# Legalities of getting married at sea **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 13, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555 "2010-09-13T01:45:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555/41 "2010-09-14T21:51:51Z")
> [@johnpost](#): > > so in states that don’t require an officiant (license type for non-officiant marriage), filling out the license makes you married. > > also for people with licenses that specify needing an officiant in some states nothing beyond an officiant also signing the form might be required. > [@jbaker](#): > > No, that’s not right. In general, there are three ways that you can enter into a marriage. > > First, you can be ceremonially married. This requires an actual marriage ceremony. If you do not have an actual marriage ceremony, you are not ceremonially married. It generally requires an officiant, unless you are a member of a recognized religion, such as the Society of Friends (Quakers), that does not have conventional officiants. A ceremonial marriage is the normal manner in which people get married, in every state. States generally require people who plan a ceremonial marriage to obtain a marriage license. In some states, obtaining the license is necessary for a valid marriage; in other states, it is not. > > Third, a marriage valid where contracted generally will be recognized elsewhere, unless it is contrary to public policy. So, if you are in a jurisdiction where you can get married by signing a paper, other jurisdictions generally will recognize that marriage. Also, if you enter into a common law marriage in a state that recognizes them, then move to a state that does not, you generally do have a valid marriage, based on the second state giving full faith and credit to the first state. > > New York seems to allow couples to enter into marriage by signing and acknowledging a written contract. I don’t know if any other states do. I’m not aware of any state that will consider a marriage to be valid based on the parties signing the license (though I confess I haven’t done a 50-state survey). If you have only signed the license, you are not married. from SDMB for a nonofficiant type license [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12899374&postcount=120](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12899374&postcount=120) ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555/42 "2010-09-15T02:44:55Z")
> [@jbaker](#): > > > [@commasense](#): > > > > So it would appear that we need witnesses as well as the officiant, that my sister (who is an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister) qualifies, and that since no specific ceremony is required, we can do whatever we want in that regard, as long as it’s in the same county that issued the license. We are married at that point, file the license with the state, and can go off on our cruise and have a little ceremony with our friends. > > > > Unless someone thinks I’ve got this wrong, I think I’ve answered my own question. The matter of how to have a marriage at sea is still interesting though, if anyone wants to discuss that. > > Yes, your understanding is correct. > > [snip] > > In case anyone still has any uncertainty: Filling out the marriage license emphatically is not what makes you married, at least not under American law. The majority of states require solemnization in a religious or civil ceremony. What is your cite for this? You seem to be saying that if my fiancée and I gather with my sister and two witnesses and do nothing but sign the license, without performing some type of ceremony, the marriage is not valid. What, in your opinion, constitutes a ceremony that will make the marriage valid? Who determines this, and what would be the consequences of not having a ceremony? ---
**Author:** ![jbaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jbaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jbaker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555/43 "2010-09-15T03:51:23Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > > [@jbaker](#): > > > > Yes, your understanding is correct. > > > > [snip] > > > > In case anyone still has any uncertainty: Filling out the marriage license emphatically is not what makes you married, at least not under American law. The majority of states require solemnization in a religious or civil ceremony. > > What is your cite for this? > > You seem to be saying that if my fiancée and I gather with my sister and two witnesses and do nothing but sign the license, without performing some type of ceremony, the marriage is not valid. What, in your opinion, constitutes a ceremony that will make the marriage valid? Who determines this, and what would be the consequences of not having a ceremony? Yes, I am saying that, in Maryland, if you and your fiancée gather with your sister and two witnesses and do nothing but sign the license, without performing some type of ceremony, the marriage is not valid. Under Section 2-401 of the Maryland Family Law Code, a license is required, and under Section 2-403, a license is “to perform a marriage ceremony.” These requirements are in any case implicit in ceremonial marriage: If you don’t have a marriage ceremony, you have not gotten married. Maryland law does not prescribe any particular form of religious ceremony (if you have a religious ceremony, as I gather is your plan). If your sister is to perform the ceremony, she should simply do it in accordance with the rules of her church. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555/44 "2010-09-15T04:06:43Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > You seem to be saying that if my fiancée and I gather with my sister and two witnesses and do nothing but sign the license, without performing some type of ceremony, the marriage is not valid. What, in your opinion, constitutes a ceremony that will make the marriage valid? Who determines this, and what would be the consequences of not having a ceremony? That depends on the law of the state where you do this. Assuming you do this in Maryland, there are links above to various provisions of the Maryland Code which make a ceremony of some kind necessary. Specifically, your sister’s right to officiate arises under Maryland Family Code section 2-406(2)(i), which provides that “a marriage ceremony may be performed in this state by . . . an official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony”. There is no other legal basis on which she can officiate, so I think she needs to officiate by performing a marriage ceremony. Plus, the text of the licence itself requires the officiant to assert that she has united you and your fiancée in marriage; she can’t sign that (with integrity) if in fact she hasn’t married you _before_ signing the certificate. We can also point to MFC section 2-409, which requires the marriage certificate – not the licence, but the document which the officiant and the witnesses sign to record that the couple are married - to contain “the name, signature, and title of the authorized official **who performs the marriage ceremony** ”. Under the same section, the obligation to file the signed certificate with the court clerk is again imposed on “the authorized official **who performs the marriage ceremony** ”. And there is also a provision that, if the marriage certificate is not filed within six months of the issue of the license, the court clerk is to “attempt to determine whether the marriage ceremony was performed and, if so, the name of the authorized official who performed the marriage ceremony”. There is a consistent thread that the purpose of the marriage certificate is to record the fact that a marriage ceremony has been celebrated, this being the way people get married in Maryland. In the event of a dispute about the sufficiency of your ceremony the courts would determine whether it was sufficient. As noted in earlier discussion, Maryland law is not very specific about this. The Maryland Family Code section 2-406 says that in the case of a ceremony by a court clerk the ceremony must be “recited”, and therefore it must involve speaking words. It would be wise for your ceremony to be recited also, even though this is not an explicit requirement of the legislation. We should also note section 2-406(g), which refers to “the right of any religious denomination to perform a marriage ceremony in accordance with the rules and customs of the denomination”, so I think your sister would be wise to use a ceremony which conforms to the “rules and customs” of the Unitarian Universalists (though I appreciate that they may not be very prescriptive either). Beyond that, I think a court would fall back on fundamental legal concepts of what a marriage is. Marriage is founded on the consent of the spouses, so I suggest the ceremony should, at a minimum, include evidence that each spouse consents to marry the other. “I do”, in answer to an appropriately phrased question, will probably suffice. The courts will probably bend over backwards to find whatever ceremony you do have is sufficient, but this is really not something you want there to be any doubt at all about. A simple approach might be to use a (suitably adapted version of) the ceremony that a court clerk would use, which I imagine is pretty minimal but contains all that it might need to contain. The consequence of not having a (sufficient) ceremony would be that you probably wouldn’t be married. This probably won’t give rise to much problem in practice, except in the hopefully very unlikely event that you later have a nasty bust-up, and a dispute over property, in which case one of you may find it advantageous to be able to assert the nullity of your marriage. Plus, your sister would be (technically) exposed to whatever penalties apply in Maryland for making a false declaration in an official record (by certifying that she had united you in marriage when, in fact, she hadn’t). The possible nullity of your marriage could be further complicated by that fact that you later go through a ceremony in Alaska, believing _that_ ceremony to be a nullity because you are already married. Could the Alaskan ceremony comply with Alaskan requirements for a valid marriage? If so, then you might be married after all, but exposed to whatever penalties Alaska imposes on people who marry but fail to register the marriage. Your sister, if she celebrates the Alaskan ceremony, might also be exposed. Realistically, though, I can’t imagine the Alaskan authorities pursuing this too vigorously. I am not a Maryland lawyer. I am not an Alaskan lawyer. I am not your lawyer. These expressions of my unqualified opinion are for discussion only, and are not legal advice, and should not be relied upon. And so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Junkman209](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/junkman209/32/5522_2.png) [@Junkman209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Junkman209)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555/45 "2010-09-29T07:05:10Z")
Interesting thread. Ok, I have a question: I know a couple that live in Virginia (and only in Virginia) and claim to be married by common law. Does Virginia recognize common law marriages? If so, what restrictions apply? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555/46 "2010-09-29T09:15:36Z")
> [@Junkman209](#): > > I know a couple that live in Virginia (and only in Virginia) and claim to be married by common law. Does Virginia recognize common law marriages? [No.](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+20-13) If your friends had been residents of a state which did allow marriage at common law, and they were married at common law there, Virginia would recognise that marriage. But from what you say this isn’t the case. ---
**Author:** ![jacobsta811](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jacobsta811/32/2893_2.png) [@jacobsta811](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacobsta811)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555/47 "2010-09-29T13:46:05Z")
I say just go for the spaceballs “short short version” in Maryland, then celebrate/have a bigger ceremony on the cruise, IE: (approximated) Officiant: “Do you ?” Woman: “I do” Officiant: “Do you ?” Man: “I do” Officiant: “Good, you’re married, kiss her !” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-getting-married-at-sea/553555.md?page=2)