A recent thread on online ordination got me thinking about this again. To me, it’s incredibly stupid that the government limits who can officiate at a wedding, yet creates this enormous loophole that swallows the rule by allowing ordained ministers of any religion, no matter how obviously made-up for the sole purpose of ordaining folks so they can officiate at friends’ weddings, to take on that role. The scenario in the title has been the reality for some time now, and I haven’t heard of any disastrous outcomes. So why have a limitation at all? What sort of people should not be allowed to officiate, and what harm could come from letting them? Go nuts with the technically-possible-but-highly-improbable scenarios!
ISTM that the various governments around the world have taken an attitude of “the more people doing it, the more people who will screw it up”. Some places (such as China, Japan, South Korea) specify that a marriage may only be contracted at a designated government office and by a designated government official. Others (such as the United States) have this odd system where you get a license to marry and then you have to find someone to solemnize the marriage, and those who are permitted to solemnize same are either registered with the government or included in a class listed by the government. They’re all limiting the herd, so to speak, just in a different manner.
The differences between countries does cause some confusion though. When my wife and I left the city and county office with our marriage license, she asked me if that meant we’re a married couple. Of course I explained to her that would be after the Temple worker in Laie signed the thing.
Pennsylvania lets anybody officiate at a wedding; or, at any rate, did so when several of my family members got married there. As far as I know, they still do.
Also, as far as I know, the foundations of society have not disintegrated and allowed Pennsylvania to fall into chaos; at least, not more so than the rest of the country.
(Technically, I think, the couple just marries themselves in front of witnesses. But there’s no rule saying they can’t have an officiant of their choice say whatever’s chosen as part of the process.)
Factually incorrect as far as Japan is concerned. Marriages are not “contracted” but rather registered. If the legal requirements are met (SSM is not allowed, both parties must be single, proper age, etc.) then the two consenting individuals can go to the government office, and submit the form. The person at the counter verifies the IDs of the people, stamps the form and issues an acknowledgment of the marriage.
The point, at least in most countries, is that marriage is a legal status. Therefore, The Man demands that official forms be submitted to an official government representative with proper witnesses and/or IDs so they can register your marriage. All else is irrelevant.
Because of people like this
I also find this weird. Not sure why the obtaining of the license is not sufficient in itself.
As does Colorado because we allow the parties to have no officiate (in fact, Colorado still has common law marriage). I had some friends that wanted me to officiate and go online to be a Universal Life Minister (I think that was it). I refused as I felt like I would be an apostate if I didn’t become a minister in my own religion (I’ve though about becoming a minister from time to time ever since I was a teen). They got someone else to do it.
There’s no harm. The laws are basically a relic of of the past, and the various online “churches” that will ordain anyone with the click of a mouse are a workaround loophole. They have been around for decades, but no state that I know of has moved to make it harder to officiate a wedding in that time, a tacit admission that no one cares.
I wonder if it has to do partly with people in times of more difficult travel being often effectively unable to get to a county clerk or equivalent? Now it’s considered fairly trivial to tell people they have to show up in person to get the license and/or to register the marriage; but when travel was by foot or ox or if you could afford one by horse, that wasn’t so. Preachers travelled; I don’t think county clerks generally travelled around their territories checking in at each place to see whether anybody needed them. But having any totally random person be able to stop in at the county seat and tell them that Jill and James had gotten married on Back Hill Road wouldn’t have worked either.
As far as I’m concerned, they’re all obviously “made up” and I’m a little offended on behalf of The Universal Life Church, headquartered in Modesto, California.
I am a Dudeist Priest. I don’t do weddings, but I make a delicious White Russian.
My brother officiated at our California wedding.
He then wrote the wrong date on the Marriage License.
So we now have two anniversaries which:
- Gives me two chances to forget our anniversary, and
- Costs me twice as much money in anniversary presents
Other than that … no downside. It was pretty cool.
I remember a Swiss woman who found it incredible that anyone but a specified government official could perform weddings. She thought the idea of priests, rabbis, etc. doing it absurd.
Although I was married in NJ, the rabbi who performed it was from DE. It never occurred to me till now that that could have been problematic. I guess it wasn’t.
Is there any way to get ordained as a Pastafarian?
Reasons for restricting who may officiate:
- false claims that someone is married to you, which may be hard to disprove if records are spotty and years old.
- the officiating person allowing persons to get married who are obviously not fit to do so (admittedly the requirement of a license should in theory remove this possibility)
- problems in having your marriage recognised in another country, which may be important for refugee status, social security rights, parental rights, inheritance, insurance of surviving partner.
- the officiating person forgetting to observe the necessary formalities to have the marriage properly registered, again leading to potential problems in getting the marriage recognised.
As I’m not an American, it is possible that the consequences of marriage in the US are so insignificant that the supposed problems do not actually arise there, but in other countries the situation may well be different. My understanding was always that being married is something that the state grants and may remove, and therefore needs to be in the hands of a state official. Apparently the US has a different stance.
A lovely feature, actually, which the missus and I intend to celebrate for the 13th time tomorrow night at midnight. We were having our own new years’ eve party and the whim struck us. So there we were, in our jammies with a couple dozen guppies to witness, reciting vows adapted from Joe vs. The Volcano : “You wanna marry me?” “Okay. You wanna marry me?” “Okay.” And that was that. A few days later we rolled into the DMV to register the deed that we done.
I expect the loose rules on marriage at least in Colorado might have something to do with the state being full of rather remote farming and mining towns, and a limited number of opportunities to align primal urges with hollow bureaucratic restrictions, especially if you’re snowed in 5 months out of the year. The solution is, “Uh, you guys do your thing, just let us know when you get a minute.” And given the fiercely independent nature of the hill people, provisions for common law marriage were also necessary because them folk don’t like going into town any time of year, let alone to discuss their personal business with uninvolved strangers.
Well, rebels and all. About the only material benefit here is somewhat preferred tax status, and having the right to pull the plug on a vegetative spouse (which can also be assigned to anyone by legal paperwork executed in happier days). Anything else like property and investments can be jointly owned, so a little planning smooths wrinkles otherwise addressed by marital rights. I think in most places if a kid’s got your DNA in it, your parenting rights and liabilities are pretty much automatic whether you want them or not. Increasing numbers of folks aren’t even bothering with the whole marriage exercise anymore.
Does this mean that just getting and signing the license is enough to form a legal, non-common law marriage? Do you even need to have the ceremony?
Yes but it will cost you a pretty penne.
According to this, no ceremony is required. You don’t need to do anything but sign the license.