Not to go off-topic, but can we retire this asinine bit of dreck some time soon?
just seeing this now:
here is something from the Washington State Bar Association. I’m not going to drag out a Family Law casebook to find some law review article supporting the proposition that the state is a “party” to a marriage contract unless you really want me to
http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/pamphlets/marriage.htm
Interesting - thanks for that link. Demonstrates a difference in approach to this issue in different jurisdictions - I’ve never heard marriage characterised that way here in Canada.
Sure.
Rule #1: If she ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
Answered in one.
My mom likes to tell the story of a wedding she attended in a small Ohio town along the Ohio River in the 1950s. For some reason at the time (she’s hazy on that) the ceremony had to be repeated in West Virginia, so during the reception, the priest, the bride and groom squeezed into the groom’s VW Beetle and zipped across the bridge for a 30-second-long second ceremony on West Virginia soil.
Under Ohio law today, only municipal court and probate court judges can conduct weddings - not common pleas judges, appellate judges or even supreme court justices! So some judges will get one-day temporary appointments as a muni or probate judge just so they can conduct a ceremony for a friend or family member.