Well, that too, but I was thinking more along the lines of “piece of your mind” or how op-eds in the newpaper are called pieces.
On the other hand, it could also refer to piece of ass. So many possibilities.
Really? In what cultures/eras?
My bolding.
Nope. May be a thing in his denomination but its not a legal requirement.
I happen to know a certain amount about 18th and 19th century British and American history, and I don’t believe that for a moment. If you have any serious historical sources to back up your statement, I’d be interested to see them.
No, those were not grounds for objection under the banns.
The banns of marriage were about parental consent, forbidden degrees of blood relationship, existing marriages of either party, religious objections due to one party being a member of another faith, and similar. They were certainly not about contractual obligations such as betrothal agreements, or dowry. An officiating priest could not be expected to deal with things of that nature. Those were matters for legal action in the courts, if it ever came to that.
Again, if you want to argue the contrary, you need to find factual sources.
This is an entirely different and unrelated subject, which has nothing whatsoever to do with historical banns of marriage.
But if you look at it another way, he might be saying you’ve zero chance of escaping alive.
I’ve done four myself (PA, IN, IA, and NE) and I’ve never used the phrase. In my review of marriage laws (most arduously in Nebraska), all that was really required was that both parties agree to be married and that the officiant solemnizes the agreement. Legally, you could get it done in under ten seconds. There is a vestige of this in Iowa, though: the couple takes a witness with them to the clerk’s office to get the license. According to the relevant Pottawattamie County official, this is to validate that both parties are free to marry. You don’t need divorce paperwork and such, but you do need a buddy who’s free that day.
The Japanese have a civil contract? A civil ceremony? A Shinto ceremony? Or no obligation for child support and alimony at all?
Here in Aus there was a very lovely coffee advertisement with a Japanese wedding ceremony, back when wedding tourism was a thing. I guess that since, as you say, the ceremony has no legal standing, the fact that many countries wouldn’t recognise that kind of wedding tourism, wouldn’t have made any kind of difference to the participants.
Marriage in Japan requires civil registration. You can have a religious (or non-religious) ceremony or not, as you wish; the ceremony is of no legal significance. You have to attend in person at the municipal offices to register your marriage; you can’t do it by post or online. (So you can, if you wish, think of the registration as a civil ceremony.)
If a Japanese couple get married outside Japan, of course, they have to comply with local law or the marriage will not be recognised in Japan, and of course the local law may require or permit a ceremony. They can then take the paperwork from that back to Japan and file it to secure recognition of their marriage in Japan.
Or, they can just get married by registration in Japan and then have a not-legally-relevant ceremony abroad. Which is simpler and, therefore, probably what most of them do.
It was also in cases where someone knew the bride wasn’t “virtuous,” or where one of the couples violated the 1/8 law (was part black) in states with miscegenation laws. The thing about marriage, is that in most states a marriage is legal (and it also is in the Episcopal church, I happen to know, because of a paper I wrote in college) as long as at least on member of the couple truly believes it to be a legal marriage. That means if one member is hiding something that would have made it illegal, or something were wrong with the minister’s bona fides, as long as at least one partner did not know about the problem, the marriage was legal. That was why bigamy was a crime, but both marriages were legal. In other words, if a man married Susan while still married to Jane, but Susan truly believed he was free to marry her, then he still owed her the support he would owe a lawful wife, and if he kept up a double life long enough, children from the second marriage were not considered illegitimate, albeit, the guy was still going to prison as soon as he was caught.
Now, if Susan went through a wedding ceremony in full knowledge that the groom was still married to someone else, that was entirely different.
The idea was that once the knot was tied, you shouldn’t cause trouble for people. If someone was, for example, passing, in a state where that wasn’t legal, and married someone of another race, what was done was done, and don’t make trouble.
Some people might actually have a cruel streak, and want to wait until after the wedding, but we’re talking long enough ago when people were at least a little afraid of admonishments by a clergyman.
Nope. There is an expression “Speak your piece,” which is probably why you are confused, but “hold your peace” used to be a common expression when I was a child. I think it was originally a southern expression, because I remember black people saying it more than white people, but maybe it was just a gentile expression. Most of the gentiles I knew as a child were black. Until I went to public school, I didn’t know that many people who were white, but not Jewish. We happened to live in an apartment building that was mostly black families, though.
This was thirty years ago, but that phrase was included in the ceremony. He also instructed us to not turn around to size up any possible turncoats.
I wish someone had spoken up.
At least in Anglo-American law, a bigamous marriage was void, i.e., invalid from the outset. It could be challenged at any time.
Suppose I doze off during the ceremony, wake up, and realize I missed my chance to say Bertha is still married to Horace? The marriage is still bigamous, but I’m not allowed to say so? Not even as a “Funny story…true story” toast at their fiftieth?
“This is my rifle, this is my gun …”
In Aus, a marriage between two Aus citizens in a foreign country is, I think, not recognized. Aus will, of course, recognize marriages between foreigners, but if two Australians want to get married, they need an Australian registration. And I think its common with other countries too.
Obviously a bit different in the USA, because of state-based marriage regulation.
And of minimal importance in Aus, because the courts, government (and banks and any other regulated industry) recognise marriage without registration anyway (including gay marriage). Absent any conflicting evidence, Aus marriage registration is sufficient but not required proof of marriage.
Well, coming from a land entirely populated by criminals, you are used to not being trusted, as you are not trusted by me. 
I was looking at marriage laws in the US yesterday because of a BBC article that stated there is no minimum age requirement for marriage in the US. Fortunately for the US I found that wasn’t true. I found that North Dakota has an absolute minimum age. Backwater states like New York and of course New Jersey have an out to the minimum age requirement, but not ALL states do.
I was amused to find in several state laws procedures for handling objections to marriage when raised during the ceremony. So it is enough of a thing to encourage states to regulate the process.
Mrs. Kayaker:" How’d that wedding go? "
Kayaker: " I killed !! "
Appalling humor aside, that’s a very sweet and dear reason to wed two people.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Not dead yet, to quote the final Arbiter of all things Church of England : Monty Python’s Flying Circus.
My dearly beloved and I got married 7 years ago. Banns were posted for the last few weeks before our wedding.
Episcopal Church in central Massachusetts.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
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.”
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. North Americans do have a thing with destination weddings, getting married on the beach in Montego Bay or Cancun, for example… or back home in Greece or India or wherever.
The only objection might be if the marriage could not be valid under Canadian law - second wife, or too closely related, underage, etc.