Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Should Clergy Continue to Register Marriages for the State?
As you may know, nearly all clergy act as marriage agents for their local or state governments. In Connecticut, for example, ordained or licensed clergy may perform marriages as long as they continue in the work of the ministry. The marriage license must be completed by the minister and returned to the city or town clerk. Right next door, Massachusetts clergy themselves must obtain a license to marry before they can fill out valid licenses.
With Obergefell, I know of confessional pastors who are looking hard at whether they should continue this practice. Fr. Jonathan Morris — best known for his appearances on Fox News Channel — had two tweets that sum up the case for this approach.
First, formally splitting their roles in civil and sacred marriage is a witness to the traditional definition of marriage:
It's a good time for churches in USA to separate civil ceremonies and church ceremonies to clearly show the difference.
— Jonathan Morris (@JonMorris2019) June 27, 2015
Second, it’s a move that removes an excuse for the State to demand that clergy perform non-traditional marriages:
Currently, religious marriage officiants are representatives of the city / state. Government coercion is next step.
— Jonathan Morris (@JonMorris2019) June 27, 2015
Any intel on what your clergy are thinking and doing?
Published in Culture, Marriage, Religion & Philosophy
My understanding is that somewhere along the way marriage changed from being a primarily religious institution in which the state recognized such marriages to a civil institution in which clergy conducting marriages were acting as representatives of the state. I don’t know which of those would be considered more traditional, but I think out of necessity most clergy are no longer going to want to be representatives of the state, since it is becoming increasingly divergent from religious traditions. And, it’s likely to be used as a cudgel against churches anyway.
In the US and Italy as well I imagine, the primary usefulness of civil marriage is the contract between the individuals involved and what happens to property if the desire is to end the contract. A big complication is children in that situation. I think people who don’t intend to have children would be wise to forgo the civil marriage and work out some equivalent of a prenup agreement for the property. Marriage may be primarily a religious concept, but divorce is purely civil, and with divorce rates here and in Europe north of 50% (among those who even bother to marry) it’s something that has to be dealt with.
The other advantage of civil marriage is tax and other government benefits. Those have turned out to be the primary vector of intrusion of the state into marriage, so they were probably never a good idea in the first place.
Ever spent time in Washington State? I’m assuming that the state is already making moves (executive if not legislative) to order ministers to perform all marriages or none. I have a friend at work who is a pastor, I’ll see if I can ask him about this soon.
That’s actually a fascinating suggestion—more?
Seconded.
Hey. I finally write a post that gets more than one page of comments and I medially get on the road. i’ll try to engage the many great comments when I’m back in pocket.
I have felt for many years that these two should be separate. As a libertarian, I have long supported civil marriage for anyone who wants to enter into such a contractual relationship for their household. Also as a libertarian, I fiercely support the right of anyone of any religion to decide what constitutes a religious marriage blessed by God, and to do so without others using the power of the state to bully and coerce them to betray their consciences.
I think this sort of separation gets it precisely right. I know that the bullies will still try to harass the religious communities — it’s what they do — but it will deny them at least one tool they might use to do it.
I was aware of the difference between marriage by the state and then by the Church, since that was how my parents married in Germany.
It seemed that the Catholic Church required that civil marriage license before the priest married my parents.
Each denomination can make their own decision, but that seems like a good idea. I am in favor of the churches separating themselves a little from the state in this area.
Can I make a suggestion?
Words matter, and this kind of syntax is a big problem on the right.
The church wedding is the real wedding. If we join the left and speak as if the “real” wedding is the one that was registered by the courthouse, then the battle is already lost.
My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace. Are we not “really” married?
Marriage outside of the church is real marriage. It was given to all of humanity at creation. A family could join a church after being married by civil authorities, under common law, or another religion. As long as it’s a union of one man and one woman the church should recognize the marriage, support it, and apply church discipline if needed.
There may be more complicated scenarios – married in the church, leaves the church divorces and remarries outside of church authority. I won’t try to solve every case now.
If you are already a member of a church, you should involve the church in your marriage. He community role of the church is important.
That is such an interesting question. Your marriage meets the definition of marriage put forward by the state. The state has now altered its definition of marriage to mean something different from what we mean by marriage. To the extent that you have all along thought that same sex couples could have what you have, it would seem that the word has meant different things to us and to you.
I think there have always been people who joined a church and felt the need to have their previous civil marriages solemnized in a religious ceremony. I would guess that going forward this might be more common.
It’s sad that it has to come to this, but Fr. Morris’ recommendation is prudent.
Feel free to work on the syntax and word it any way you want. The bottom line is that you can have all the church weddings you want, both here and in Europe, but if the bureaucrat doesn’t get his or her piece of paper, you’re not legally married. I think it’s possible going forward that some people may choose the church wedding and forgo the legal document entirely. That’s the way it worked here for a long time, because my understanding is that most states didn’t start issuing marriage licenses until the mid 19th century. Since around 50% of marriages currently end in divorce, I don’t know what the fate of commonly held property and children would be in the case of no marriage license. I suppose it depends upon whether or not you live in a common-law state.
Agreed. Not just theoretically, but experientially.
Once upon a time, there were two very hip people who were too hip and cool and unique to get married in any of the ordinary ways. So they decided to go to Nepal and get married in the Himalayas. Without telling a soul, they left their suburban home, flew to an appropriate Himalaya, hired what at least appeared to be a Buddhist Monk and had him marry them in whatever way Buddhist monks marry hip Americans. Their witnesses were other monks and maybe the lady who ran the B & B.
They arrived home, put together a book of photographs taken of their ceremony and mailed a copy to each of their loved ones.
Pop Quiz:
Q: Which of the following was the “real” wedding
a.) the signing of the marriage license at their suburban town office before they left for Nepal
b.) the ceremony on top of the mountain
c.) the moment all their friends and loved ones opened the book and read the first page that said “Guess What? We’re Married?”
According to Lucy Pevensie, this isn’t actually true. We should do some research.
Never mind—I did it, and it didn’t take long: http://jezebel.com/that-50-percent-divorce-statistic-hasnt-been-true-for-a-1665833364
I’m not a lawyer. But here goes.
It’s probably b), though it depends on state law and the laws of Nepal.
In general a license is permission to do an act, not the performance of the act itself. But perhaps the state where they got the license sees a marriage when they signed it.
From what little I’ve read, the United States recognizes marriages performed in foreign countries. The license from the unnamed U.S. state probably is irrelevant since their marriage occurred in Nepal, and therefore the laws of Nepal would govern. Does Nepal require a marriage license? If so, would Nepal recognize another state’s marriage license? The upshot is, if they married correctly under Nepal’s laws, then they’re considered married in all of the United States.
If they aren’t considered married because they didn’t get the legalities right in Nepal, then perhaps c) makes them married, but again, it depends on state law. In general, I’d say not. They had permission to enter into a marriage contract in that state, but they actually didn’t.
One other thing, c) could be valid in and of itself, if they live in a state that allows common law marriages (but each such state has different rules on what constitutes a common law marriage).
Further complicating your question on c) is whether the state allows putative marriages (if you think you’re married, you are, until you find out you’re not).
The divorce rate, like any statistic, depends upon how it’s determined. Any decline is likely due to the fact that fewer people actually bother getting married now.
My point is the same, even if the divorce rate is 10%. People can marry without getting a marriage license because if you say you’re married, people assume you are and treat you like you are. I don’t recall ever having to show a marriage license for any purpose. It’s when divorce happens and the fate of the common property becomes a legal issue that the marriage license matters.
I think I had to show marriage documents when I applied for my pension and Social Security. It’s been a while, so I’m not certain the memory is correct.
A few years ago the Big Ten University I worked required such verification for all employees who were receiving spousal health care benefits. It outsourced the verification task to a company that specialized in this, and said it saved quite a bit of money by pruning out those people who were not really married. I think it was the first time in 40-some years of marriage that we had to come up with the document.