Interestingly different standards

[andrewducker]

laserboy was being somewhat irate last night over the BBC using the headline Little Britain star Lucas 'weds' - specifically, putting 'weds' in quotes, because it's a civil partnership, and not a marriage. They also don't use the phrase "civil partnership", instead preferring to put "marriage" in quotes.

The Guardian, on the other hand, happily uses the word wedding repeatedly. They don't use the word "marriage"at all, presumably because they trust their audience to know what a civil partnership is.

Anyone know about this stuff, and willing to say whether the word "wedding" has a legal meaning. Marriage/Civil Partnership definitely do, but is referring to a civbil partnership ceremony as a wedding techincally wrong in some way? I suspect that after a while the quotes will just vanish, and they'll be referred to as weddings generally anyway. As they already would be if the government had just bitten the bullet and brought in gay marriage as they should have done in the first place.

Comments

[ladysisyphus.livejournal.com]

...I sort of find the scare quotes offensive. I mean, they had a wedding, so far as my half-asleep brain can tell from skimming the offerings, and they entered into a civil partnership. That's not 'marriage' -- I mean, I expect to see 'marriage' (complete with quotes) in an adorable human interest article about how the local aquarium had a party when it introduced the newly acquired male dolphin to the female dolphin's tank, not when two humans get legally committed to one another.

[andrewducker]

Referring to civil partnerships as marriage would be legally incorrect in the UK, so I wouldn't expect newspapers to use them in place of each other.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

There are many things that are legally incorrect which are used in newspapers regardless. In this case, it seems to me that using the phrase marriage does no harm, even if used incorrectly (unlike, say when reporting on trials and the like, where reporting has ramifications which are explicitly covered under defamation law, for example), so I see no problem.

[andrewducker]

I don't see the harm, but I can understand the BBC style guide stating that the two should be referred to separately, as separate legal states.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

So true...

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

Does it? Interesting, then, that the BBc website refers repeatedly to 'marriage' and 'wedding'

It does smack of discrimination, but on the other hand if these terms come into public conciousness and eventually this means the quotation marks are dropped, this would be good.

Not for any moral or social reasons, but purely because 'civil partnership ceremony' is so much longer and less pretty than 'wedding'.

Personally, I intend to have a wedding and a marriage and be, and have, a wife. I'm old fashioned that way.

Lx

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Not true. There have been "weddings" which were unsanctified by the state since the Reformation. Quaker weddings were unrecognised for a century and a half, so were Catholic weddings and Hindu weddings only gained recognition in the last big shake up where civilian buildings were sanctified for "legal" weddings.

[andrewducker]

I was specifically referring to weddings, and not marriage, there.

[rosamicula.livejournal.com]

'Marriage' does have legal implications. If you marry twice you will be a bigamist.

'Wedding' does equal marriage unless that wedding is Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Hindus, Sikhs, Pgans etc are required to undertake a civil service if their want their marriages to be recognised in law.

[rosamicula.livejournal.com]

There should be a 'not' in that second sentence. Haven't had my tea yet, sorry.

[andrewducker]

But could wedding also equal civil partnership?

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Wedding could lead to a civil partnership, or to a marriage. As far as I'm aware, the law refers to "marriage ceremony" and not wedding: I'm pretty sure "wedding" is a non-legal term. I don't mind "marriage" in scare quotes that much, but I'd rather they said civil partnership, which is what it is. When we finally get round to ours, we won't say "marriage" or "wife" - I've never wanted to have or to be either of those. "Wedding", though, I can get behind.

[andrewducker]

Cheers - that was pretty much what I was assuming. Which makes the Guardian article correct (as it refers to weddings and civil partnerships) and the BBC wrong (as it refers to "marriage" and "wed").

[0olong.livejournal.com]

Not wrong if they're using quotes, and that's what the people involved (or other people, come to that) are referring to it as.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

'Marriage' does have legal implications. If you marry twice you will be a bigamist.

Since you would also presumably be a bigamist if you married and civil partnered, I'm not sure that legal implication precludes calling a civil partnership a marriage in a newspaper. The legal implication stands -- someone cannot do this thing twice.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting point. I suspect the CP would be void but you would not have committed the crime of bigamy. Just to prove this is not all about homophobia, similar issues have come up in the past re foreign marriages not recognised by UM law (eg polygamy).

I don't think wedding has any legal significance - marriage and celebrant of marriage do. so yes i think the grauniad has it right.

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

They would have committed an offence punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment: "although the legislation does not explicitly refer to it as such, this statutory offence is the equivalent of the common law offence of 'bigamy'"

I don't knwo what the difference is between a common law and statutory offence is though.

Lizzie x

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Bigamy is a common law offence ie it is a matter of longstanding legal custom effectively - laid down in case law over the years.

Civil partnerships were introduced by statute (= act of parliament) therefore crimes within that legislation are "statutory crimes".

Bigamy literally means "two marriages" so what you say is exactly what I expected ; that it would be a crime,but not the common law ofence of bigamy.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

I did wonder, as i posted that comment, if it would be bigamy, but I just don't know where to look for such things her (in Aus, I'd know where to look -- what's the equivalent to Austlii here? anyone?)

austlii equiv

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

BAILii oddly enough :) and even less oddly, set up originally by Andrew Mowbray of AustLII, a total sweetheart! Impressed you know about AUStlII - you alone of Lj may understand the joke of why the workshop I held before leaving Ed was called GikII :)

We should do that Vietnamese restaurant thing with G in the new year sometime?

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Hindus, Sikhs etc all passed through under the new licensing laws which make it possible for a place of worship such as a Hindu temple to get permission to sanctify marriages. They have to include certain words, and have to have a registrar present.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Having made all my interjections, I was at a wedding at the weekend. The bit that *is* heterosexual is as follows.

"Marriage in this country is defined as the union between one man and one woman".

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Ooh, and of course the other thing is that a civil partnership ceremony has no legal force either - the only legal aspect of it is signing the register: words are for decoration only and not compulsory (to do or to provide, on the part of the local authority). On the other hand, a marriage ceremony does exist as a legal entity, with the words as part of it, particularly where it's sanctioned through a religious body. But I'm still pretty sure it's a "marriage" not a "wedding" ceremony.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

In Scotland actually in both cases it is signing the schedule that is what matters. Religious marriages are also window dressing :)The differnces are that certsin religious ministers have standing authority to be celebrants.

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

a civil partnership ceremony has no legal force

So can I have a big gay wedding (which is how they should be referred to, I think) on top of my existing marriage and not be breaking the law?

*runs off to find dolores*

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

See above. It'd be a statutory crime, and a void CP, though not "bigamy".

[alienspacebat.livejournal.com]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wed

A wedding is just an event where you make a promise to someone according to its original usage...

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Actually in Scots law making a promise to be wed followed by intercourse used to be a binding legal (though "irregular") marriage (marriage de presenti et copula ) only abolished c 1950 s I think..
And habit and repute marriage existed till the 2006 Family (sc) Act.
Scotland is pretty odd on such things.