here is a quick one from SDMB for a nonofficiant type license
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12899374&postcount=120
i don’t know Maryland specifically. i’ve heard of the with and without officiant licenses in states.
my point above is that if you have an officiant form then no more ceremony is needed beyond the officiant, spouses and witnesses signing is needed based on the forms i’ve seen and any other sources.
Okay, well, this turned out to be easier than I thought. I Googled “legal requirements for marriage in Maryland” (probably the first thing I should have done), and this is the first page it returned:
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.
Mr. Minnie Luna and I got married on a Princess Cruise. We did all the paperwork through the cruise line and we have our license from some country in the Caribbean. It wasn’t all that expensive to have the Captain marry us, IMHO. The package was something like $2000. It was worth it, the photographer was included, we got so X many pictures and then had to pay extra to buy the master CD.
My parents had decided that we were going to do a big family vacation, so they were taking my sister and I on a cruise. It kept getting put off for various reasons (usually health of our grandparents). Then finally, we decided on a date for the cruise. Not long after that, I told my dad that husband and I wanted to get married. He said if we wanted to do it on the cruise, he would pay for it. We were satisfied with that (although my mother in law wasn’t), so we did it that way. We had a total of 6 guests. Another couple who had gotten married earlier in the cruise attended our ceremony. I wouldn’t change a thing.
Not related to getting married at sea, but the requirement for a ceremony (In Ontario at least)
We signed our marriage certificate before the ceremony. My husband, when the judge said Do you take… spent what felt like several minutes saying um… ahhh. The judge leaned forward and whispered “It’s too late son, this is just for show, you’re already married.”
Luckily he’s still alive even though his sense of humour hasn’t changed in the last 17 years.
I think the OP has the best solution. Simple civil procedure before the cruise (heck, do it now so you can start on health insurance) and ceremony/party at sea.
OK, I agree.
Except if there’s no specific formal process that the ceremony must follow, who can clearly say that no ceremony took place? I think most licenses need to be signed by the couple getting married, and signing one’s name on a formal document is certainly a ceremony.
In general, I believe that most courts have held that it’s the intent to get married that is more important that any particular action. For instance, if it is discovered later that the officiant was – unbeknownst to the joyous couple – not in fact a legal officiant in that state, the marriage would probably still be considered valid; the couple clearly intended to get married. If close analysis of videotape several years later reveals that the bride was happily crying so much that she never actually said “I do”, they don’t have to refile all their taxes as ‘single’ instead of ‘married’. As you pointed out, if the license was accidentally lost by the Count Clerk or something, the couple would generally be considered married (assuming they could document it), and so forth. And the opposite is true: if two actors stage a wedding and the actor playing the priest happens to be a legal officiant in that state, the actors are not actually married, no matter that they went through a ceremony.
So, in the case of the couple that show up at a justice of the peace and get a marriage license signed and duly filed in a pure business transaction with no objection from any involved party, it’s hard to believe the marriage would be annulled. It would come down to a judge getting a very convincing answer to “Did you mean to get married, and if not, why did you sign the marriage license?”
Not that this matters to much to this exact thread, but I’d always heard that for a captain to perform a marriage ceremony the ship had to be in international waters and so if the ship went a couple miles off shore then marriages were legal.
Does this fall into international law of the sea?
The judge that married my grandparents ended the service by saying “I know pronounce you man & wife (turns toward groom) may God have mercy on your soul.”
Here: Section 2-403 :: Maryland Family Law :: 2005 :: Maryland Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia is section 2-402 of the Maryland Code which prescribes the form of the marriage licence and the marriage certificate. It seems that the parties don’t need to sign the certificate (except in the case of a Quaker marriage, for some reason). This is reinforced in section 2-409.
I take your point, But section 2-405 of the Maryland Code presumes a ceremony, and arguably makes the intention to have a ceremony a prerequisite for the issue of a licence. Section 2-406 likewise envisages a marriage ceremony, and requires in the case of a ceremony before the court clerk that the ceremony be “recited”, so it cannot be reduced to the signing of the certificate. (That last requirement doesn’t apply to a religious ceremony, though.)
Besides, the form of the certificate prescribed by section 2-402 treats the ceremony as something separate from the signing of the certificate, since the celebrant is required to certify that “I united in marriage” the spouses. He cannot truthfully certify that unless he has already married them. In other words, they should be married before the certificate is signed. They are not married by the certificate being signed. I think I would still argue this even if the spouses did have to sign the certificate, as well as the celebrant.
As you point out, the law is not prescriptive as to what the ceremony has to be, but for the reason just given I do not think that the ceremony can be reduced simply to the celebrant signing the certificate. It could, though, be the spouses asking the celebrant to sign the certificate. But I doubt, for example, that the ceremony could be one of the spouses asking for the certificate to be signed, without the other spouse being present or signifying consent in any way. I suspect that without any explicit definition of what constitutes a “marriage ceremony”, the irreducible minimum must be some ceremonial action which evidences the intention and consent of both spouses to marry. Once they perform that action, and assuming there is no legal impediment – being under age, being currently married to someone else, etc – they are married, and the signing of the certificate is something which happens (shortly) afterwards.
If you are going to get married in Alaska or alaska’s waters than you need to apply for an Alaska marriage license.
That just means that you have to be married in the state you where you apply for the license. Where your residency is has nothing to do with it, it where you are getting married. You can apply for the license over the internet, I think it’s the Alaska bureau of vital statistics. In Alaska anyone can be an efficient for a day, the efficient just pays a small fee and gets a one day permit to officiate a wedding, so if you wanted anyone in the wedding party to do it they could (not sure about residency requirement for that)
Officiant. Anyone can be an officiant. Residency requirements for marriage, as do eligibility requirements for officiants, vary from state to state.
Sorry Monty, Most states require the efficient to be licensed or ordained minister or priest. In Alaska, anyone can do it for a day with a permit. Also, you apply for the marriage license in the state you are to be married, not the state of your residency. You cannot use a Maryland wedding license in Alaska, you have to use an Alaska marriage license in Alaska, and for that you go the State of Alaska website, go to the Bureau of Vital Statistics and apply for a marriage license.
Well, now I think you actually may have a point, at least in Maryland. Looking at the actual law
It appears that if a clerk or deputy clerk does the marriage, theoretically they must follow a particular ceremony as specified by a judge.
I still think in practice it would still come down to a judge asking the couple if they meant to get married, but there is some theoretical justification for annulling a marriage performed by a clerk if the clerk didn’t follow a ceremony.
if you have a license type that requires an officiant then anyone who fits the requirements to be an officiant and maybe has registered with the state can be an officiant. your state may place limits on who they might register.
Yes, your understanding is correct. It’s probably also the case that the cruise line is set up to perform lawful marriages, but a word of caution: If they screw it up, it’s you, not the cruise line, that has to live with the consequences. In particular, I would not advise getting married on the high seas (i.e., outside the territorial jurisdiction of a paricular country), because there is substantial uncertainty as to which jurisdiction’s laws would govern your marriage, and you don’t want that. If you get married within Alaskan territorial waters, you would only have to comply with Alaskan law.
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. A minority of states do recognize common law marriages, in which a couple achieve a state of marriage by holding themselves out as married. Maryland is not among the states that recognize common law marriage, although it will recognize a valid common law marriage contracted in another state. A cruise generally is an insufficient amount of time to contract a common law marriage.
Yes, I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
what states allow a marriage with a license, no officiant and just witnesses?
in states that require an officiant what is required for solemnization?
These will both vary by state. Typically, states that require ceremonial marriage do require an officiant, with flexibility for religious denominations such as the Society of Friends that do not use traditional officiants.
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.
I grant that what I said is likely not true in all jurisdictions. But it sounds like it is in at least one place going by the thread responses. But as at least one person said, filing a marriage license is often not the be-all end-all legally. I’d like to look at this idea a little deeper.
Suppose I fill out the paperwork at a courthouse, and on the way to the religious ceremony my “wife” gets in a serious accident. With the completed marriage license, I should be able to adamantly state that as a matter of law we were married and I should have the same visitation/decision/inheritance rights as any spouse. I claim that we thought we were legally married upon registration, and that the ceremony we were going to is just for show/tradition/religion.
Ok, maybe the state I’m in specifies that some ceremony must take place and that whatever it is that’s needed was definitely not done when obtaining the marriage license. In such a case, suppose I had a licensed minister acquaintance of mine also be incapacitated or killed, and claim that he did whatever ceremony was necessary to satisfy the jurisdiction’s rules on marriages, but we did it quickly on the way just in case this exact scenario happened. If relevant, let’s say that the minister is listed as the officiant of the ceremony and was known to be the one planned to officiate the religious one. If necessary I’ll also claim that we were planning on skipping out on that ceremony and going straight to our honeymoon because we hated our families, didn’t really conform to that religion, and had (or at least thought we had) already made it official.
So, I have an official document saying that I’m married, and I claim (and no one can provide evidence to the contrary) that I have gone through the process (whatever it is) of putting that license in force, but the religious ceremony had not been held. I seem to have everything I need to try to prove to anyone that I’m married and have an irrefutable reason why the planned ceremony did not take place, so how could the state consider it otherwise? If the document is meaningless without a ceremony, the sole witness and officiant to a legitimate ceremony could decide that he no longer remembers witnessing the actual marriage ceremony, only the document signing, and thus could provide a credible claim that we were not legally married…
Contrariwise, suppose we got married in an extremely small ceremony sufficient in our jurisdiction to be considered married in our own home that very few people attended or even knew about, and we hadn’t filed the marriage license beforehand. A disaster wipes out everyone involved with that ceremony except me. Is the state required to just take my word for it that I got married? What if I regularly had all those people over at my house, and the state has reason to suspect that I was involved in the creation of the disaster (especially since I survived it)? Aren’t they going to be a little suspicious of my claim of marriage without an actual document? If they’re going to accept my claim of marriage unilaterally, then if I am unmarried and am sole witness to the deaths of a licensed minister and unmarried female, what stops me from claiming that the minister married us?
Yes, these are quite contrived scenarios, but they intend to support the proposal that as far the state is concerned, it should consider proper registration to be sufficient for legal recognition of marriage, and more than just some sort of recognized ceremony to be necessary. Some sort of line needs to be drawn, and allowing non-state-sanctioned ceremonies to affect the status of people in the eyes of the state does not appear to me to be the best idea.
There could be very legitimate reasons why my conception of how things should work is not how they actually work in some jurisdictions. If they exist, I definitely would be interested in incorporating them into my reasoning.
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.
Second, if you are in one of the minority of states that recognizes common law marriages, you can get married by living together as a couple and holding yourself out as married to the community. Note that this requires more than just signing a marriage license.
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.
If the religious ceremony has not been performed, you have not gotten married. You may, of course, be able to lie and convince others that the marriage has taken place.