# predating a marriage license in California **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 4, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792 "2005-10-04T21:52:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![archer73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b19c9b/32.png) [@archer73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archer73)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/1 "2005-10-04T21:52:34Z")
Anyone ever tried and/or succeeded in predating a marriage license in California? The reason I ask is that my wife and I recently got married (with a real officiator, witnesses, and everything!) and only just procured a license. But the clerk wouldn’t date the license for the day we were married–only for the day on which we applied for the license. It seems quite silly to me (with no legal knowledge) why such bureaucracy should get in the way of our filing, legally, the date on which we were actually wed. So…was the clerk just giving me a bad time or were we shortsighted in not getting the license beforehand (or both)? And, either way, is there any means of circumventing this? Normally I wouldn’t fuss about it, but I get a bit miffed with the idea that our great-grandkids might go through the official records and think that our marriage was on a day it really wasn’t. I imagine this must happen all the time to couples who elope. Are all such folks destined to have two dates (one for the memories and one for the legal records)? Any thoughts? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![archer73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b19c9b/32.png) [@archer73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archer73)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/2 "2005-10-04T21:57:50Z")
Shouldn’t our officiator simply be allowed to predate the license to the date on which we were wed? I’d think yes. The Clerk’s office disagrees. Vehemently. What’s a fella to do? ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/3 "2005-10-04T22:08:59Z")
The state doesn’t care much about whatever hoopty-do and ceremony you have for a wedding. They care about the license. You’re normally supposed to get it before you have the ceremony, and in my experience, that’s what eloping couples do, too. It’s not like it’s that hard to get. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/4 "2005-10-04T22:13:11Z")
I have performed 3 weddings (Universal Life Church). Each time I required the couple to bring a state issued license to the gala. Isn’t that standard operating procedure? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/5 "2005-10-04T22:39:40Z")
I’ve always wondered if the ceremony is even necessary. If you simply get a license, are you then married in the eyes of the law? ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/6 "2005-10-04T22:41:12Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > I have performed 3 weddings (Universal Life Church). Each time I required the couple to bring a state issued license to the gala. Isn’t that standard operating procedure? Pretty much every wedding I have been involved in has had people signing the wedding license at some point. Not usually as part of the main ceremony. But shortly after the ceremony but before the reception. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/7 "2005-10-04T23:06:52Z")
IAAL, but not yours. You are not my client. What follows is not legal advice, so you should not rely on it. Read on at your peril. > [@archer73](#): > > Anyone ever tried and/or succeeded in predating a marriage license in California? Not for long, if at all. That would be falsifying an official document, which is generally frowned up. > [@](#): > > The reason I ask is that my wife and I recently got married (with a real officiator, witnesses, and everything!) and only just procured a license. But the clerk wouldn’t date the license for the day we were married–only for the day on which we applied for the license. Actually, what the clerk offered to do was to date the license the day that you were married. Which, at the earliest, would have been the day you got the license. > [@](#): > > It seems quite silly to me (with no legal knowledge) why such bureaucracy should get in the way of our filing, legally, the date on which we were actually wed. Although you and your wife likely will always celebrate the day you had your wedding ceremony as your anniversary, you were not “actually” wed that day in the eyes of the government. The government regulates marriage, and in California, common law marriages don’t exist. Only marriages licensed by the state are valid. That’s why there was such a brouhaha over San Francisco’s mayor, who ordered the city clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. That was a heady time in SF, because, marriage license in hand, a committed homosexual couple could formalize their relationship in what appeared to be a government-approved union. Alas, the matter is now in the courts, and those couples who thought they were married are in limbo. I digress, but the point is this: the license is what makes the marriage. The fact that you held a ceremony, with a proper officiant, is irrelevant to whether the state will recognize your marriage for most purposes. (I’m leaving out equitable issues, which aren’t relevant to the question.) > [@](#): > > So…was the clerk just giving me a bad time or were we shortsighted in not getting the license beforehand (or both)? You were shortsighted. I am surprised that your officiant didn’t raise the issue with you. > [@](#): > > And, either way, is there any means of circumventing this? Not legally, that I’m aware of, and I know you meant whether there was any legal method of circumventing it. The illegal method would likely involve breaking into the Records Department (I see something like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible), and it’s really not worth it. I mean, he got away with it, but he had Ving Rhames and Jean Reno. > [@](#): > > Normally I wouldn’t fuss about it, but I get a bit miffed with the idea that our great-grandkids might go through the official records and think that our marriage was on a day it really wasn’t. Look at it this way: you can tease your wife about living in sin with her before you were actually married, and you’ve got a great story for the grandkids. “Did you know that grandma and I were married before we were married?” > [@](#): > > I imagine this must happen all the time to couples who elope. Are all such folks destined to have two dates (one for the memories and one for the legal records)? Every eloping couple I know got the license ahead of time. Heck, my brother eloped in secret (he thinks we don’t know), then had a full-on ceremony later. Congratulations on your marriage, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![aamco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@aamco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aamco)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/8 "2005-10-04T23:30:48Z")
> [@archer73](#): > > I get a bit miffed with the idea that our great-grandkids might go through the official records and think that our marriage was on a day it really wasn’t. Your marriage occurred on the date that is shown on the license – your wedding just happened to pre-date your marriage. Unless there’s a serious discrepancy (e.g. unless your wife is already pregnant and based on your child’s birthday people will realize your marriage license is way off), it’s more than likely that people will assume you were slackers in getting you license filed. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/9 "2005-10-04T23:32:47Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > I’ve always wondered if the ceremony is even necessary. If you simply get a license, are you then married in the eyes of the law? The marriage has to be [solemnized](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=420-425) and the person solemnzing the marriage has to be presented with a valid license. > [@](#): > > California Code.420. (a) No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required for solemnization of the marriage, but the parties shall declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and necessary witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife. > > 1. Before solemnizing a marriage, the person solemnizing the marriage shall require the presentation of the marriage license. If the person solemnizing the marriage has reason to doubt the correctness of the statement of facts in the marriage license, the person must be satisfied as to the correctness of the statement of facts before solemnizing the marriage. For this purpose, the person may administer oaths and examine the parties and witnesses in the same manner as the county clerk does before issuing the license. > > 2. The person solemnizing a marriage shall make, sign, and endorse upon or attach to the marriage license a statement, in the form prescribed by the State Department of Health Services, showing all of the following: > (a) The fact, date (month, day, year), and place (city and county) of solemnization. > (b) The names and places of residence of one or more witnesses to the ceremony. > © The official position of the person solemnizing the marriage, or of the denomination of which that person is a priest, minister, rabbi, or member of the clergy. > (d) The person solemnizing the marriage shall also type or print the person’s name and address. > > 3. The person solemnizing the marriage shall return the marriage license, endorsed as required in Section 422, to the county recorder of the county in which the license was issued within 10 days after the ceremony. My reading of the statutes indicates to me that, based on the information provided, the OP and his wife are not legally married. There may be additional facts of which I am not aware, IANAL, etc. ---
**Author:** ![SnakesCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@SnakesCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakesCatLady)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/10 "2005-10-04T23:37:20Z")
When I got married in Hawaii we had to have the license beforehand - the judge and witnesses signed it after the ceremony. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/11 "2005-10-04T23:44:45Z")
First **bibliophage** s, and now licenseovores? What’ll evolution come up with next? ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/12 "2005-10-04T23:49:43Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > 1. Before solemnizing a marriage, the person solemnizing the marriage shall require the presentation of the marriage license. If the person solemnizing the marriage has reason to doubt the correctness of the statement of facts in the marriage license, the person must be satisfied as to the correctness of the statement of facts before solemnizing the marriage. For this purpose, the person may administer oaths and examine the parties and witnesses in the same manner as the county clerk does before issuing the license. > > 2. The person solemnizing a marriage shall make, sign, and endorse upon or attach to the marriage license a statement, in the form prescribed by the State Department of Health Services, showing all of the following: > (a) The fact, date (month, day, year), and place (city and county) of solemnization. > (b) The names and places of residence of one or more witnesses to the ceremony. > (c) The official position of the person solemnizing the marriage, or of the denomination of which that person is a priest, minister, rabbi, or member of the clergy. > (d) The person solemnizing the marriage shall also type or print the person’s name and address. I’m kind of confused how, if the OP had a “real officiant,” these steps didn’t at least get mentioned by said officiant. And yes, even eloping people plan ahead - or go to Vegas, where you don’t need a lot of lead time to get a license before the wedding. In Illinois, for instance, you need to get the license **at least** 24 hours before the wedding. [Las Vegas has no waiting period](http://www.co.clark.nv.us/clerk/marriage_information.htm) after getting the license. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/13 "2005-10-05T00:35:13Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > My reading of the statutes indicates to me that, based on the information provided, the OP and his wife are not legally married. There may be additional facts of which I am not aware, IANAL, etc. **Otto** ’s got a good point. I spent about five minutes chasing this down through the Family Code, but can’t find an answer right now. **archer73** , did the clerk do anything other than give you a license? Tell you anything about filing it with the county recorder? Tell us more about what the clerk said. (I’m trying to figure out whether what the clerk did could constitute a marriage.) ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/14 "2005-10-05T00:39:33Z")
Think _before_ posting. [Penal Code section 360](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/346%2D368.html) makes it a misdemeanor for an officiant to preside over a marriage without seeing the license first. I’ll be back later tonight with better answers. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/15 "2005-10-05T00:59:40Z")
Standard IANAL Disclaimer. In California you must have a license before the ceremony (CFC 350(a); CFC 421) and yes, a solemnization of the marriage must take place (CFC 420(a)). In addition there is an expiration date for the certificate viz. the solemnization must occur and the certificate returned to the county _by the person performing the ceremony_ within 10 days after being issued (CFC 423). Oh, by the way, the marriage contract stipulates obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support. (CFC 720). At least I got one of the three from my ex-wife [I won’t tell you which one]. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/16 "2005-10-05T01:27:26Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > **Otto** ’s got a good point. I spent about five minutes chasing this down through the Family Code, but can’t find an answer right now. **archer73** , did the clerk do anything other than give you a license? Tell you anything about filing it with the county recorder? Tell us more about what the clerk said. (I’m trying to figure out whether what the clerk did could constitute a marriage.) I don’t think so. > [@California Family Code section 300](#): > > Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. **Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).** Emphasis added. Usually there is always an out that if both parties assume in good faith that they are married, the marriage is still legal (e.g. they didn’t know the minister had been defrocked last week). I didn’t see that in the Family Code so maybe someone can definitively say whether or not it was in there. In this case there is a good point that the official never asked about the certificate and still performed the solemnization. I know our minister made sure we had one about a week before the ceremony. Plus the parties did follow the steps, just in the wrong order. I would think that they are not legally married (I know, I know! IANAL) so if you are still within the 90 days of getting the license and it has not been sent in yet, go IMMEDIATELY to any of the following: > [@California Family Code section 400](#): > > (a) A priest, minister, or rabbi of any religious denomination. > (b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or > retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired > commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this > state. > (c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office. > (d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United > States: > (1) A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme > Court. > (2) A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district > court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which > are entitled to hold office during good behavior. > (3) A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court. > (4) A United States magistrate or retired magistrate. > (e) A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a > member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while > that person holds office. and have them reperform the ceremony informally, process the license, and celebrate your anniversary on whatever day you want. If the license has been sent to the county, you both may have to go to the Superior Court and have a Judge make a ruling on the validity of your marriage. But be careful, there may be criminal liability involved as per Campion. This whole scenerio is probably best dealt with by a lawyer. In fact, a laywer would probably be able to take a couple of avidavits and go down and sweet-talk a Judge or Commisioner into signing off on your marriage. At the very least, if the errors are not correctable and the Judge rules that the marriage is invalid, you could take the ruling to the county, have the previous license expunged , get a new license, and have an informal ceremony (again, through your lawyer). To correct a previous error on my part, the expiration date of the licence is 90 days (CFC 356), but it must be returned within 10 days after the solemnization. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/17 "2005-10-05T02:28:22Z")
**archer73** : what follow is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You should not rely on anything that I say, except the following: get a lawyer, licensed in your jurisdiction. Now, stop listening to me. The reason I recommend you talk to a lawyer about your issue is that it is an open question in California whether solemnization of a marriage _before_ a license is issued is valid. When I say it is an open question, I mean that there’s a bit of a conflict in the law, and some facts critical to this issue are unknown. For example, did you get married in California? If not, the validity of your marriage is determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which you got married. For example, if you got married in New York, and your marriage would be valid unter New York law, your marriage is valid in California. Also, we don’t know what the clerk told you or did. Depending on where you are, the clerk may have been authorized to solemnize your marriage, so the fact that you did step 3 before step 2 (see below) is irrelevant, because the clerk did step 2 then step 3 for you. In _Estate of DePasse_ ([link requires free registration](http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw)), Jack and Derrel lived together. When Derrel became terminally ill, she and Jack agreed to marry. The day before Derrel died, the hospital chaplain performed a marriage ceremony, purporting to marry Derrel and Jack. Although they knew that a marriage license was required, Jack and Derrel did not obtain one before going through a marriage ceremony. After her death, Jack sought half of her estate as her surviving spouse. The trial court denied his petition because obtaining a marriage license is a prerequisite to a valid marriage, so Jack was not Derrel’s surviving spouse. The court framed the question as follows: > [@](#): > > Harris’s arguments require us to determine, as a matter of law, whether a marriage license is required for a valid marriage and whether Harris’s section 103450 petition cured the parties’ failure to obtain a license in this case. The appellate court sustained the trial court’s decision, holding that issuance of a marriage license is a prerequisite to a valid marriage. The _DePasse_ court mentioned [Health and Safety Code section 103450 (a)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/hsc/103450%2D103490.html) as a way to judicially establish a marriage. The _DePasse_ court held that that code section didn’t help Jack, because he and Derrel never had obtained a license, and the section cannot be used to make a marriage valid. Instead, it can be used to replace a lost registration of an otherwise valid marriage. That code section reads in relevant part: > [@](#): > > A verified petition may be filed by any beneficially interested person with the clerk of the superior court in and for (1) the county in which the birth, death, or marriage is alleged to have occurred, (2) the county of residence of the person whose birth or marriage it is sought to establish, or (3) the county in which the person was domiciled at the date of death for an order to judicially > establish the fact of, and the time and place of, a birth, death, or marriage that is not registered or for which a certified copy is not obtainable. I add this here only because if you start perusing the statutes, you may come upon it, and the court’s take on that section is helpful. Back to _DePasse_: > [@](#): > > According to the statutory scheme, there are five steps in the marriage process. First, the parties must consent. Second, the parties must obtain a license from the county clerk. Since the license and certificate of registry are combined into one form, the parties also obtain the certificate of registry at that time. Third, the marriage must be solemnized. Before solemnizing the marriage, the person conducting the ceremony must insure that the parties have obtained a marriage license. Fourth, the person solemnizing the marriage must authenticate the marriage by signing the certificate of registry and arranging for at least one witness to sign the certificate. Finally, the person solemnizing the marriage must return the certificate of registry to the county clerk for filing. But the _DePasse_ court held that the marriage was not valid because no marriage license was ever obtained. Your situation is different. A marriage license _was_ obtained, only it was obtained after step 3 occurred. I have found no cases discussing whether solemnization before obtaining a marriage license is valid or invalid. The _DePasse_ court sidestepped the issue: > [@](#): > > The parties debate whether the marriage that is declared pursuant to section 425 had to have been licensed before it was solemnized. The purpose of the procedure is to create a record of an otherwise unrecorded marriage, thus focusing on the registration requirement, as opposed to the licensing requirement. We need not decide whether section 425 may also be used to cure a defect in the licensing of the marriage, since that issue is not before us. Harris and DePasse made no attempt to declare their marriage pursuant to section 425 before DePasse died. It is undisputed that they never obtained a license, either prior to their marriage ceremony or as part of an attempt to declare their marriage pursuant to section 425. After DePasse died, the section 425 procedure was unavailable to Harris, since both parties must participate in a declaration of marriage. That seems to _imply_ that section 425 can be used to validate the marriage, but the court carefully doesn’t hold on that issue. More in a minute. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/18 "2005-10-05T02:44:35Z")
Nothing more to add, having read a couple more things. Post your location (county only) and I’ll find your local bar association. You should be able to talk to a family law lawyer for free or cheap ($35) and get a quick answer regarding whether this is an issue. For all I know, there could be dozens or hundreds of relevant, important facts that would skew the analysis. I don’t know them, so I’ll reiterate: don’t rely on anything I’ve said. This is an internet message board, and therefore inherently unreliable. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/19 "2005-10-05T04:04:45Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > That seems to _imply_ that section 425 can be used to validate the marriage, but the court carefully doesn’t hold on that issue. I wouldn’t agree. Section 425 refers to the record of the solemnization of the marriage presumably shown by the license being completed and returned by the official conducting the ceremony. I don’t think it could correct the error described by the OP. Another possible issue that may (or may not) affect the case is the living arrangement of the couple pre-marriage. When I got married back in '96, there were two forms for the license (at least in LA County). Considering the marriage license is for recordkeeping and health department reasons, Form 1 basically said if you’re living together and are having sex already, sign here. Form 2 basically said if you’re not living together, answer this multitude of health questions. We used Form 1 and I think the only 2 health questions were about STDs and whether we were knowingly sterile (back then a sterile person could not get married in Calif unless their future spouse knew about their inability to have children). ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792/20 "2005-10-05T04:16:16Z")
> [@archer73](#): > > I imagine this must happen all the time to couples who elope. Are all such folks destined to have two dates (one for the memories and one for the legal records)? > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks! I have no thoughts on your legal matter, but I can answer this bit for myself and my husband. We had a religious ceremony called a handfasting - not a legal marriage - which we did not have a license for. It was performed by a minister, but we were all clear that it was not a legal marriage. Then, a month later, he and I went to the County Clerk and got a license. The next day (mandatory 24-hour waiting period in Illinois), he stopped by my work during my lunch hour. We handed the license to my boss, who was the minister who had performed the ceremony amonth earlier. She signed the license for us, and popped it into the outgoing mail slot. Two weeks later, we got our marriage certificate in the mail. So our ceremony was July 27th, and our legal marriage was August 26th. My husband likes to say that we get to celebrate our anniversary for a whole month. I like to say he has 30 days to remember our anniversary and get it right! 😃 Everyone will handle such a case a little differently. The important thing is to celebrate the day which means the most to you - that day you looked into her eyes and saw your whole future there. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predating-a-marriage-license-in-california/324792.md?page=2)