# This is interesting: If you were married in PA, you might not be! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933 "2009-03-18T19:40:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933/21 "2009-03-20T16:10:42Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > You may personally decide whether to respect a minister ordained in a church you’ve never been to. As a judge or a county clerk, you do not have that right. How do you square this with what I mentioned above regarding Selective Service requirements and similar issues? Like I said, if there is ever a draft, we aren’t permitted to use mail-order ordinations to exempt people. We have to determine that the person in question is a clergyman as a primary occupation and not as a lark. It is clear that government has to make this determination from time to time - no right is absolute in this country. And while I don’t like the way lines have been drawn in this instance that doesn’t mean I’m against drawing them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933/22 "2009-03-20T16:26:03Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Well, let me ask: how much of a binding precedent is the decision of the York County Judge? My hunch is that it’s binding solely for that one county, and a guiding precedent for decisions elsewhere – which means good lawyers will be doing distinguishing memoranda showing how their case isn’t like the case she ruled on. I doubt it’s even that – I suspect it’s binding only as to that particular case. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933/23 "2009-03-20T16:28:21Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Are you making a moral or legal argument? A legal one. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933/24 "2009-03-20T16:31:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, this question has been touched upon in the past. Remember peyote use? If you want the really good cases, look to prisoner complaints under the first amendment. My old Admin Law professor spent time at the DoJ opposing these religious claims, such as the “church” that claimed filet steak was a required sacrament for its adherents. The whole thing goes to show the ridiculous nature of special advantages for religion under the law. Few things smack of establishment more than a Supreme Court, more and more dominated by one particular religious viewpoint, determining what beliefs are sincere enough to constitute a religion. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933/25 "2009-03-20T16:43:07Z")
I’m going to ask some stupid questions because this thing looks really retarded to me. Like Bush level moronic, and maybe there’s something I don’t understand that makes it not so brain damaged. Okay the “problem” is people who may, or may not be ministers or religious authorities are performing marriages correct? If so why in Zeus’s golden nutsack does that matter? If a couple shows up to tell the government “yo dawg we be hitched”, and they’re not brother and sister or something, isn’t that good enough? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933/26 "2009-03-20T16:51:00Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I believe that some mechanism should be invoked (an appeal, some other case, _something_) which officially recognizes that the statement in the prior is unconstitutional and that, indeed, people can get married in any way and by anyone they like (or no one), irrespective of religion and congregations and buildings. Yeah, because the way the rule seems to be written, a retired clergyperson from a mainstream religious organization would not have a congregation or building, and would therefore be prohbited from performing marriages. Seriously, who the hell cares whether a clergyperson has a building or a congregation? There are all sorts of people who have, say, graduated from theological schools of various sorts who don’t have congregations. How does this make them any less qualified to perform a marriage ceremony than a justice of the peace? Two of my friends were married in August 2007 by a mutual friend who is a ULC minister. We have all known each other for more than a decade, and the bride and groom are not active practitioners of any religion. So how is it that, say, a rabbi who doesn’t know either of them (they were both raised Jewish, but are nonpracticing) is in a better position to determine whether they should marry than someone who has known both of them for years? The whole thing seems silly. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Dave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Great\_Dave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Dave)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933/27 "2009-03-20T18:55:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, this question has been touched upon in the past. Remember peyote use? There was a time, months or years ago. We had been driving all night and all day, listening to that same damned extended-play tape of the Doors Greatest Hits. The sun beat down upon the endless expanse, causing the cacti in the distance to dance. A hitch-hiker appeared on the side of the road; we had finished our last j, it was worth a shot at a resupply in exchange for the lift. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933/28 "2009-03-20T19:49:27Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Most of these are elected positions - the woman above in Bucks County who denied the license was elected to her job. Register of Wills also serves as the Clerk of the Orphan’s Court. She will be running for reelection or higher office someday, and is likely using this issue to maintain her political visibility. This wouldn’t be necessary if this particular position were an appointed one. > > I’m not saying this is creating this problem, but it sure is compounding it. There was an article in the Times not long ago about how some elections for judgeships (in Texas, I think) were costing millions of dollars. This kind of thing might become a bigger and bigger problem. Wait until the religious right figures out that they can organize for judgeships, not just school boards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-if-you-were-married-in-pa-you-might-not-be/489933.md?page=1)