I don’t mean modern government. I’m talking Code of hammurabi, cradle of civilization.
The only party I would see interested in making marriage something official would be the party currently making and enforcing the laws of the land.
In early civilisation those are different parties. The king/chief/shaman/whatever may enforce the rules, but he doesn’t make them, except possibly to a small extent around the margins. The rules are customary, deriving their force from tradition and the the consensus of the community. So it’s not the role of the chief to determine who is married and who is not; it’s his role, when people are married, to recognise the fact and to ensure that, e.g., property descends on death to the person entitled to it by virtue of the marriage, or that husbands are compensated for wrongs done to their wives, or that one man’s wife is not taken as another man’s concubine, or whatever.
Nothing in the Code suggests that they DON’T do this either. I’m confused as to why such a thing would lead to the marriage only being recognized in New York State. It’s a valid license, issued by the state, celebrated in accordance with its laws. It would be recognized just like any other marriage license from New York (subject to certain public policy exceptions like SSM, but that is the same whether the celebration was in New York or elsewhere—so no need for SSM Debate Thread MM).
Did anyone else have to google who Neil Patrick Harris is?
Stated differently, let’s consider some alternate scenarios:
-
An opposite sex couple applies for a New York State marriage license. They travel to Allentown, PA and get married in front of a Methodist pastor. They return to the Clerk’s office in New York. The clerk notes that an appropriate person performed the ceremony. Why shouldn’t the Clerk enter the license?
-
A same sex couple applies for a New York State marriage license. They travel to Miami (where SSM isn’t recognized) and get married in front of a Florida notary (who has marriage powers under state law). The couple returns to the Clerk’s office in New York. The Clerk notes that an appropriate person performed the ceremony. Why shouldn’t the Clerk enter the license?
Now, at this point one might argue that the notary wasn’t an appropriate person because Florida law prohibits SSM. But the notary didn’t purport to marry the couple under the Florida marriage laws, he simply officiated the ceremony. The Clerk should simply note that the Florida notary was granted the power by Florida law to officiate marriages, which he did, and recognize his act as a proper certification of marriage.
So if we apply #2 to the situation at hand, why can’t the Clerk simply note that whoever in Italy performed the ceremony was an appropriate person and simply recognize the marriage?
No, because we don’t live under a rock.
(Seriously? Doogie Howser? How I Met Your Mother? Host of the Emmy & Tony Awards? Really, nothing?)
I am not going to search through every NYS Law, but will point out a couple of things
- Here is a document that clearly states
- Most if not all states/countries probably have a provision similar to this from the DRL
Perhaps it might not refer to licenses as such - it may require that all persons intending to be married in Place X to have the legal ceremony at the clerk’s office in Place X, but I would be shocked if having a license from NY would result in a legal marriage in Italy -especially if the marriage involved two parties who could not legally marry in Italy. In most cases, governments don’t seek to regulate what the inhabitants of a place do, they seek to regulate what is done within their jurisdiction. To use the notary example, NYS probably couldn’t care less if Florida allows me to become a notary under Florida law even though I reside in NY. But that doesn’t mean I’m authorized to act as a notary within NY.
- Everything I have ever read about the recognition of “foreign” marriages has said that a marriage is valid if it was valid where it was celebrated, not if it was valid where the license was obtained.*
- That’s part of the reason the Defense of Marriage Act was such a thing. People were afraid that states where same sex marriage was not legal would be forced to recognize marriages celebrated in states where it was.
And yet he seemingly knows who David Burtka is, since he didn’t google him.
There’s no need for that subjunctive: Italian law does not. Most countries do not require a marriage license. In the US you take proof that both parties are legally capable of entering a civil marriage to a location where you obtain a license for the couple; then you can execute it right there if you want to or you can take the license (not the individual proofs) someplace else to be executed. In no-license countries what’s taken to the ceremony is the proofs themselves, with no intermediate document.
I’ve never watched any of those shows. (And I actively avoid the Emmy and Tony Award shows.) No idea who David Burtka is, except that he’s married to Neil Patrick Harris. (FWIW, I’ve also never watched Breaking Bad or The Sopranos, and I’ve only seen one or two episodes of Seinfeld.)
A former coworker would want to talk about celebrity scandals, who’s marrying or divorcing whom, etc. Celebrities don’t interest me – except when they die and I think, ‘Hey, that’s too bad. I liked him/her in [whatever].’ I astound the SO constantly by not knowing who various actors are in British costume dramas – especially since there are only about twelve actors in England, and they’re in everything. 
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be easier and involve less hassle to simply have a quicky civil ceremony in NY to satisfy the demands of a clerk. I’m just saying that there doesn’t seem to be a NY law against having the ceremony out of state.
To answer your replies:
- That may be the interpretation of the agency in charge, but unless there is a statute to back it up, it is subject to a court challenge.
2&3. Nobody is saying that Italy will recognize the marriage. It’s no different than Florida (again subject to the ongoing SSM debate). Two guys can go on the beach in Miami with beautiful decorations and spectators, stand in front of an officiant, exchange vows, etc. The cops are not going to stop it, but as far as the state of Florida is concerned, nothing happened there that is of legal significance. That doesn’t mean that New York, or any other state, might recognize that a marriage took place on that beach.
Everything is subject to a court challenge, but that doesn’t mean that agency interpretations aren’t given deference- or that that the agency interpretation isn’t going to control until there is a successful court challenge. Sure, someone *could *challenge the agency interpretation and win but it clearly hasn’t happened yet which means if NPH had gotten a NYS license and then had the ceremony in Italy, the license wouldn’t have been accepted for filing in NY at this time. Maybe in one or four or ten years it would have been accepted for filing, if there was a successful challenge, but not now.
As I said everything I have ever seen regarding the recognition of foreign marriages has said that jurisdiction A will recognize a marriage taking place in jurisdiction B *if jurisdiction B recognizes the marriage*. There are some exceptions where a state doesn't recognize a marriage that was legal where it was performed , but I have never seen anything to suggest that jurisdiction A will recognize a ceremony that took place in jurisdiction B that has no legal effect in that jurisdiction. But [this](http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_00909.htm) decision ( about the recognition of out-of-state same sex marriages before they were legal in NY) clearly states that
If it’s your position that NYS recognizes marriages that would be legal in NY but are not legal in the place where it was entered so long as a NYS license was obtained (or that there is any state that recognizes marriages that are not legal where they are performed) surely you must be basing this on something other than your assumption that there is no law or regulation to the contrary? A court decision, a newspaper article, anything?
No, I’m just basing it on my assumption that there is no law to the contrary.
And, yes, you are generally correct that a state or nation will recognize a marriage performed in a foreign jurisdiction so long as the marriage is valid in that jurisdiction. But that general rule assume no local marriage license, but a recognition of the foreign one. So, no, our hypothetical two men who attempt to marry in Florida under a Florida marriage license would be unable to obtain one and be unable to marry under anything recognized by other states or countries.
But if they married in Florida under the authority of a New York license (subsequently recognized by New York) then the same problems don’t exist.
I think the point is that if the New York legislature was seeking to displace the long standing rule that the validity of a marriage celebrated outside the jurisdiction was governed by the law of the place of celebration, they would need to do so very explicitly. Yes, the text of the law doesn’t say that the ceremony has to take place within the State of New York, but there is a presumption of territoriality which will affect how the law is interpreted and, while that presumption can be displaced, there is nothing in the law or the circumstances around it to displace it.
I’m very tired and I was scrolling through the responses and I thought this said.
“It’s not a requirement that the sodomization take place in New York”