in place thereof, or that the assembly resolve otherwise as in its wisdom may seem best.” Mr Mackenzie said that Re brought the matter before the presbytery because he believed there was a real necessity for it. Some of their ministers had been asked to remarry persons already married by the registrar. More than that, soma of their ministers had performed this second marriage. Others also had refused, and he thought it was well that they should bo clear on the matter and that the assembly should give some pronouncement. It gave rise to the question as to how any man could perform a second marriage withou, 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 already married—there was not a shadow of doubt about that) —and at the second ceremony the couple were married as if they had not been married before. He thought it was undesirable. The Rev. Mr Blanchard said that in Western Australia it was distinctly set out in the Marriage Act that parties might bo married again. Since coming to AVellington he had made inquiries ns to the legal position from the registrar, who had stated that as the Marriage Act did not prohibit such a ceremony it was permitted. The second ceremony, he took it, would be perfectly legal, but the marriage certificate, as the registrar had pointed out, would have to state that the parties had been previously married on a certain date.

In answer to a question, Mr Mackenzie said that there was no doubt that the first marriage was the one that would be recognised in a civil court. After some further discussion a. committee was appointed to consider the position further and submit a report to a future meeting of the presbytery.