When Exactly Are You Married

Factual Questions
41

This discussion brings to mind an episode of Law & Order:

Basically, old wealthy man dies on his wedding night. Police have no evidence of foul play, but are suspicious of the much younger wife. So they need consent to perform an autopsy. Wife objects for religious reasons, the rest of the family wants the autopsy. So the ADA talks to a judge and brings up the point that because of the timing, they could not possibly have filed their marriage papers after the ceremony and thus, very technically, they were not married. And so the wife doesn’t have standing to object to the autopsy and they find their evidence of foul play.

Can someone explain to me exactly how this scenario could make sense? I’d been under the impression that Law & Order does a decent, though not perfect, job of portraying New York law, but this would seem to be in contradiction with what was said upthread.

42

My good fellow, I am well beyond redemption believe me.

I’ll see you all in hell :stuck_out_tongue:

43

Can ship’s captains marry if they’re ordained ministers? What about justices of the peace?

StG

44

Yes, if their ordination is recognized and assuming they’ve registered (if required) in the nation, state or city where the boat is.

Ditto. You have to be a JOP in wherever you’re performing the marriage for it to be legal.

Recognizing ordination is a bit of sticky politics in and of itself. Many people (myself included) believe that the Constitution prevents the State from deciding which churches and which ordinations are legitimate because of the whole church/state separation issue. (That is, the State cannot legally interfere in Church matters or sponsor certain churches over others.) There are a few places that disagree - New York City being one of them. New York City (last I knew) is refusing to let people with ordinations through specific churches register with the city; if you don’t register, you can’t legally officiate weddings in New York City. Not having been asked to officiate in NYC, I haven’t researched the issue in a while, so my information may be out of date.

45

With regards to common law marriages in common law states - obviously the seven years thing is bunk. My old friend’s college roommate had to get a divorce even though they’d never gotten around to the marriage license thing, however, because they had a religious ceremony (two, in fact - Christian and Muslim) and had acted married ever since. It’s the ceremony thing that really did it to them, though.

Essentially the criterion as I’ve heard is, do other people seem to think you’re married? (And, of course, that ceremony thing.)

46

This Law & Order episode does appear to be contrary to New York Law. Domestic Relations Law § 25 (a provision in place since at least 1907) provides, in relevant part:

Nothing in this article contained shall be construed to render void by reason of a failure to procure a marriage license any marriage solemnized between persons of full age.

This was applied in Persad v. Balram, 187 Misc.2d 711, 724 N.Y.S.2d 560 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 2001) [no free online cite available], in which the two parties never obtained a marriage license, but participated in an elaborate Hindu marriage ceremony in which they exchaned vows that was overseen by an ordained pandit (Hindu priest) which was followed by a 275-person reception. The court found that, despite the absence of a marriage licence, some other contrary evidence, and a claim by the putative husband that he never intended to be married at the ceremony, the ceremonial marriage was valid, and the parties were entitled to a divorce (and the attendant equitable distribution).

What WhyNot may be referring to is the question of recogniation of Universal Life Church and other “mail order” ordinations. New York courts (and the New York City Clerk’s Office) have held that such a purported ordination does not render one clergy eligible to perform marriages.

47

Yes. I was married on a boat, and although we didn’t have the captain do it, he did tell us that it was an option; he had gotten ordained just so he could perform this duty that a lot of people expected him to be able to do automatically.

48

By why do people hire you at all for a non-legal wedding? I can understand if you are part of the couple’s spiritual community or something and guests might recognize you as having some sort of authority in that community but without that, I don’t understand the point. Is it just so that “something official” happens to make the guests feel like they’ve attended something real? I don’t mean to diminish what you do but I think if I was getting married and having an event which is effectively a celebration and party because the legal stuff will be or was handled elsewhere, then I think I’d maybe make a speech and be done with it. I can’t imagine hiring an unknown person to come and do something which has no legal significance.

49

I work with a lot of people who don’t have a “church” of their own, either through chance or design. I’m willing to do gay weddings (not legal in my state) plural weddings (not legal in any state), atheist weddings, inter-denominational weddings, feminist weddings (that is, some couples specifically want a female officiant), neopagan weddings…any wedding *except *that of a major religion which has its own rules for officiants that I don’t meet. I could not and would not do a Roman Catholic wedding, for instance. (Technically a Roman Catholic wedding is done by the bride and groom, I’m not even sure an officiant is required, but I wouldn’t claim to be officiating a Roman Catholic wedding.)

I don’t advertise, and I don’t charge. Everyone has either been a member of my own community or someone who’s heard of me through word-of-mouth. I suppose if someone wanted me to travel to do one, I might ask to be reimbursed for travel expenses, but I won’t take money for the service; God/dess has already picked up the tab for that one. :wink: I view it as an honor and a privilege, and I feel like it’s my gift to others, not something I should be compensated for monetarily.

As for why someone would want to do that without making it legal, they all have their own reasons. Some, of course, because it can’t be legal - gay people and plural weddings, specifically. Some because the couple feels a “trial marriage” (what we call a “handfasting” in many neopagan traditions) is called for. Some because they’re tinfoil hat wearing weirdos who think the government is keeping a file on them for nefarious purposes who don’t want a paper trail (and, who knows, maybe a weirdo or two on whom the government IS keeping a file for nefarious purposes!). Some are people who were married once and are disillusioned with the process either of marriage or divorce. Some people don’t want to be legally married for tax or disability benefit reasons. But at the same time, people often want to celebrate their love for another person with their family and friends.

As long as it’s clear to me that everyone involved is an adult and consenting, I don’t really care much, although I do always make the law clear in our discussions beforehand. I have never led anyone without a marriage license to believe that they’re legally married and entitled to legal marriage benefits.

At every ceremony, legal or not, I opine that the marriage has already happened. The community is just there to hear the announcement and have a party. I’m just there to be the ringleader so we all know when to cheer. Marriage, IMHO, is always already done before we all get there the day of the wedding, because it’s done when the bride(s) and/or groom(s) realize that there’s a special bond between them that they cherish.

But of course that’s a spiritual and/or behavioral answer, not what the OP was looking for.

50

Hm? Nonresident aliens authorized to work in the US do have to file tax returns.

51

If it’s not become apparent yet from this thread, it bears emphasising that there is no single answer to the OP, nor to other legal questions that have been asked in this thread. Each jurisdiction has its own rules for recognising marriage ceremonies, and an answer may be perfectly correct for a particular poster’s jurisdiction, but not accurate in another jurisdiction.

For example, this exchange:

WhyNot’s answer may be perfectly correct for her jurisdiction, but may not be for other jurisdictions. For example, in Saskatchewan, where I’m posting from, the answer would be “No - Justices of the Peace have no power to perform marriages.” Here it’s done by a provincial official called a “Marriage Commissioner.”

Similarly, WhyNot and Billdo have explained the rules in New York and Illinois. They’re quite different, especially in relation to the role of the marriage licence. (I’m more familiar with the approach taken by New York, since that is similar to the traditional English common law approach, which is also the law here in Saskatchewan: irregularities in the paperwork don’t invalidate the marriage. There’s a case from our courts that make that point.)

Likewise, Nava’s discussion of the residency requirement in Spain, a civil law jurisdiction, illustrates one of the differences in approach between most civil law jurisdictions and most common law jurisdictions: civil law jurisdictions tend to have a residency requirement, while many common law jurisdictions do not

This thread is very informative, both on the issue being discussed and also on the need to consult the laws of the jurisdiction you’re interested in, rather than relying on a message board for advice.

52

Actor William Hurt and Sandra Jennings lived together and had a son. After he left her and married someone else, she sued him claiming they were married because they had “represented themselves as a married couple” while he was filming “The Big Chill” in South Carolina, a state that recognizes representing yourselves as a married couple to be a legal marriage. She lost the case and lost again on appeal.

53

If they are not resident and not a US citizen, then the only reason why they would have to file a US tax return is if they have an income in the US. Being authorised to work isn’t enough – though almost always if you are authorised to work, you would be working and thus have an income in the US.

In addition, “residency” has different meanings in immigration law and in tax law. It’s possible to be a permanent resident under immigration law, but to be a nonresident under tax law (because you didn’t spend enough of the tax year actually inside the United States).

I think it could work the other way, too: you could spend enough time in the US on a visitor’s visa to qualify as a resident under US tax law. I don’t know if you’d then have to file if (as would be likely) you had no US-based income. (You should have no US-based income, because you would not be entitled to work in the US.)

54

I know this - I am a nonresident alien with an income, currently residing in the US. :slight_smile: Your previous statement said that nonresident aliens don’t have to file at all. If you’re married to an American citizen and still on your K-3, you can choose to file jointly and be counted as a US resident for tax filing purposes.

Technically, nonresidents without an income have to file Form 8843 even though they don’t have to file 1040NR, but it doesn’t hurt you if you don’t, with a few exceptions (which I’m not familiar with since they don’t apply to me; something about athletes and those with medical conditions).

55

I’m not going to disagree with you, even though my wife and I have gone through all sorts of immigration and income-tax statuses in the US, because any general statement that can be made will have exceptions. However, I think the sentence that I quoted here is confusing, and apparently self-contradictory. I think when you say “nonresident” you mean “not a permanent resident for immigration purposes”, while when you say “resideing in the US” you mean “resident in the US for taxation purposes”. That makes sense – I had that sort of status for 2 tax years – but it looks odd to say you are both resident and non-resident without saying that you are talking about residency in two different (very complex) legal areas.

56

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Despite my “substantial presence” in the US (more that 31 days during 2007) I am still considered a nonresident for tax purposes because of my F-1 status. That’s why I filed Form 1040NR-EZ rather than Form 1040EZ. There IS such a thing as nonresident status for tax purposes.

Most nonresidents earning income would be considered residents for tax purposes, though.

[/hijack]

57

I was married by a Justice of the Peace at a private wedding chapel at noon on a Monday. He offered to file the paperwork for us, and I noticed it was filed at 1:35 p.m. that same day, so he must have stopped for lunch or Starbuck’s on the way across the street to the courthouse.

Somebody had poor handwriting, because there’s still some confusion about what year we were married. We’re quite certain of the year, but our marriage certificate looks less than certain.

We acquired the license the Friday before, so it only took us 3 days, beginning to end of the whole marriage process. The lady at the courthouse told me we could do it same day, if we wanted. No witnesses were required, either. It cost a total of maybe $140, but that only because we chose the little chapel instead of a judge’s chambers, and we got a little wedding cake with that, and flowers and music. If I recall, it would have been $35 or $45 for the courthouse wedding, with no frills.

In this state, at least, we were not officially married until the JoP filed that paperwork. Once he did, we were officially married from that day.

(Historical note: I’ve read that many years ago, people from Washington D.C. used to elope to Virginia because there was no waiting period to wed. I believe it, now. You can get a license at 8 a.m. and get hitched at 8:30.)

58

It is not required. Starting from the Council of Trento (XVI century) it is recommended to have a priest as one of the witnesses of the wedding, and have him write down that he’s witnessed it. This was prompted as an easy way to keep track of whether people were married or not. Before the written registry, if two people were married, one wanted out and the other one didn’t, the way to decide whether they were or were not was to ask the whole village… much easier to be able to present a piece of paper.

59

Just to make sure I explain it clearly: you don’t have to be a resident of Spain, but a citizen (Spanish law doesn’t distinguish between citizens and nationals) of a country where the marriage would be legal. A Spaniard and a Norwegian of the same gender can be married in Spain, as this marriage would also be valid in Norway.

60

That is not correct. It’s true that the Catholic Church considers that the bride and groom themselves are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage. Nevertheless, except in cases of emergency, for validity a marriage involving a Catholic must meet the requirements of canonical form unless the appropriate dispensation has been granted. This essentially means that the bride and groom must exchange their vows in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon and two witnesses (canon 1108(1)).