OPD 2017 -Friday May 27, Docklands Library

TO BOOK
http://www.icccelebrantopd.com.au – 1300 446 786 (Yvonne) 

dallymessenger@mac.com   – 0411 717 303 (Dally

TO BOOK
http://www.icccelebrantopd.com.au – 1300 446 786 (Yvonne) 

dallymessenger@mac.com –  Dally  – 0411 717 303

Celebrant Issues with Attorney-General-2014

Here are the priority questions I think should be dealt with by the meeting of the December 2, 2014.Celebrant to Bride

  1. The possibility of a new understanding of the relationship between the Attorney-General’s Department and working celebrants. i.e. Public Servants who are informed, supportive, and interested in what celebrants can do for individuals and society. AND celebrants who are informed with the knowledge of the history and purpose of civil celebrancy and who possess an attitude of cooperation.
  2. A thorough teaching of Section 48 of the Marriage Act – especially the last sentence of 48 (3). see – http://www.collegeofcelebrancy.com/pages4/Sect_48-Marriage_Act.html
  3. A Transfer of Section 39A to M – the powers of the registrar – to, mutatis mutandis, standing orders within the department – and the powers and responsibility be returned to the accountable minister i.e. to the Attorney-General.
  4. That public servants dealing with celebrants undergo a course of training in the nature and evolution of ceremony, the importance of culture, the psychological power of memorable events, and the nature of society. The course should include attendance at celebrant weddings, funerals, namings, and other secular ceremonies — with reports and critiques.
  5. There should be a serious ceremony at which celebrants are inducted into the profession, attended by the Attorney-General or his equal.
  6. That the Attorney-General assist celebrants expose our exploitation by Funeral Directors, who effectively control fees by not sub-contracting any celebrant who does not conform to their low fee, thus depressing standards.

There are many more issues which I have outlined in fate following articles and blogs:

https://iccdiplomas.com/2014/07/21/celebrants-if-i-were-a-g-for-a-day/

https://iccdiplomas.com/2014/01/13/celebrants-bad-management-excessive-numbers/

https://iccdiplomas.com/2014/01/29/celebrants-what-is-and-what-ought-to-be/

https://iccdiplomas.com/2014/01/29/celebrants-what-is-and-what-ought-to-be-2/

https://iccdiplomas.com/2014/01/29/celebrants-what-is-and-what-ought-to-be-3/

https://iccdiplomas.com/2014/02/01/celebrants-what-is-and-what-ought-to-be-4/

https://iccdiplomas.com/2014/02/02/celebrants-what-is-and-what-ought-to-be-5/

https://iccdiplomas.com/2014/02/04/celebrants-what-is-and-what-ought-to-be-6/

https://iccdiplomas.com/2013/12/28/a-valid-marriage-yes-or-no/

http://www.collegeofcelebrancy.com.au/Pages5/DRM_To_AG_Brandis.html

http://www.collegeofcelebrancy.com.au/pages4/roxonopenltr4.html

http://www.collegeofcelebrancy.com/pages4/OpenLtrToDreyfus.html

http://www.yourmarriagecelebrant.co/informs_re/Oz_CMCs-probs.html

A Valid Marriage -Yes or No?

Was this older civil Marriage celebrant ignorant of the Marriage Act?

I’ve just witnessed (on video) a recent country wedding conducted by a civil celebrant. What astounded me was that the celebrant:
a. did not state they were legally authorised to conduct the marriage
b. the Monitum was not spoken
c. neither party to the marriage said the compulsory legal vow
This celebrant was authorised more than 20 years ago, according to the AGD register of civil celebrants so they’ve been around long enough to know better, or are there different rules for the “elders” amongst our ranks. I’m very curious to hear others’ opinions.
(signed by friend)

My reply regarding valid marriages

I suppose I’d be classed as an elder.
You may not have known that we “older” celebrants were given a book of legal interpretations from 1995. It was a book which had been valid since 1973. We also had access to GOOD advice – The public servants in charge of the downgrading of celebrancy in 2003 defied the precedents of 30 years of interpretation. Hence they made a lot of mistakes and invented lot of stuff which you may think is “correct”- 

Since the downgrading we have had four revisions –
Explanatory notes 1,
Explanatory Notes 2,
When Words are not enough. 3.
And now the latest
“Guidelines for celebrants” 4
which, the first time I opened it, I saw a serious error (checked by my lawyer friends). (Note that the Department have now nearly come back to square one i.e 1973 – 1995).
For example, the interpretation for vows for thirty years was “as long as the words of the vows conveyed to those present that the couple were taking each other in marriage”.
For example, on the business of names – when you boil it down anyone can be any name they seriously choose to be. God knows how much unnecessary pain the recent erroneous interpretations have caused people.

I wrote this article for the AFCC magazine – some really ignorant people made disparaging remarks about it – but check it out – it is important – and it is correct.
http://www.collegeofcelebrancy.com.au/pages4/Sect_48-Marriage_Act.html
Finally, may I say that I hereby cast a pox on anyone who says I am not exact with the law or that I do not advocate it in my training courses. We are all bound by the same GENUINE rules of interpretation; we are not bound by the changing legal whims of public servants who have never been celebrants.
A lot more could be said –
etc etc
PS. Certain people in the celebrant political world, for the basest of motives, have been trying for some years, to drive a wedge between “old” and “new” celebrants -(the AFCC recently tried to get rid of Life Members!!) please don’t fall for it – we are all in this wonderful opportunity together.