Someone said :
But you and spieeman were making statements he is breaking the law but a legal expert said he isn't
I called it a sham after the post where you say "but it is legal": many a sham is legal!
I said they might
fall foul of the law, before that post, and added that the registrar may have been raising concerns on that ground or slightly different grounds. Again, that does not mean he is breaking the law, just that he may be faced with objections and delays whose legal foundations would need to be tested.
They are making a mockery of marriage, as so many other people have in the past, in straight or gay relationships.
The issue is that they are advertising their intent to do it to defraud Revenue. (Though one could argue it is only defrauding the Revenue if the marriage is illegal, but they state themselves that their intent is fraudulent)
It will be up to Revenue to see if they have grounds to take actions, and/or for the law makers to create the same safeguards that would have been needed for other arranged marriages designed to preserve financial assets.
Also, if they contract life insurance, the life insurance company may refuse to pay out on te basis that the marriage was not contracted between spouses (for which no definition exist in law as such, apart from defining and being define by marriage!)
If this goes ahead, we may just have into a society that accepts to define spouses as
We are facing the same issue as we had with convenience marriages...
So as I said... we will find out!
Now, just to drive the point further on the possibility if declaring the marriage void after the fact, there is a provision that a judge can declare a marriage void if:
At the time of the marriage, there was a lack of consent. In other words, you or your spouse did not give free and fully informed consent to the marriage. This may be due to duress, (i.e., you were forced into the marriage), mistake, misrepresentation or fraud .
The last bit could be grounds for a Registrar to rise concerns that they expressed an intend to go around Revenue rules. But technically they will not have left any paper trail as nothing in what they sign to notify an intention to marry, or what they said when they get married.
One tricky bit could be the exchange of rings.
Before, the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage was that in a marriage, the exchange of rings was a mandatory part of the civil ceremony for marriage only.
So based on the current wording of the civil marriage instrument, one may argue that the words spoken at that time may not be truthful, and may void the marriage. But if that were the case, then infidelity prior and during marriage would e cause for dissolution, which it is not...
So I will say it again: we will find out! In time.
(And I suspect the delay is not weather related, as I cannot imagine them wanting a big media-circus wedding with a kissing of the grooms)
And eventually it may be judges that it is the abuse of a legal situation.
That cannot be excluded!