But then what about UDS’s Aussie example? Both spouses believed they were married until one questioned the fact and the courts ruled that they never were, even during the time that both spouses believed they were? Cecil’s example must not apply to Australia.
Or Bedrock. (Remember I originally posted after seeing it on The Flintstones).
For the curious, it turns out that someone was playing a trick on Wilma and Fred by telling them that the justice of the peace that married them was in jail and wasn’t licensed after all - they found out at the end the JP was legal all along.
well, yeah, it is different 1/2 way around the world
in those cases where the marriage is voidable, courts will also try their darndest to “do equity” - if the party seeking to now effectively annul the marriage is some multi-millionaire tooling around on her husband and now seeking to void the marriage so she doesn’t have to pay a property settlement or whatever, courts will apply equity. they base their power to do this based on the fact that voiding things (i.e. rescission) is an equitable act anyways. then you get into that whole putative spouse doctrine stuff too.
It looks like it’s the older cases that are willing to declare a marriage valid, so long as the parties believed that the celebrant had the authority to perform. Cecil’s statement to the contrary is not standing up so well. It is from 30 years ago, when many of his answers were less thoroughly researched.
Although several cases have struck down marriages performed by Universal Life Church ministers, others have not. In Mississippi, the Supreme Court has ruled that a ULC minister is a “spiritual leader” authorized to perform marriages under their statute. In re Last Will and Testament of Blackwell, 531 So.2d 1193 (Miss.1988). Four of the nine justices dissented and would have held the marriage void.
Illinois specifically has a statute in the IMDMA which codifies the failed-but-thought-it-was-valid solemnization stuff. Cecil is based in the Land of Lincoln
I live in Illinois and just got hitched a few months ago and got one of my buddies ordained on-line so he could officiate. We researched this pretty well (well that’s what I told him, I Googled a few things and called the county where we got the certificate) and they straight out told me on the phone that if we think he’s good to do it then he is and that the certificate being issued is actually the “marriage”, not who signs it, though it does need to be signed.
I couched the question in terms of what paperwork my Rent-A-Rev should show me that states he’s official since I wouldn’t know the guy from Adam.
In a slight hijack, are judges or justices of the peace the only public officials capable of conducting marriage ceremonies? Legally could a mayor or police officer conduct a marriage?
Depends entirely on the local law. In California, for example, not only state judges but also (serving and retired) federal judges can officiate at weddings, as well as serving state legislators and serving federal legislators representing California, or Californian districts. And there is a process by which anyone who doesn’t occupy an office which automatically carries the right to officiate can apply to become a temporary deputy commissioner of marriages in order to officiate at a particular marriage. Other states will have different rules, of course, as will jurisidictions outside the US.
Nor are judges and justices of the peace necessarily qualified to officiate. In Australia, for example, judges and justices don’t do this; it’s done by a separate category of “celebrants”, who are registered for the purpose.
It depends on the law of the jurisdiction you are in. In California this is called a putative marriage, and as long as the aggrieved putative spouse thought the ceremony was real and had a good reason to believe it so, then it will come with spousal rights. So it doesn’t matter if the preacher is a fraud and one of the spouses is in on it, if the innocent spouse wants it to stick, it does, same with two innocent spouses and one wants out and the other doesn’t.
Augustine of Hippo dealt with the logic behind this problem 1500 years ago. Suppose the Priest that gave you absolution was a huge sinner. Does that mean the absolution he genuinely gave you was no good? Nope. Offices performed by a corrupt clergy are valid.
I don’t know the current situation, although I do suspect (and would hope) it has changed. My grandfather was an Anglican clergyman in England. He was, being a minister of the state church, clearly able to perform marriages. What was interesting was that back then only Anglican ministers and registered civil celebrants were allowed to perform them. Methodists, Catholics, etc., such ministers or priests were not able to perform legal marriages. What would happen is that the full church ceremony would be conducted by the appropriate clergyman, and then at the end, as an almost forgotten coda, a civil celebrant would step up, mutter a few words with the happy couple, and later sign the appropriate paperwork.
I think this is still the case today for religious ceremonies in England and Wales, other than for Anglicans, Jews, and Quakers.
However, being a “minister” of the Church of England is not all that’s involved in an Anglican marriage to be valid. The English statute book is littered with a series of special Acts of Parliament that have had to be passed to deal with procedurally invalid ceremonies. Leaving aside overseas marriages, doubts as to the validity of Anglican marriages performed at particular times and places seem to fall into one of three categories:
[ol]
[li]The banns may not have been published at the appropriate place. The nineteenth century saw a massive expansion in building churches, chapels, etc. and sometimes confusion arose as to the specific legal status of either a new building, or one intended to be superseded; as a result, the banns might not have been published at a place meeting the precise description set down in the law of the time.[/li][li]Similarly to the previous category, doubts might have arisen as to the formalities having been correctly observed in the consecration of a building, and its authorisation as a place at which marriages might be conducted.[/li][li]And related to the OP, doubts might have arisen as to the specific qualifications of the person officiating. I can certainly recall reading about one set of cases where it turned out that the person officiating had no authority at all. I’d imagine that a more common scenario would involve someone who had not been duly authorised, but believed they had been.[/li][/ol]
In all the above categories, the prevailing theme is one of botched paperwork thwarting sincere intention. And because English law does not recognise such a thing as a “common law” marriage, it still matters that an Anglican marriage is performed by someone legally entitled to officiate, at a place duly consecrated and authorised as a place of marriage.
The one bit of good news is that for the past hundred years or so it’s no longer needed a special Act of Parliament to sort out the mess; but it still requires a formal procedure involving sanction by a Minister of the Crown.
(Remember I originally posted after seeing it on The Flintstones).