★★★★★ 0/5

Law delays couples being Married at First Sight

The Marriage Act 1961 means couples in Nine's reality experiment can't wed on the day they meet.

29
Leave a comment

2015-04-19_1926

The couples in Nine’s upcoming dating series Married at First Sight will set eyes on each other for the first time at the altar but a legal hurdle will prevent them from getting hitched on the spot.

Four arranged marriages, in which eight individuals will be paired by relationship experts, will undergo all the trappings of an Australian wedding, but unlike the Danish series cannot be wedded on the spot due to the Marriage Act of 1961.

“Under Australian law a couple has to know each other before they can legally be married,” says Andrew Backwell, Nine’s Head of Programming and Production.

“The participants (before their wedding) filled in an Intention to Get Married form.

“The form has two sides to it and they filled in one side, because they didn’t know who they were going to get married to. At the end of the experiment in a month’s time have the chance to submit this form to legalise their marriage.

“But as you can see from the process they are fully invested. They believe they have gone through the ceremony and believe they are fully married, although it’s not a legal marriage.”

In the first episode the only mention that the marriage is not legal is a single sentence.

But the series is sure to generate conversation, as 8 young men and women experience all the nerves and jitters of walking down the aisle -doubly so, given they have effectively agreed to an arranged marriage. They are ‘married’ by a legal celebrant and then embark on a reception, honeymoon, meet the in-laws and live together for three months.

Some 1000 people applied for the series, with clinical physiologist John Aiken, Neuropsychotherapist Dr Trisha Statford and psychologist Sabina Read whittling them down to four couples.

“We weren’t looking for Big Brother contestants. These guys had to be 100% committed to the process,” says Aiken.

“We vetted those people out. I noticed on their applications there were people who had applied for different reality TV shows and for me they were gone,” says Read.

Despite the lack of legal sanction, Backwell believes viewers will connect with those who have put their heart on the line.

“You can see the participants are invested in each other. They are genuine. I don’t think the fact that there’s a legal document that hasn’t been submitted to the government changes the way these people are reacting with each other,” he said.

“They’ve gone though the whole process of the marriage. But it’s not a legal marriage until those forms are submitted.”

Read agrees: “It was explained as a commitment ceremony. So they knew. I hope we’ve been transparent with everyone involved, the participants, the viewer, the celebrant, the experts. To me what’s special is the authenticity of the people in the show. Their vulnerabilities, their hopes, their flaws, their fears. That’s how people roll.”

But have the experts got the pairings right? By the end of the series each couple will reveal whether they wish to continue or end their relationship.

“We are with them throughout the 4 week process giving them tools, techniques and strategies. One of the great things about being an expert on the show is that people can see ‘What are the common problems with couples, and what are some of the practical tools?’ So there’s an educational element to it,” says Aiken.

But the series may also attract controversy, by those questioning marriage becoming a TV reality experiment, and by gay marriage advocates who have continually been told traditional marriage must be preserved.

Nine has not ruled out including same sex couples if it proceeds to a second series. For now everything hinges on the audience investing in the bold premise.

Backwell is confident there is plenty in store for viewers.

“It’s an absolute rollercoaster. I was dumbstruck with the twists and turns of real peoples’ lives,” he says.

“The end is simply a gobsmacker.”

Married at First Sight is coming soon to Nine.

29 Responses

  3. Surely no one expects people being married ‘at first sight’ to actually be legally married? A Notice of Intention must be filled out one month before a wedding can take place, unless an application is made to shorten that time. Anyone participating in or watching the show who thinks that people can be legally married immediately must be just a wee bit thick. (Incidentally, this means that Luce and Bernadette’s ‘surprise’ marriage on the last episode of The Time of Our Lives was also invalid. Not romantic, stupid.)

  5. The inner Jewish grandmother in me is saying this could be “nice”, just like B&TG was in the early days.

    Actually the couples are in a no lose situation here. They get pretty full on counseling and match making before the “wedding”. If it feels like working after a month they can formalise it, or continue dating for another 12 months and really test it out. If it doesn’t work well they can fall back on the law and go their own ways after a month.

    The real test will be whether they will feel the need to consummate it too early on in the “journey”.

  7. I hope the Australian version is not a tacky, digital-channel-style dating show. The US version was surprisingly good, even though I do agree that this cheapens the idea of marriage. It’ll be interesting to see how this rates.

  8. There are many shows on TV (mostly early evening) that are not programs that I would ever watch, but I don’t wish them ill because lots of people seem to enjoy them. However, I hope that this effluvium disappears without a trace, except for faint lingering bad taste in the mouths of all who approved it.

    It’s bad enough that it makes a mockery of what is still an important institution for many people but it’s an absolute slap in the face for a lot of people who are currently not allowed to marry their chosen life-partner in this country. This is cheap, sordid, and even less real than other “reality” shows since the “contestants” will not actually be marrying their assigned stranger.

    Pointless, plastic, and in poor taste. Ugh, I’m going to go brush my teeth again.

  9. I totally disagree with the comments about same sex marriage. This isn’t what this show is about. The couples, especially on the US version, genuinely want to get married and find love. In fact 2 out of the 3 couples in the first series are still married. It has nothing to do with the fact that same sex couples can’t marry in Australia.

    1. You’re right, it’s not what the show is about. The show is about two people getting married. The problem that same-sex couples have however is that the ones who have been in relationships for years and want to get married can’t and the people on this show who don’t even know each other can because they have different anatomy.

    2. The original Dutch format actually allows for the marriages not to work. Sort of “we return after X weeks to see whether…”. This said, once again in the Dutch format there is a sexologist and others who sort of triangulate (academic term) personality potentials. The Aussie one sounds like it is emphasizing the emotional side. I am reminded though of the extensive research re online relationships and marriages. For every couple that are still together after a couple of years, allow for a large number who have been ripped off, lied to and disappointed (and worse). Instant love may happen but should it be an aspiration? If the show swiveled a little and played d’s advocate on the issue, then it may be more worthwhile.

  10. David are you sure the ‘Law’ is delaying the broadcast, it may be that Nine Execs can’t bring themselves to air another flop? .. still might not rate as badly as Celebrity Splash did?

    1. The law is not affecting any delayed broadcast. It affects the capacity to wed 2 strangers at the altar (or anywhere else for that matter) regardless of when it is broadcast. It affects production not playout.

  11. I find it pretty offensive but as a concept it no longer works. The entire premise is they are getting married. It’s not “pretending to get married at first sight”. This is not that different to a wedding on Neighbours. It’s not real. The format doesn’t work on any level if the marriage isn’t real.

  14. Hopefully this fails for them like their other “Love” show last year. I feel there should be a name change to Almost Hitched at Second Sight”

  16. This is an all time low for Australian television. Swill. For me this has nothing to do with the sanctity or otherwise of marriage but an Australian broadcaster believing this is what their audience deserves and longs for. A sad sad day indeed.

  17. Yup, I’m offended by the concept of this show. My partner and I have been together 10 years and can’t get married, yet these total strangers get a McMarriage with fries and Channel 9’s blessing to go? My father is due to have his 3rd marriage (to a Phillipino lady he met on the internet and spent 5 days with before getting engaged) and once again, my partner and I are short-changed. Channel 9 once again shows an insulting lack of progressiveness and continues to be the station I connect with the least.

  18. when it comes to reality tv there have been a few bad ides, Big Brother having more than 3 seasons, it was shit after that, Jackie O…. bringing big brother back on 9 and this stupid idea.

  19. And I suppose the audience is supposed to pretend that this isn’t just a cynical attempt to manipulate people and the audience to generate ratings from a stupid idea.

    What is the point of a fake marriage between two strangers? The only stupider thing would be a real marriage for TV purposes leaving you liable for lawyers fees and property splitting to end it.

  20. So, basically, either they’re being lied to for fun or the’re lying to us for entertainment purposes? While cheapening what is still a reasonably important cultural institution (well, it’s still important enough that some people who are denied it want it).

    Great culture we live in, isn’t it?

  22. Kudos David for including the comment about marriage equality. I find this show beyond offensive, an absolute slap in face for all the people fighting for equal marital rights for every Australian. Many same sex couples have been de facto partners for years but are unable to have their union legally recognised for absolutely no reason other than bigotry. In NSW a straight couple have to apply for a licence one month before they intend to marry. Theoretically they could apply on the day they meet and have a marriage certificate 4 weeks later. I hope this show fails miserably given it’s trivialising the institute of marriage while genuine life partners are being denied the right to have their relationship formalised.

Leave a Reply