Anyone up for a little Marriage 101?

[Pacifist Patriot]

The first thing to understand is that marriage is marriage. A couple is either legally married or they are not.

If we're going to discuss how the state should be involved in marriage than we need to understand what we are talking about. A little history lesson doesn't hurt from time to time, but I'm not stepping up to the podium on that one. If you are interested at all, I highly recommend two authors. Their books are fascinating in their own right. What is Marriage For?: The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution by E. J. Graff and any and all of Stephanie Coontz's books.

I have noticed a bit of confusion about the legal process regarding marriage. Not surprising since most of us, if we go through it at all, usually do it less than a handful of times.

Here is how it works with a few minor differences depending on the state. For example, my state is one of the three that permits a notary public to solemnize a marriage but clearly that doesn't impact the overall process outlined below.

1. Couple decides they want to spend the rest of their lives together.
2. Couple decides whether or not they want to do that in the context of a legal marriage.
3. Couples who decide to get married go to the state and apply for a marriage license.
4. State issues a valid Marriage License after receipt of a fee. (actual amount depends upon state and can sometimes be a serious impediment for the impoverished - Thanks for the reminder TechBear)
5. Couple chooses who is going to marry them.
6. Couple exchanges vows in front of their officiant.
7. Officiant declares them to be married.
8. Officiant signs marriage license and files it with the state.
9. State certifies the license.

Couple is legally married.

Notice there is not a single mention of religion in the process. Religion becomes involved at steps 3-7, but is not required. If the couple wants their marriage to be solemnized in the context of a religious ceremony or with the blessing of a particular member of the clergy, they may choose to do so. The clergy or denomination has the option at that point to either agree or turn them away. The couple needn't bother with religion at all and get married by a secular officiant.

It doesn’t matter if the marriage ceremony is performed in a catholic cathedral, a conservative temple, a methodist church, a UU fellowship, the little chapel of Elvis, over the kitchen sink or on the beach. Whether or not the couple is legally married has everything to do with that little piece of paper issued by the state and absolutely nothing to do with where their vows were witnessed.

States do have laws governing who can and cannot solemnize the vows and sign the license for legal purposes. While clergy are always on the list, it doesn’t stop there. Depending upon your state you can be married by a justice of the peace, town mayor, notary public, certified officiant, judge, etc. But it is that piece of paper, a Marriage License, that makes you married in the eyes of the law. Period.

Now since clergy and religious bodies already have (and have long had) the right to decide whom they will and will not marry, the problem obviously lies somewhere else. Back at step 2. Some of us have the freedom to make that choice while others have it legally denied them. Can anyone tell me how that is not discrimination? Can someone tell me why religion should have any influence over step 2?

As an aside, I wish we could dump the phrase “gay marriage.”

If we have "gay marriage," what is mine "heterosexual marriage?" No, it's simply a marriage. So I refuse to use the term. This is an issue that includes both civil rights and social norms. Sometimes legislating for civil rights precede and act as an impetus for shifts in social norms. So when involved in conversations, I reverse word order and say “equal marriage rights for same-gender couples.” You may think I am being prickly and that is okay. This is a personal preference and not an imperial edict that everyone approach this as I do. I just think it is a phrase that better captures what my values are and why this is important to me.

Marriage has long been seen as a religious institution because so many people choose a religious context in which to solemnize their vows. However, it has never in our country ever been anything but a civil contract controlled by secular law and regulated by the state. As a hint, I'll mention those history books up there again. You might be surprised by what you learn. Even with my experience I was startled by a number of things about marriage through the years.

Bottom line, I will not stop until same gender couples have the same freedom of choice at step two as my husband and I did. It is morally right and in congruence with our secular values as a nation.

[PeaceNikki]

1. Nice. K&R

:)

[polichick]

2. I'm with you! k&r

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. K & R, with a few suggested changes

4. Upon receipt of a nominal fee (typically $50 to $60), state issues a valid Marriage License

Then add the fact that couples barred from marriage can provisionally get some of the legal rights and protections granted by that $50 to $60 if they are willing to spend several thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to draw up wills, powers of attorney, joint ownership papers, etc. These are provisional because such legal instruments can and routinely are overturned by the courts in favor of legally recognized "actual" family.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Excellent point! It is $93.50 here.

[LostinVA]

8. OMG -- it was either $25 or $27 for us -- I acn't remmeber

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. $25 for me in Massachusetts 15 years ago.

At least that's to the best of my memory. Such that it is these days.

[Vickers]

4. Excellent stuff.

:thumbsup:

[AwakeAtLast]

6. Now that is a post I can get behind!

K & R!

:kick:

[LostinVA]

7. k&r -- the OP is clergy, btw

She officiated at my wedding.

[depakid]

9. Curious- how does a marraige differ from a civil union or domestic partnership

if the couple gets the same set of legal rights and obligations?

[LostinVA]

11. They DON'T get teh same set of rights -- that has been posted thousands of times on here

"Marriage" is a legal term.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. This is, to me, a muddy semantic area but has implications for social normatives.

If the state is going to grant one couple a Marriage License and the other a Civil Union License, but both confer the exact same legal rights and obligations (and this is not the case by the way) why call them two different things at all?

The problem is social perception and the noise coming from religious communities who misapprehend their role in the institution.

A married couple not only receives civil and legal benefits, but enjoys a perceived social change in status as well. By calling their union something different, this perpetuates the notion that their union is in fact something different when it is not.

[LostinVA]

14. May I plagarize your post in the future?

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. Whichever ones you want. Feel free.

[dipsydoodle]

23. I think the actual answer

may now be for everyone else to stop using the word marriage and call everything either a civil union or civil partnership as is the case in the UK - The Civil Partnership Act 2004.

[Maven]

29. The UK still has civil marriages. They're just not available to gay couples.

Civil partnerships exist separately, alongside.

These issues are easier to deal with in the UK because they can be addressed by British Parliament in one Act without having to address disparities in the law among many states.

[dipsydoodle]

37. We don't actually it that - that's more what is written

What you refered to as civil marriages have always just been refered to as "registry office weddings" Historically they were used by couples who the church wouldn't wed where one or both had previously been divorced - that's more relaxed these days.

[Maven]

39. I see.

Thanks for the clarification. :hi:

[dipsydoodle]

44. I forgot to mention

that registry office weddings are cheaper too so some use them for that reason.

Back in 2000 two of my friends got married in Las Vegas and I was best man. They also needed a registry office wedding when they got back here to make it official.

:hi:

[hay rick]

62. Your friends must have been really broke.

I got married at The Little White Chapel in Las Vegas in 1999 and the wedding cost $60.

[dipsydoodle]

67. I'd meant to reply but forgot.......doh

The three of us went to Camp Hollywood, http://www.camphollywood.net/ , the previous weekend to dance our socks off for 3 days and then met up with their families in Las Vegas. The whole point was that they wanted an Elvis wedding. I'd thought that might be a bit tacky but it was a truly memorable occasion with a huge amount of fun.

[hay rick]

69. I work in New Jersey

in an office with about 60 other people. 4 of us got married in Vegas, 2 by Elvis. All 4 couples are still together. The vows were solemn but the rest should be the entertainment of your choice.

[ieoeja]

13. Thousands of legal precedences

each and every one of which will have to be adjudicated.

Curious - why do you want to discriminate against Gays?

[Romulox]

28. The law simply doesn't work this way.

First of all, most marital rights are statutory, not "common law", in which case changing such law would require legislation, not adjudication.

In the second instance, the following language would obviate any such objections: "For all purposes, 'civil unions' shall be the exact functional equivalent to 'marriage', subject to the same responsibilities, and entitled to all the same rights."

It would not require adjudicating "thousands of legal precedences (sic)".

[yardwork]

20. Civil unions are illegal for gay people in most states. Even where allowed, they don't provide the

same rights.

Civil unions are a red herring. They've been outlawed along with gay marriage in most states. They aren't an option.

[tbyg52]

16. "Marriage for everyone" - works for me. nt

[nichomachus]

17. In many sane countries

You have to go through all these steps BEFORE you can go get "married" by a religious figure. In other words, the contract to share your lives is a civil arrangement, as it should be. The church part comes later and is unnecessary.

Even in Mexico, for crying out loud, you cannot be "married" by a priest, unless you are first in a civil union. Then, whether or not you go to a clergyman is up to you.

Clergymen should not be involved in any way in determining my tax status, my civil benefits, my property rights, my inheritance rights, etc.

[LostinVA]

18. I know in France and Italy you have to be married first

THEN have your religious ceremony. And, in England, they actally stop the ceremony in the middle to go and sign legal papers before they can proceed. Or, at least the wedding I went to.

[Pacifist Patriot]

19. Well, as a member of the clergy I actually quite enjoy being the person who...

has the authority to declare someone married. I admit it. It's a massive emotional rush so clearly selfish on my part.

But I also relish the fact that it is optional and the couple does not have to choose me or any other member of the clergy to accomplish the same result. That makes their selection of me as their officiant all the more meaningful in my opinion.

[nichomachus]

21. You can declare them "spaghetti" for all I care

I just don't want your religious beliefs to determine my civil rights and benefits.

You can declare them "married" within the context of your sect -- that's just fine. As long as it's done after they are declared married in the eyes of the state. But it's the state that should declare them married in the context of the state.

Your "enjoyment" really doesn't figure into this. It's a civil contract. It's not about you.

[LostinVA]

22. Why are you attacking the poster -- she is a HUGE GLBT ally

She married me and Haruka last year -- a gay couple. It was an HONOR to have her marry us -- I literally could not think of a person whose name I would rather have on my marriage license than her. Her congregation is a welcoming congregation in a very, very Red state. She is posting this OP partly because my wife kinda asked her to, to educate some here who don't "get it."

Her point is that she has the authority to marry people AS AN AGENT OF THE STATE, not as UU clergy. She is well aware the State "marries" the person. That is the whole point of her OP and other posts within this thread.

We really shouldn't be attacking GLBT allies who posted an OP to help US.

[nichomachus]

24. But you're missing the point

Ministers and priests should not be AGENTS OF THE STATE. That breaks down the wall of separation. I know that some clergy are open and welcoming -- but they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who are not. And, that it the cause of the whole same-sex marriage mess. They want civil marriage to follow their own superstitions. It should not.

For the record, my partner and I were married in October by a minister. But, I would have been just as happy having it done by the mayor. We asked the minister only because he is a close friend.

[LostinVA]

25. Just as Pacifist Patriot is a friend of mine

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. And isn't nice you had the option to choose whom you wished to do it?

[nichomachus]

40. Not really

I would have been happy having to choose between a judge, the city clerk, or the mayor. Choosing the person I did was merely a matter of convenience, as he was going to be at the wedding anyway.

Clergy persons should not be agents of the state. Period.

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree. Provided any clergy...

and not just a select list of denominations are authorized, I really don't have a problem with it. The minute they say WHICH clergy can function in this capacity, then I'd have a constitutional issue with it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

32. No need to be so combative. If you didn't want me to be the one to...

declare you married it would never cross my mind to insist upon it. Likewise, if a couple would prefer a catholic priest or a notary public it's no skin off my nose. But if someone does prefer that I, in my role as a member of the clergy serving a UU congregation, be the one to declare them married I am delighted to have that ability. I would mourn it's loss if the state prohibited clergy from the list of those authorized to solemnize marriages.

Sorry, but I quite like the idea that the state allows the couple to choose from a list of options both secular and religious as to who witnesses the vows. I'm weird about freedom of choice though. I quite like it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. This is why I'm all for not allowing ministers to be officients

for legal marriage. Let them solemnize spiritual weddings, but leave the legal stuff to the state. Yes, I'm walking my talk--I'm an ordained minister and have only legally married one couple over a decade ago. Since this controversy has come up, I have not, nor do I intend to, legally marry anyone. Spiritual unions I will officiate with joy.

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. I'm all for freedom of choice and allowing the couple to decide whether they want...

a notary public, a judge, a priest, a certified officiant, a rabbi, a ship captain, a minister or a clerk to solemnize the vows and sign the license.

[HillWilliam]

64. As another member of the clergy

I'd like to agree -- and hopefully to sow a little peace between you and ayeshahaqqiqa. I admire and enjoy reading the both of you.

It would be nice to have the all the options, and I'll say that because I generally work with "tough case" couples, the ones few other seem to want to join. Around here, there are a lot of parishional ministers of the fundy persuasion who won't join couples who've lived together or have been divorced or some other stick-in-the-mud excuse. They won't join same-sex couples. They won't this, they won't that, waawaawaa.

There are a lot of older couples who want the comfort of a spiritual joining but don't want the legal binding because one or both will lose benefits (what a scrod-up system we have!). A lot of counties, municipalities, and companies in NC that offer domestic partner benefits, but they require some sort of documentation. There isn't any registration in NC (well, a very, very few counties offer it), so a certificate of union is proof enough. (Here's where I have to dance with the law, because "solemnization without license" is a misdemeanor offense.)

As you can see, the law is already muddying the practice of my calling, dabbling in matters of faith. I'd like to have the full range of options, but I'm having to do "dances with fools" in Raleigh to fulfill the bidding of my church, my conscience, and my calling. Nothing would give me greater joy than to pronounce two men or two women legally married, to equal my joy at pronouncing a couple (of whatever gender(s)) wishing a spiritual union "partners for life".

The state needs to butt out of my work. I work for Spirit -- call That and view That as you will. IMHO, each couple deserves (and gets from me) equal attention and dignity. Why is that so hard for the wackos?

I'll kick this in, too... I long to be legally married to my partner of nearly 13 years. We've been through so much, yet everything that has conspired to break us apart has only made us stronger -- strife, cancer, hunger, even a brief bout of homelessness, nothing has shaken us. If those nose-in-the-air fundies only knew what we've been through to hold on to what we've got -- and realized how carelessly most of them treat their own marriages -- they wouldn't be so damned quick to sneer and judge. I dream of a wedding, I dream of having friends around for a bigole pig-pickin' barbeque party in the sunshine, giving my beloved a kiss before Spirit and the world -- and having a piece of paper that says it's as real under the law as it already is in our hearts. I want my GLBT brothers and sisters to have that same dream fulfilled.

I want to get there together.

For now, I'm glad to be able to give joy, even though the joy can't be mine just yet.

[Jamastiene]

27. Great post!

K&R

[kenny blankenship]

30. If religion were the key ingredient to marriage with "God in the mix" and all

then people who say such things must be ready to answer WHICH religion, WHICH god -- for they are not all compatible!

How is it that the marriages of Hindu couples are recognized in the U.S., where the majority of people are Christian?
You can say that Islamic marriages are performed in the sight of the same God as Christian and Jewish marriages, since the prophet Mohammed claimed his guidance was from the same God, and since he venerated the canonical texts of both Judaism and Christianity -- but that cannot possibly be stretched to cover Hindu marriages. Not only do Hindus not worship the same God, they worship many Gods, which in Judaism is a big No-No and likewise in Christianity is also a big No-No, but in triplicate!

And yet Hindu marriages are completely non-controversial. They never have been controversial in this country as far as I know. (And should never become controversial or questioned, in case someone is about to accuse me of suggesting that)

[Ioo]

31. Missed Point: Evidence that marriage is a civil issue - Just look at Divorce.

It is (minus the Catholics and the Mormons for the most part) something you do it court. Think of the countless amounts of time and money spent on this simple act... amount of Jesus? Zero

[Bill McBlueState]

33. great post

I'm a big fan of fact-based posting on DU.

[treestar]

36. It was for the perceived benefit of society

to make order in society - every society regulates this way - but today in the US, marriage is useless. You can live any way you want, and the divorce rate is so high that it's becoming a cost to society, not a benefit.

The best way is to get the state out of it and let it be only religious or customary.

[Mugweed]

38. My wife and I tried to put off marriage.

We wanted to wait until everyone could do it. The problem was we were getting older and wanted to secure the rights and benefits that come with marriage (medical decisions, SS inhertience...stuff most of us only think about as we get older). We lived together for 13 years before marrying and just kept getting older. We bought a license and had a Notary Public marry us. No religion, no bullshit.

I apologize for not being able to hold out. I thought the time had arrived for the leaders of the USA to grow up and stop using religion as a tool for hate and discrimination, but I was wrong. I think this will only happen when we can finally separate religion from legislature.

[DarkTirade]

42. Thank you.

[NoSheep]

43. I agree the term "gay marriage" is ridiculous. I pledge to stop using it.

You are absolutely right. Perhaps saying, when mentioning the issue, a gay persons right to legal marriage.

[beac]

52. I use "marriage equality" b/c I think it frames the real issue nicely and isn't too wordy.

"Equality" is a word I find people have a harder time disputing-- since some fundies and wingers love to drone on about what is and isn't a "right" in our society. When I sign petitions, emails, etc I write "-beac, Another Married Heterosexual for Marriage Equality". I only mention my sexual orientation to further frame that this is a HUMAN issue, not a gay issue.

[Pacifist Patriot]

57. I agree with you. I am going to alter my language. Thanks!

[beac]

66. And thank you for the book recommendation.

My husband did his dissertation on 15th century marriage dispute cases. I'd bet a lot of people would be interested to know that for centuries, the church wasn't involved in solemnifying marriage at all-- only in adjudicating the validity of a union if one of the parties decided they wanted out. They called it "annulment," of course, but for all intents and purposes the Ecclesiastical court served as a divorce court in these cases.

To be "married" all two people had to do was clasp hands and say vows "in the present tense" (i.e "I marry you" as opposed to "I want to/will marry you"). No witnesses, no officiant necessary. The essence of marriage was a pledge between two people and that was good enough for the state AND the church. Not a bad system, eh?

[NoSheep]

65. good term: "marriage equality"

[Jankyn]

45. Kick...

...for intelligence.

[LostinVA]

46. kick

[Mari333]

47. kick

[uppityperson]

48. Kick with comments of 5,6,7...

5. Couple chooses who is going to marry them.
In many states, not sure if all, you have someone legally designated to sign the official legal marriage license. Depending on where you are, you can have a friend or a minister designated, or a court official. We had a friend designated, had to write to court to get their name ok'd to sign for us on 1 specific day.

6. Couple exchanges vows in front of their officiant.
"Vows" can be complex or as simply as "yes, we want to do this". You do NOT have to do the "hold, support, sickness/health" thing, unless the person signing with you says you do (some religions for instance).

7. Officiant declares them to be married. Officiant need not do this. The couple must also sign (at least every time I've been married I have had to) (3rd time's the charm) (yes, I am one of "those" people) and have a couple witnesses sign, and the Officially Designated person must sign AND it has to be taken/sent to the courthouse to be filed.

THEN the couple is officially married.

Which raises the interesting question, if they sign one day, and the papers don't get filed until the next, or if the person responsible for filing them with the courthouse doesn't do so, are the not yet legally married? I think there is some provision that states it is legal when the Officially Designated Person and all sign, not filing, but just a passing thought.

Thank you for writing all that and I agree, there is just marriage.

[Pacifist Patriot]

49. Good points

5. In many states there are limits as to whom a couple may choose. The clerk of courts or whatever legal body is issuing licenses will have a list of people they consider authorized. The couple should find out the laws in the state where they want to get married beforehand.

6. Absolutely. The word "vows" was probably ill-chosen and a bias of my profession. Declaration of Intent is probably a better description of what is required. And that can be written and/or spoken depending upon the jurisdiction.

7. Again, a bias of my experience and residence. I know my own state laws but that's it. I tried to be as broad as possible, but clearly language is going to be an impediment. In my state, the bride and groom sign when they apply for the license (and this IS done at the clerk's office). The bride and groom do not sign at the ceremony. The only signature required at the completion of the ceremony is the officiant's. My state doesn't even require witness signatures although there are spaces for them and most brides and grooms want someone special to them sign the document.

[uppityperson]

55. It depends on what is meant by "ceremony", since there need not be one.

Thanks for the above comment also, that 10 day thing makes sense, remembering back to my second when we were living in AK bush and had to get it to be mailed back.

So, regarding #7. There CAN be a ceremony, but does not HAVE to be one. Again, my own experience (same time) the only ceremony we had was signing the paper and putting it in an envelope to be mailed.

My 3rd time's the charm marriage (10+ yrs), I wrote something for the Officiating Person to read, who then asked if we agreed and we said we did. Officiating Person said "great, congratulations", we went back into the house and signed papers along with 2 witnesses (family members).

So, no ceremony is necessary, people can sign right after if they have one, or (#1, young and dumb time) (as opposed to really stupid with #2) (trying to undermine marriage) (#1 we signed the paper morning before the ceremony, and left the paper for the minister to sign/file, whatever.

[Pacifist Patriot]

56. Another good point. Personally I use the word ceremony in the broadest sense.

Whether it is two people and their witness standing over the kitchen sink or 500 people taking over a luxury resort for a weekend, it's the wedding ceremony. So, yes, I would consider signing the paperwork and putting it in an envelope "the ceremony."

I can totally see where others would have other particular preconceived notions about what a wedding ceremony is based on their own experiences and perspectives though.

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. Oh, you're last question is one that fascinates me because I have 10 days to...

return the license.

There are actually three parts to the license.

Application to Marry: Bride and Groom Signatures
License to Marry: Clerk of Courts Signature
Certificate of Marriage: Officiant and Witness (option) signatures

My portion starts, "I hereby certify that the above named groom and bride were joined by me in marriage in accordance with the laws of the state of Florida."

Okay, I bristle with that sentence every time I sign. It SHOULD say, "the above named individuals"

At any rate, I believe they become legally married at the time I sign and date at the conclusion of the ceremony. If I marry someone Saturday night, the earliest I can file the paperwork is 8:00 Monday morning. What if something were to happen to one of them on Sunday? They're married.

Now if I do not return the signed document within ten days my ass is grass. I honestly don't know what happens at that point because I would never tempt it. I've never gone beyond a Tuesday after a weekend wedding.

[TWiley]

50. Married couples enjoy benifits that the rest of us do not.

It starts with more choices between tax laws, includes being able to enjoy social security survivor benifits, most companies do not allow unmarried partners to be included in insurance benifits, unmarried couples have little to no rights if the partner suddenly dies - family members can typically take it all in such cases. I was even not allowed to visit with someone in the emergency room because I was not legally related as a family member.

And, the discrimination does not stop there. It is clearly a civil rights issue that would be easy to solve if not for religious influences. I also have a feeling that insurance companies play a bit role in this issue as well. HIV / AIDS is very expensive to treat, and I think that those companies do not want the responsbility; it is easy to make a single person disappear.

It annoys me to no end that the fundamentalist / evangelical community pontificates about how they want all of us to behave when they are nothing more than a self-identifying cult. Think about it, there are few, if any at all, things that ALL Christians share in common. They cannot even agree if Jesus is God, Man, Profit, or something else. You become a Christian by simply saying that you are one .... no other effort is required. A group of dis-similar objects organized to become self-declaired moral supremists.

What can possibly go wrong with that?

on edit: somehow this posted to the wrong thread but the topic is roughly the same.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

53. Excellent post

[beac]

54. A hearty K&R!

A great OP and I couldn't agree more.

[iconicgnom]

58. well said. cuts right thru' the bullshit.

[Patsy Stone]

59. Equal means equal

Not almost equal.

K&R

[Harry Monroe]

60. My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace

I am Catholic and my wife is a once divorced Episcopalian. I did not want to go through the bullshit of a Catholic wedding with counseling. We choose our own music and had 2 friends read religious scriptures between the vows. We also held the guest to 100 people, since my wife and I paid for the whole thing. We kept the guest list away from our parents. We had the reception right afterward at the same reception hall; bought our own liquor and hired a DJ for music. Never ever did we regret not having a religious ceremony. All the religion we needed in the wedding ceremony was contained in our two religious scriptures we chose ourselves.

[tomm2thumbs]

61. great posting & thoughts behind it

big kick & recommend

[hay rick]

63. Informative and constructive post.

Thanks.

[Recursion]

68. Who can officiate

Depending upon your state you can be married by a justice of the peace, town mayor, notary public, certified officiant, judge, etc.

Also, the Captain of any vessel underway. That's one of those historical holdovers I find interesting.