: It's a typical result of the Napoleonic code
: where the civil wedding is the legal
: wedding. The religious ceremony officially
: is only allowed to be celebrated after the
: civil one and has no legal status other than
: for the church/religion that celebrated it.
: Most continental West-European countries
: have adapted a strict separation between
: State and Church. So why would they
: outsource something with legal consequences
: to various religions?
: Separating the civil/legal marriage from a
: religious one has also made it easier to
: open up marriage for same-sex couples. The
: law makes no distinction between couples but
: religions are free to follow their own
: ideals and cannot be forced to celebrating
: weddings of couples they don't want to
But if the religious ceremony doesn't have a legal status, why then did (does?) the law says that a civil wedding isn't legal if the couple has been to church for a religious ceremony?
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index