IMO this is personal. It’s the Opium Wars Pt. II.

From the article you linked:

“This has traditionally been considered incorrect on the basis that it is equivalent to referring to a judge as being an honourable or an adult man as a mister, both of which are also grammatically improper.[8][9] It is likewise incorrect to form the plural reverends. Some dictionaries,[10] however, do place the noun rather than the adjective as the word’s principal form, owing to an increasing use of the word as a noun among people with no religious background or knowledge of traditional styles of ecclesiastical address.”

I wouldn’t correct someone who dropped this in casual conversation, but I do expect more from a news source that should be employing people with a better grasp on the English language.

This article is a mess.

Firstly, “Reverend” is an adjective, not a title. Sounds like it was a priest, minister, or pastor depending on denomination. It would be like referring to a judge as “an honourable” for an entire article.

Secondly, even if this minister pushed through the paperwork, there is no way it’s valid. Both parties have to sign the completed document at the time of the wedding itself, and it typically has to be also signed by witnesses. “Pre-signing” it would indicate it. It’s not a legally valid document.

Ironically, marriage documentation is pretty tight about the consent of both parties and witnesses to prevent women from being married off against their will.

“tenets” … I thought you were giving me housing advice.

Isn’t that like an ancestrally appropriate thing for Mongolian rulers? Where did he go? Bagdad? Would have thought they’d be proud of him.