German marriage get laws watered down

After 133 years of dispute and confrontation initiated by a law issued under Bismarck stating that civil marriage is the sole legal union the government has caved in and will recognize marriages solely performed by the church (German link) as well. This means that couples may now choose between three alternatives: civil marriage only, civil marriage with a church ceremony afterwards, or church marriage. Ok, one would think, as long as the union is legal, let people marry any way they want. Of the 373,681 marriages performed in Germany in 2006 a total of app. 105,000 were later blessed by the church as well. Still ok, if 25% of the couples want the thrill of walking down the aisle and a few traditional words spoken, let them.

But now we come to the legal implications, and brother are they massive! A church marriage is no more or less than a hand-held marriage with all the lack of legally guaranteed protection, rights and duties. Dieter Schwab, professor of Family Law in Regensburg, points out that such couples forgo the following rights within the marriage: Tax benefits, inheritance, consent to donate organs, funeral planning, refusal to give evidence. Should the marriage break up, the following rights go walkabouts: Alimony, compensation for increase in communal property, possibly child visiting rights. The children from such marriages would be treated as illegitimate with all consequences arising from such status, getting child support would be a bitch and a half. The weaker partner in such marriages, generally the woman, is royally screwed, and this with the government’s consent!


If the government permits an alternative to the civil union guaranteeing certain rights and duties it sure as hell should have made a law regulating the legal implications thereof. Austria has been permitting such unions for years with the bizarre consequence that the state can be held liable for child support and alimony. Your tax money at work!

Heard this on the radio this morning. Typical law-making, break what isn't broken and leave the broken bit untouched. It was a good opportunity to give churches the right to perform the civil part of the ceremony as well, as is the case in many of the countries people on this board come from - after all, the state acts as an agent of the church in collecting church tax, why could not the church act as an agent of the state (not 007-style) and have the happy couple sign the relevant documentation in the church?

Actually all that was changed was the required chronological order. Now you can have your church ceremony BEFORE the state ceremony -- from the article sarabyrd linked:


The church wedding hasn't gained in significance at all. Conceivably some people will be fooled, but... it's hard to make something idiot-proof.

Church marriages lost their binding status, this is now being reversed.


There is no legal obligation to perform the civil ceremony after the church marriage.

No, there's no obligation. But the church ceremony still has no binding status -- same as before.

How is it reversed? It's still not binding and will only confuse people. I wonder how many partners will look in shock after 40 years of church only marriage when their partner dies and someone tells them they inherit shit all and were never legally married. I also like the fact that I can marry person a in a church and marry person b a day later at the standesamt.

Church marriage will be completely independent from civil marriage but still recognized by the state. So your polygamic intents are thwarted, Bob L.

Why? On monday I marry my first wife in my local church and on tuesday I marry my second wife at the standesamt. Legaly only the later marriage is binding though, but the later will be performed no matter what happened on that fateful monday.

Why on earth can't the Germans let you get married in church and sign the civil register after the ceremony?

Ask the Iron Chancellor. His social reforms changed the face of Germany and led it from a feudal, church-regulated society to a modern, unified state. He was a firm believer in power being concentrated in one hand (his) and professional civil servants setting down the guidelines of politics and society, hence the expression "Beamtenstaat". Of course, the church went into a hissy fit and refuses to let any of its remaining privileges slide, viz. Sunday closing laws etc.

Where's the bit in the article about the church ceremony being recognized by the state? I believe the state ignores the church ceremony entirely. Have it or don't, whenever you want, nobody cares. Or?

Frigging Süddeutsche Zeitung, putting editorials on its website and hiding the front page article on the e-paper site only. grumblegrumble. Anyway. Not only is it no longer a criminal offense, priests can legally marry a couple without their having to make their union official afterwards in a civil ceremony.


(my bold)
source SZ e-paper 3-7-08

Right, like I said above -- a church marriage is now even more ignored by the state as now they don't even care when you have it. Is there anything anywhere about the state acknowledging a church ceremony in any way?

You can have one or the other but you no longer have to have both. Mostly, you don't have to have the civil ceremony.
More news articles here

Why is this in the interests of the church? Why would they push for it? (Presumably they did, who else would?)

Damn. I just sent the following letter to the editor of our local (weekly) paper, in response to a column this week by a local pastor who was writing to defend Marriage against the gay rabble:


So is this some kind of attempt to make church-only unions superior to civil-only, or civil+church unions?

This is the part of your report I'm wondering about. I didn't see anything in any article about state recognizing church weddings at all. I believe the state now will completely ignore marriage ceremonies performed by any clergypeople, not recognize them. Can you clarify that bit? Sure you can have a church wedding now without being required to have a state one first, but it's just a party with no resulting legal obligations to either... party. Just like it was before.

The front page article in the SZ explicitly states that they are independent forms of marriage, the linked article is merely an editorial, a fact that dawned on me after linking. Like an eingetragene Lebensgemeinschaft, with all the missing rights.

So are we now saying it is just a party?

I'm with Gen on this one. The way I interpret is that you will be allowed to marry in church but that this "marriage" still won't have any more legal status than if you weren't. You only get the status of "marriage" (and all the rights and responsibilities thereof) if you perform the civil ceremony. And marital status has absolutely no bearing on the responsibility of parents to pay for their children under German law, so that bit of your article is rather irrelevant.

I suppose it's worth pointing out to this crowd that church-only unions would likely not be recognized outside of Germany (well, maybe also in Austria.)

But maybe it's a way for foreigners to have their picturesque destination weddings in Germany without having to go through the legalities. Just bring a note from your priest at home, have the ceremony at the Wiesenkirche or other quaint, onion-domed, Baroque edifice, take care of the legalities in your own home country or state. A cash cow for the struggling German church!

The way I see the changes is this:

1. It is no longer compulsory to have a registry office wedding before a church wedding.
2. See 1.

The government continues to have nothing to do with church weddings, only this is more apparent than before because there is no longer the prerequisite to go to the registry office first.

What would have been useful would have been to add a point 2.

2. A church wedding now carries the same weight in law as a registry office wedding.

I'd say Gen has won this one. Despite all of the lovely Sarabyrd's sidestepping and backtracking.
Shure that's the way it is; you win some - you lose some.
I always read the newspaper with my glasses on, so I do!

I think it is an excellent move - the German government moves towards treating all religious ceremonies, regardless of denomination, with equal contempt!

Edit: and more importantly indifference.

Well, what garibaldi says makes more sense than the State's allowing the Church to just cut it out of the marriage business without any dosh flowing to them.

Jein. You are both legally married but you do not have the same rights as a couple married in a civil ceremony. You are not allowed to marry someone else in a civil ceremony. You have to hope that your faith will see you through because the laws of the land won't protect you if your marriage doesn't work out. It is a legal union that at the death of your spouse puts you in exactly the situation I am now: Denuded of all rights to Scogs' estate, pension claims and ashes.
I hope the Pope is happy because I ain't in view of the legal consequences.
@ garibaldi, it's not about being right, it's about the law.

No, point 2. was what I think they SHOULD have done, not what I believe they HAVE done.

Sorry to hear you are in that situation.

So what sort of legal union were you and Scogs in then? (Sorry if this seems an inappropriate question - but you have used the point as illustration)

I agree. If a church marriage has the same binding effect on the spouses as a civil union the rights should be the same.
One thing I have not found any information about: Can such a church marriage even be dissolved? Not divorced, of course, but annulled. And who is then liable for support etc.? See the Austrian quandry ...

I can think of one group of people this is good for, retirees. In the States there are widows who can't get re-married without losing their pensions. Their "intendeds" may not be as well off financially. This change would allow them to meet their religious obligations without having to sacrifice financial stability.

I don't know what the guidelines are for Evang. churches, but Catholic priests are likely to give you hell if you try to go into a marriage with a pre-nup where there aren't reasons for it (e.g. children from an earlier relationship, dependent parents). I imagine that it would be similar if a couple who hasn't made alternative plans for their medical care, parental responsibility etc. wanted to do the "religious" only option.

The civil and religious requirements for establishing partnerships are diverging and this is one way of allowing both religious and civil spheres to maintain independent definitions for these joined states.

So if you get married in the Church only (let's say it's the Catholic church), then the Church has to allow you to divorce (unlikely) or you can never marry again, even in a civil ceremony, even though the government doesn't recognize your marriage to begin with?

I cannot answer that, I don't have any information on the planned procedure - if any. I mean, what if one partner wants out at any cost due to incompatibility, infidelity, kiddie-fiddling or alcoholism but the other swears to stick to the wedding vows and refuses consent to any dissolution actions? Does that mean that the other is condemned to stay with a person s/he hates?
Christ on a crutch, you may as well move to Ireland and have it over with!

Thanks for bringing this to our collective attention, sarabyrd. To pick up on just one point, I'm not sure the new law would make the Pope (or any Catholic moral theologian) happy. In theology of Martin Luther, marriage is governed by civil law, not church law. This was a big and controversial part of Luther's reforms.
The new law seems to affirm this in principle, saying to couples that they must (also) go to the state to have civil protections.

IMHO the only wedding, accepted by the state as a legal wedding contract before the mundane laws of the state will be the civil ceremony.

Second, the church wedding will not be linked or related with the civil ceremony. Its effects are limited to the laws of the church, catholic or protestant or Jehova's witnesses or any other church that will be officially accepted as a church by the German state. This wedding can be held anytime.

Full stop

Indeedy, seems to put peoples of all persuasions on a more equal footing.

If people want to affirm their commitment to each other in front of what ever other audience they see fit - then they can do, but it is their own private business. No one particular vested interest group (including the biggest!) now gets preferential treatment. This way the only discrimiation is between those who wish to make a state recognised legal binding agreement and those who do not. Top banana.

So you could marry Chuck in Church and Stan at the Standesamt and nobody can do anything about it. Bigamy, kinda. Polygamy even. For all those who always wanted a harem.

This is exactly how I read it too. It just means now that you can have:

1. State then Church
2. State only
3. Church then State

A state ceremony is always STILL required to get the 'benefits' which other laws convey (tax-rate, etc.) and the church ceremony is STILL just a window dressing (at least legally).

Except that it's a legal union linking two people who are then married. Stan is gonna be mighty disappointed, Gen.

Show me where you get the legal union bit arising from the church ceremony. Please.

Man kann also nun kirchlich heiraten, ohne sich staatlich und zivilrechtlich binden zu wollen.
Post #12
Key word is heiraten. Once you've gone through it you are verheiratet and cannot heiraten again until you are unverheiratet (means of which have not yet been devised).

And? Surely that's a personal thing just between the mad religous beliefs / statement of commitment (delete as appropriate) of the two participants, to be taken at their leisure. Nothing at all at all to do with the institution of marriage which is clearly only a civil enterprise.

And they shouldn't be getting unverheiratet anyway. That's the whole point of the exercise shurely? For better for worse, for alcholism and adultery, for violence and betrayal etc.

Indeed. Zivilrechtlich you're nicht gebunden -- so the state doesn't care if you've married in a church or not, so nothing stands in the way of polygamy. You've geheiratet, but you're NOT verheiratet in the eyes of the law.

Stan can think he is in a polygamos marriage in the eyes of his 'church' - but does anyone else think so?

Tis just a bloke with a couple of girls on the go at the same time.

Sara, please do a little research before you post - it would appease my Irish heart.
No amount of inoglichocy will save you at this stage.
May the Good Lord look approvingly on you the night that's in it!

Indeed, a little later than most of the planet, but divorce has been possible since 1996.

I still say that if I were, say, an ailing Catholic church in a cute little Bavarian hamlet willing to marry non-Germans, I'd be placing classified ads in the parish newsletters, destination weddings section right about now. Send us an e-mail to schedule, and fax a letter from your local priest that you are a Catholic in Good Standing, and you're golden. No more bureaucratic bull if you want to get married at the Dorfkapelle. Hurrah!

_{(Suggested donation for church rental, clergyman, and handsome certificate suitable for framing, Euro 500.)}

Sure and I've been informed so by my best friend from Cork. But she was momentarily stumped when I inquired of her if gays were allowed to have an abortion.

Oh my God, here we go again. Sara my dear, do please engage in a little research.
There are NO gay people in Ireland. The cost of living is way too high.
There used to be gay people in Ireland but they all emigrated in search of a
replacement for the spud and found it in America. Like everything in America,
it was oversized but they found the pumpkin and sent it back to the Ireland to
try and make their compatriots gay.
Please research these things or I'll be forced to report you to your Boss who will
then delete all your posts with abandon.
This thread is now closed.

How did this turn into a discussion about gay potatos?