What actually happens if you shout out an alleged legal barrier? E.g. the officiant asks the question, and then you shout out, “They are brother and sister!” but provide no evidence other than your own assertion. Or maybe you have a school yearbook from 1995 where someone appears to have signed her name over the picture of the groom’s with the phrase, “Best of luck, love, sis” and the handwriting does look a lot like the bride’s, but then that doesn’t establish anything - or does it? Does the priest/minister/etc. stop the wedding, call a background check company, private investigator, questioned document examiner, etc.?
If you shout out an objection, and then pull out a dozen sworn affidavits from the bride’s family all swearing that the two are truly siblings, is that enough to make the priest stop? What about photocopies of alleged birth certificates showing the same parents? What about if they appeared to be certified copies of the couple’s birth certificates?
In other words, is there a procedure for evaluating, assessing, and adjudicating the alleged legal objection on the spot, or does the wedding go on hold while the wheels of the Third Street Baptist Church Wedding Eligibility, Investigation, and Justice Committee do their thing, question witnesses, take depositions, assess credibility, gather physical evidence, etc.?
Indeed, the chaplain is acting as an officer of the law, isn’t he? So what’s his responsibility if he knowingly – or has been in a position where he should have known – abets bigamy?
Thanks. I know my example was exaggerating a little bit, but there have to be principles and procedures for handling the one out of a thousand (ten thousand?) objections that is legitimate. E.g. maybe if you shout out a bare allegation, the priest can poo-poo that with a vague, “There’s no evidence for that, sit down please or we’ll have you escorted out” and get on with it, but there would have to be some threshold where the objector’s evidence is so powerful (surreptitious photos, sworn statements, DNA test results, public records from Outer Eastern Ruritania (Rural Frontier Zone) with certified translation from Klingon by the Ruritanian-American institute of Official Records Translation, college yearbooks, fingerprints, and whatever other uber leet evidence you have in that briefcase) that the priest is compelled to stop and wonder whether the marriage license he was given was really a sham obtained through perjury.
Although technically, if you’ll recall, that actually happened after the ceremony was concluded, just as the bride and groom were kissing. So that probably doesn’t count.
The most common objection and show stopper for modern marriage is the appearance of immigration officials declaring a sham, with bonus bigamy by the citizen of the pair. And sometimes they get it wrong.
I have heard the phrase in the OP said at every wedding I have ever been to, as far as I can recall. (Usually followed by nervous laughter.) I’ve been to four weddings this year, and it was definitely included at all of those. (I am in the UK.)
It’s certainly still standard over here. The usual formulation is, from memory: “If any person here present knows of any just reason why these two people should not be joined together in marriage, speak now or for ever hold your peace.”
I’m rather surprised to hear that it’s not used widely in America.
Out of the four weddings I’ve officiated, I included it in one. “If anyone present knows of any reason this lovely couple should not be joined in holy matrimony <long pause> you shoulda mentioned it before today”.
That wedding also included a request for anyone present to share a kiss with anyone else present, right before the bride/groom kiss. It was a cute touch.
In the US, there’s no specific “principles and procedures” because there’s not very much that’s mandated of the Officiant by the state/county for performing a wedding. You have to sign the marriage license with your name and title, you have to mail it back in X (usually 10) days and you can’t make handwritten corrections to it (like if the county clerk spelled someone’s name on it - you can’t fix that and can’t sign it. The people getting married have to go back to the clerk and get it corrected before the Officiant can sign it.) Beyond that clerical work, you can do or not do anything you like during the ceremony itself. The ceremony isn’t the legal marriage - the signing of the marriage license is.
But you *are *signing a legal document. If you have doubts as to whether they can legally be married, you stop until you, the Officiant, are satisfied. However you need to be convinced is up to you.
But in reality, the legal impediments should have come up when they applied for the license, when they had to give their parentage, state of birth, their divorce dates if recent and swear an affidavit that all the information they submitted to get the license was true, including that they’re not banned from marriage by state laws.
I include the phrase or leave it out depending on what the people getting married want to do.
At my sister’s wedding (NI Church of Ireland, in the 90’s) the phrase in the OP formed part of the ceremony. The minister specifically warned / begged us (quite a few wags in the family) not to say anything at this point as he would be legally obliged to stop the proceedings and have the challenge, however silly, legally checked. He said he’d have to call in the police and this would quite possibly mean the wedding would have to be postponed or cancelled and rescheduled. He made out it was a bit of a big deal, and he took his responsibility seriously, although I’m unsure as to what extent this could or would have happened if someone had said something daft. Noone did, so all was well.
When I got married (a couple of decades plus ago), we had the option of including it in the ceremony. The priest said it was a throwback to the older days and was basically a polite way of asking if anyone knows if either of these two bozos is married in another county or state or something. The priest also told us that most people choose not to include it. It’s mostly people who want a very “traditional” wedding that include it. Another option was the equally outdated bit about a wife honoring and obeying her husband.
Wow, because of the prevalence of the phrase as a hoary old trope vs. my lack of ever hearing it, I would have bet money it was a fictional thing, or else had been retired long ago. Interesting replies, thanks!
I’ve been to dozens of weddings, and I’ve only heard the officiant ask that question once. He was a Catholic priest who had originally been an Anglican.
Perhaps “Anglican” is the key here- one earlier poster said this was still a standard line in weddings in the UK.
Ah, thanks. I foolishly only checked an actual dictionary and Google. Actual dictionary didn’t know it, and Google is full of some League of Legends video game character.
Right. An evidentiary hearing is not conducted inside the church. The Officiant must simply belief that there is a possibility that the objection has some merit, and he would likely delay the ceremony until it could be resolved.
The “But I love her and she is carrying my baby!” as mentioned above is not what the question is asking; it is talking of strictly legal impediments.
ETA: And the “forever hold your peace” part is putting everyone on notice that this is the last chance, so that from this day forward the community should welcome this couple as married and not question the legality of it because you already had your chance.
I was married myself last month, and we wrote our own vows - or rather, we got up there and babbled for a minute, as we didn’t do any writing ahead of time for our very casual wedding. I said something like, “…and I promise to love and cherish…but if you want obey, you picked the wrong wife!”
