# Speak now or forever hold your peace **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 15, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924 "2017-10-15T14:30:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/61 "2018-09-25T19:06:35Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Never heard of that in Canada. AFAIK, any marriage that **is legal in the country it was performed** and does not violate the rules in Canada is recognized. I assume for the USA the same applies. The part I bolded is the potential sticking point in the U.S. In general, a legal marriage in a foreign country is legal in the U.S., but the challenge can be making sure it was legal in that country. There might be laws about how the marriage was recorded, blood tests, parental consent, length of residency before the marriage, or other things that aren’t required in the U.S. For this reason, most U.S. residents who have an overseas wedding just have the ceremony there but get the actual marriage license in the States. It isn’t technically required, but it’s a lot easier. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/62 "2018-09-25T19:32:45Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > It comes originally from the Book of Common Prayer, where there were two exhortation. First, to the congregation: > > _“Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.”_ > > Then, to the couple themselves, the exhortation already quoted from Jane Eyre: > > _“I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.”_ > > **(Bronte engages in a bit of dramatic licence, in having an objection from the congregation being made after the second exhortation. In fact anyone in the congregation wishing to object would presumably do so in response to the first exhortation.)** > > SFAIK these exhorations were an innovation at the time of the Reformation. The Catholic _Rituale Romanum_ in use at the time said that the celebrant was to satisfy himself that the couple were free to marry, but didn’t direct that he do this as part of the service itself. Practice as to doing this varied , I suspect, from place to place, with some places relying on a system of banns, others on licenses, etc. until a more centrally-controlled uniform system was introduced at the time of the Council of Trent, which didn’t involve exhortations of this kind. > > I don’t think there was ever a civil legal requirement for these exhortations, except perhaps indirectly, if civil law required a celebrant to celebrate marriages according to the rituals of his particular church, and his particular church had rituals which directed the inclusion of the Anglican exhortations, or some variation on them. I’d be inclined to think she indulged in some dramatic license by having someone make the declaration from the congregation at all. unless the person who brought it up had a particular animosity towards Jane and/or Mr. Rochester and wished to cause her/him/them maximal embarrassment and disruption/inconvenience, they could just as easily have approached the officiant beforehand to do so. Or even approached the bridal couple in advance of the wedding date and declared an intention to expose the impediment unless it were called off. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/63 "2018-09-25T19:40:01Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Catholic tradition is to post [banns of marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banns_of_marriage) **and also read them from the pulpit during mass on three consecutive holy days before the wedding.** Since there was ample opportunity to object to a marriage beforehand, there wasn’t much point to ask for objections during the ceremony. (Banns are no longer required but are often still published in the church bulletin.) Considering that there are approximately ten Holy Days of Obligation in the calendar of the RCC, I wonder if the requirement to wait until three of them had elapsed has anything to do with why there’s a well-known tradition of “long” engagements. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/64 "2018-09-25T20:41:09Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Considering that there are approximately ten Holy Days of Obligation in the calendar of the RCC, I wonder if the requirement to wait until three of them had elapsed has anything to do with why there’s a well-known tradition of “long” engagements. I’m pretty sure that the requirement is three Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation. So you never need wait more than 4 weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/65 "2018-09-25T21:14:33Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > A good friend of theirs got an online certificate from the Church of Our Lady of Internet Marriages or whatever, and conducted the ceremony, during which he said, “If any of you can show just cause why this couple should not now be married… you are just _'way_ too late.” Love it! ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/66 "2018-09-26T15:35:05Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > In Aus, a marriage between two Aus citizens in a foreign country is, I think, not recognized. I was curious about this, and googling show that this is not correct. > [@](#): > > Marriages entered into overseas are generally recognised as valid in Australia > •if the marriage was recognised as valid under the law of the country in which it was entered into, at the time when it was entered into, and > •providing the marriage would have been recognised as valid under Australian law if the marriage had taken place in Australia. > > There is no requirement to register a marriage in Australia which takes place overseas. The foreign marriage certificate is prima facie evidence in Australia of the occurrence and validity of the marriage in that country. from [https://smartraveller.gov.au/guide/all-travellers/birth-death-marriage/Pages/getting-married-overseas.aspx](https://smartraveller.gov.au/guide/all-travellers/birth-death-marriage/Pages/getting-married-overseas.aspx) > [@md2000](#): > > Never heard of that in Canada. AFAIK, any marriage that is legal in the country it was performed and does not violate the rules in Canada is recognized. I assume for the USA the same applies. Pretty much all countries are this way. > [@TroutMan](#): > > There might be laws about how the marriage was recorded, blood tests, parental consent, length of residency before the marriage, or other things that aren’t required in the U.S. For this reason, most U.S. residents who have an overseas wedding just have the ceremony there but get the actual marriage license in the States. It isn’t technically required, but it’s a lot easier. Glancing online, it doesn’t look like it’s that difficult for most places. Here is a site with the various requirements for a number of countries popular for destinaion weddings. [https://www.airtransat.com/experiencetransat/destination-wedding-requirements/](https://www.airtransat.com/experiencetransat/destination-wedding-requirements/) It probably is easier to do in the States, but it doesn’t look terribly hard. For my wife and I, getting married in Japan was a bit of a hassle getting it registered in Taiwan, her home country. Both Japan and Taiwan (and Korea as well, IIRC) have household registrations which can easily show if a person is married or single, making it difficult, but not impossible to have a bigamous marriage, as can be seen by a special case. When foreigners get married in those countries, they are required to make a sworn statement to their embassy that they are not already married. This is translated and provided as evidence that the person is single. The embassy has no way of actually telling is that statement is true or not. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2018, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/67 "2018-09-26T15:59:24Z")
What’s a blood test anyway? Never did anything like that in Canada. I assumed it was an Rh+/- test to warn of problems later, but generally that’s done as part of prenatal procedures. What condition detectable in such test would prevent a couple from marrying? ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2018, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/68 "2018-09-26T16:15:36Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > What’s a blood test anyway? Never did anything like that in Canada. I assumed it was an Rh+/- test to warn of problems later, but generally that’s done as part of prenatal procedures. What condition detectable in such test would prevent a couple from marrying? In the U.S., [it was mostly to detect syphilis](https://mises.org/wire/why-states-dont-require-blood-tests-marriages-anymore). Starting in 1980, states began removing the requirement. Montana is the only state that still requires a blood test (and for women only). ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2018, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/69 "2018-09-26T23:19:47Z")
In Church of England rites, you can’t actually get to stop the ceremony at that stage, the only time for objecting is when the banns are read. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2018, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/70 "2018-09-27T02:11:25Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > In the U.S., [it was mostly to detect syphilis](https://mises.org/wire/why-states-dont-require-blood-tests-marriages-anymore). Starting in 1980, states began removing the requirement. Montana is the only state that still requires a blood test (and for women only). Can you say “equal protection lawsuit”? > [@Mk\_VII](#): > > In Church of England rites, you can’t actually get to stop the ceremony at that stage, the only time for objecting is when the banns are read. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2018, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/71 "2018-09-27T02:21:49Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > What’s a blood test anyway? Never did anything like that in Canada. I assumed it was an Rh+/- test to warn of problems later, but generally that’s done as part of prenatal procedures. What condition detectable in such test would prevent a couple from marrying? Used to be a legal requirement before marriage in Saskatchewan. Got repealed when the Charter came in. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/72 "2018-09-28T04:17:53Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > In the U.S., [it was mostly to detect syphilis](https://mises.org/wire/why-states-dont-require-blood-tests-marriages-anymore). Starting in 1980, states began removing the requirement. Montana is the only state that still requires a blood test (and for women only). Montana doesn’t require testing for syphilis. The blood test is specifically for rubella ([MCA 40-1-203](https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0400/chapter_0010/part_0020/section_0030/0400-0010-0020-0030.html)). You are correct that it’s for women only. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2018, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/73 "2018-09-28T04:46:37Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Both Japan and Taiwan (and Korea as well, IIRC) have household registrations which can easily show if a person is married or single, making it difficult, but not impossible to have a bigamous marriage, as can be seen by a special case. [South Korea no longer uses a family register system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_register#East_Asia). Oddly enough, although the new system went into effect on 1 January 2008, it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge among Koreans of my acquaintance (educated Koreans), that the thing’s are no longer used for current reports (marriages, births, divorces, deaths). Oh, the reason the Supreme Court ordered a change in system is because the court found the hujo system to be unconstitutional in that it gave preference to males: only a male could be head of a household, among a few other male-preference issues with the system. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/74 "2018-10-01T18:00:48Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Bumped. > > My American niece was married to her sweetheart in his hometown in India a few months ago. Last Saturday, they had a ceremony here in the U.S. for friends and family who hadn’t been able to make the trip. A good friend of theirs got an online certificate from the Church of Our Lady of Internet Marriages or whatever, and conducted the ceremony, during which he said, “If any of you can show just cause why this couple should not now be married… you are just _'way_ too late.” I did something similar at the first (and so far only) wedding ceremony where I was the celebrant. I’m not legally qualified to marry anyone, so they had the official bit at a registry office a few days beforehand. At the appropriate point I said “If anyone here knows of a reason why these two may not be married, you’re too late, so sit on it.” > [@Mk\_VII](#): > > In Church of England rites, you can’t actually get to stop the ceremony at that stage, the only time for objecting is when the banns are read. Are you sure? Because at every CofE wedding service I have been to, the vicar will ask the congregation “If anyone present knows of a reason why these two may not legally marry, they must declare it now.”. Surely if someone comes up with a genuine objection (e.g. “But she is already married to me!” or “They’re brother and sister!”), the service will stop, perhaps temporarily, for at least a cursory investigation of the accusation? And if the vicar is in any doubt they must be obliged to stop the service unless and until the matter is resolved. Otherwise, why is it a requirement to include these words in the service? ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/75 "2018-10-02T18:35:55Z")
> [@Shinna\_Minna\_Ma](#): > > Twenty seven years ago, my wife and I were married by our Rabbi in Pittsburgh. Because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania required a blood test pre-marriage, my wife and I had actually had a civil ceremony in Baltimore County, MD, about 10 days before the “real wedding.” (Maryland did not have the blood test nonsense.) > > We waited in a room in whatever government building it was, and the Justice of the Peace, or whatever he was, entered. He read the ceremony from a script, which included the line about anybody objecting. And he stopped . . . and waited 30 seconds. _It was only the 3 of us in the room - whom did he think was going to object?_ I’m glad I’m not a Justice of the Peace, because I’d be seriously tempted to look up for a few seconds. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924/76 "2018-10-03T01:05:08Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > And if the vicar is in any doubt they must be obliged to stop the service unless and until the matter is resolved. Otherwise, why is it a requirement to include these words in the service? My ‘vicar’ told me that he was legally liable if he created a bigamous marriage: that’s why he didn’t like doing marriage ceremonies for people who weren’t members of his congregation. He certainly would have stopped if there was a suggestion of a legal impediment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/798924.md?page=3)