# when is one officially married? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 3, 2002, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190 "2002-07-03T13:54:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BiblioCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@BiblioCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BiblioCat)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/21 "2002-07-04T03:28:29Z")
Just to add another angle to the OP, my husband and I had a rather lively discussion about this very topic at our wedding rehearsal dinner. We had our wedding rehearsal the evening before our actual wedding day, and went through the whole wedding, twice in fact, vows and everything, at the church, with the minister. On the way to the dinner, hubby-to-be looked at me and said, “You know, I think we’re married know. We did everything, said our vows, said ‘I do’ and all that, right?” The general consensus of the guests at the dinner was that the rehearsal doesn’t count and that we wouldn’t be “technically” married until the moment that the minister says “I now pronouce you Husband and Wife…” on the date that is on the marriage certificate issued by the state. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/22 "2002-07-04T13:27:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by milo\_minderbinder \* > \*\* > > And still calling yourself _ **Miz** _ Robyn, tut!, shame! 😉 > > milo \*\* Well, you know, what with one thing or another, e-mailing Tuba just kinda slipped my mind, y’know? 😉 Robin ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/23 "2002-07-04T15:56:43Z")
In the state of Wisconsin: "765.16 Marriage contract, how made; officiating person. Marriage may be validly solemnized and contracted in this state only after a marriage license has been issued therefor, and only by the mutual declarations of the 2 parties to be joined in marriage that they take each other as husband and wife, made before an authorized officiating person and in the presence of at least 2 competent adult witnesses other than the officiating person . . . " So, at least in Wisconsin it is the couple that marries itself, even though they are before an officiating person. The second “I do” does the trick. The statutes further say that any marriage in violation of certain specified parts of the Wisconsin marriage law is invalid, but failure to file the completed license is not among those specified parts. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/24 "2002-07-04T17:27:30Z")
thanks for that Walloon. It makes the best sense ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/25 "2002-07-04T17:29:01Z")
Here’s what the Province of Ontario has to say about the issue: > [@](#): > > A marriage licence or the publication of banns is required **before** a couple can get married in Ontario. To apply for a marriage licence, contact your local municipal office. If you are having a religious ceremony, you may be eligible to be married by a publication of banns. (bolding mine) [http://www.gov.on.ca/MBS/english/myontarioweb/married2.html#licence](http://www.gov.on.ca/MBS/english/myontarioweb/married2.html#licence) From the Ministry of Consumer and Business Affairs: > [@](#): > > If you are getting married in Ontario, you can have a civil marriage or a religious marriage. > > A _ **civil marriage** _ can be performed by a judge or a justice of the peace under the authority of a marriage license. > > A _ **religious marriage** _ can be performed by a person who is recognized by a religious body to perform marriages and is registered in Ontario to perform marriages under the Marriage Act. The marriage can be solemnized under the authority of a marriage license or the publication of banns, depending on the denomination. (emphasis in original) [http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/marriages.htm](http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/marriages.htm) There was a high-profile event last year where two couples married in the Metropolitan church by publication of banns… but the provice refused to register the marriages. This presumably meant that the marriages were not considered to exist as far as provincial laws and regulations went. This may or may not have contravened _federal_ legislation. [A summary](http://civilliberty.about.com/library/briefs/bl121100.htm) of the marriage I mentioned above. > [@](#): > > While the reading of the banns seems to provide a fully legitimate end-run around begging the state for a marriage license, it may not be the final word in the matter. In this legalistic age, the full benefits of marriage don’t accrue to the married couple unless the province registers the marriage. As _The Edmonton Sun_ reported: “The Ontario Marriage Act doesn’t specify that the banns ceremony is limited to couples of the opposite sex, says Hawkes. But there is no indication the Ontario government is willing to register such marriages.” > > That is to say, even though the law doesn’t specify that couples married under the banns be heterosexual, the provincial government could still balk. [Another report](http://www.thevoice.on.ca/firstgaymarriage.html), ultimately from the National Post. It seems that, in Ontario, the marriage comes into being with the act of registration, not the ceremony. Laws of Ontario [online and searcheable](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/). A question needs to be explicitly answered: is the jurisdiction giving permission for a marriage to take place, or is it merely recording their occurence? IMHO, the jurisdiction should simply record the event. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/26 "2002-07-04T19:53:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chronos \* > \*\*If I remember my Catholic theology classes correctly, it’s the consumation (i.e., sex) that is the sacrament of matrimony. All the other stuff is secondary. So, if a couple goes in front of a priest, says “I do”, exchanges rings, and all that, but then gets cold feet before they hop in the sack, they’re not married. They probably will have to go through the paperwork for an annulment, though. > > This situation might be more complicated if they had sex before the civil ceremony, but I don’t remember enough theology to answer that. I do know that if a couple goes through anything which they believe is a valid marriage ceremony, and then has sex, they’re presumed to be married in the eyes of the Church. \*\* You do not recall your classes correctly. The Code of Canon Law, Can. 1057, §1, provides in pertinent part: > [@](#): > > A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. Consent is manifested during the marriage ceremony, not in the wedding bed. In fact, Can. 1085 §1 provides that a person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage. This phrasing shows that the marriage exists even if not consummated. It is true that lack of consummation, if proved, may be a reason to support an annulment. But Can. 1060 provides that marriage enjoys the favour of law, and in doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven. In other words, the burden of proof is on the one asserting the lack of consummation. Indeed, Can. 1681, addressing the course of action to be followed in annulment hearigs, provides that whenever a highly likely doubt arises that the marriage has not been consummated, the tribunal can suspend the nullity case and apply for a dispensation from a non-consummated marriage. In other words, a ratified but non-consummated marriage can be much more easily declared void than a consummated marriage. But the essential element is NOT consummation - it is the manifestation of consent. To answer the OP’s question, it is at the instant in which the second spouse places the ring on the finger and says that he (or she) gives the ring in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I remember very clearly that instant in my wedding. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/27 "2002-07-04T20:09:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cher3 \* > \*\*The sacrament is performed by the couple, not the priest, but it isn’t valid unless witnessed by a Catholic priest and a member in good standing of the Church… \*\* My understanding is that the Church recognizes a civil ceremony between two Catholics as valid. Also I thought that if a married couple converted to Catholicism, they would not be required to remarry as whatever civil or non-Catholic religious ceremony would be adequate. I don’t think that either of those circumstances apply to your case **cher3** , but it would be interesting if someone could confirm or debunk those. Thanks for clarifying that point on consummation, **Bricker**. I was wondering how that could be applied to a marriage where one or both of the parties could not physically have sex. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/28 "2002-07-04T20:16:14Z")
Rick, I think the “I do” part is much more meaningful as a manifestation of consent (although if the rings are done first, you may have a point). On the hijack trail, my wife and I were married by my father. He is not clergy of any sort, bogus or otherwise. Instead, we had him register with the county (Marin County, California) as a wedding commissioner. Such a registree can legally perform one wedding, on the date stated on his certificate. There is also a more permanent sort of registry for those who wish to make a living by officiating at weddings. Incidentally, we also got our marriage license in Marin because they had the lowest registration fee, but we performed the ceremony in Sonoma county because, well, that’s where we were doing it. ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/29 "2002-07-04T20:16:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cher3 \* > \*\*The sacrament is performed by the couple, not the priest, but it isn’t valid unless witnessed by a Catholic priest and a member in good standing of the Church… \*\* My understanding is that the Church recognizes a civil ceremony between two Catholics as valid. Also I thought that if a married couple converted to Catholicism, they would not be required to remarry as whatever civil or non-Catholic religious ceremony would be adequate. I don’t think that either of those circumstances apply to your case **cher3** , but it would be interesting if someone could confirm or debunk those. Thanks for clarifying that point on consummation, **Bricker**. I was wondering how that could be applied to a marriage where one or both of the parties could not physically have sex. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190/30 "2002-07-04T20:24:19Z")
Rather than speculation on Roman Catholic Canon Law on marraige, here’s the real thing (1983 ed.): [http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0840-1165.htm#par2169](http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0840-1165.htm#par2169) "Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. “§2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptized persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-one-officially-married/117190.md?page=1)