Anyone up for a little Marriage Ceremony 101? ;-)

[Pacifist Patriot]

As I tell the couples I marry, in my state you need four things to become legally married.

1. The couple
2. A valid marriage license from the state
3. An exchange of wows
4. Someone authorized to witness the vows and then sign and file the license with the state

There really isn't much there when you consider the range of wedding ceremonies. I have had my own wedding, been the maid of honor at one of my sister's weddings, attended probably a dozen weddings and officiated 99. I have seen everything from two people standing in their driveway while the neighbors hung over the fence to 450 people taking over a luxury resort for a weekend.

A wedding ceremony is a ritual. It is a way in which we as human beings publicly proclaim a commitment we have already made in our hearts. The couple knows they intend to spend the rest of their lives together, the ceremony is a way for them to demarcate the change in their social status.

It's why it doesn't make much sense to perform a unity candle ritual before the couple exchanges vows. Or why you don't ask who brought the bride and groom to be married that day after they have already exchanged rings.

A wedding ceremony is a ritual that can help some parents mentally "cut the cord" and recognize that son or daughter is now a man or woman in his or her own right.

So the wedding ceremony is the pomp and circumstance we wrap around the change in legal status as licensed by the state.

For some people that means including one of the relationships that is most important in their lives. The one they have with their God or gods. For some people the most important relationships may be familial or friendships and those people play a central role in the ritual.

The perfect wedding for one couple may mean making sure the lyrics to the song Adam Sandler sang in "The Wedding Singer" are read, for others it is a reading from 1 Corinthians. For some people it may mean having every single one of their sorority sisters and fraternity brothers standing up there with them. For others it means having that one special friend who introduced them and no one else.

I love ritual. Obviously, or I wouldn't have become a member of the clergy. But I also believe that ritual is meaningless if it does not capture what is most important to the bride, the groom and their hopes and dreams for the future of their relationship. Couples should have a say in how they are married and by whom.

This is why I don't necessarily think it is the best decision to strike clergy from the list of those who are authorized to witness the vows and then sign and file the license with the state. Some people do find this a compelling piece of the ritual that will help them emotionally and psychologically as they transition internally from a single individual to a commmitted individual in a unique partnership.

Marriage has been and should remain a civil contract. But how the transition is celebrated should be a matter of choice to the couple, and religion should remain one of their options.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Girlfriend. You rock.

:applause:

:loveya:

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. Oh I figure this is the post where I'll get my ordained butt handed to me.

:P

[Midlodemocrat]

4. INCOMING!!!!!!!

[LostinVA]

5. I'm busy, but I'll do what I can

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. This is probably the first day I've had in a month where I'm actually able to...

play around a bit. Oh sure, there is plenty I could be doing, but nothing I absolutely have to do this minute. Oddest darned feeling I must say.

[Warpy]

15. Hardly, but you missed the most important component

of civil marriage: the appointment of a non related life partner to first degree relative. That confers rights you can't get anywhere else, like the right to visit a sick partner in an ICU if there isn't a sympathetic nurse willing to risk her job to sneak you in and the right to claim a partner's body after death.

If I ran the world, the civil marriage would occur when both partners appeared at the registrar's office and signed the license. The ceremonial stuff would be optional and don't drop from astonishment when a lot of straight couples skip the ceremonial stuff. They are doing just that in Canada, hoping to escape some of the sexist baggage of marriage by opting for civil union.

The bottom line for me is that I really don't care who gets married as long as it's not me.

[Pacifist Patriot]

19. I understand that completely. My sole point is that...

the couple should be able to choose who witnesses, signs and files their marriage license. How they go about it should be entirely up to them. Doesn't make a difference who does it or how they box and wrap the whole occasion.

Why should anyone care if it is a clerk, their pastor or their grant-aunt Sally?

[LostinVA]

2. Many of your reasons is why we wanted clergy to marry us

Having it be you just made it icing on the cake.

I'm sure you remember some of our wedding -- the local Mayor wouldn't have let us do all that. Haruka and I grew up Catholic. Between that and the Irish in us, we HAD to have ritual and ceremony at our wedding! Bagpipes and all.

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. I remember ALL of your wedding. Well, up until the post-reception pizza party...

Just kidding. I remember that too.

[LostinVA]

7. We all know Starbucks Anarchist got you drunk

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. Are you sure it wasn't that couple sitting beside him?

Wine, always my downfall. Wine. I can turn down any other form of alcohol without a second thought. Wine. Twill be the death of me.

[LostinVA]

10. Two of the guests thought you were REALLY hot

A straight guy and a bi gal.

That's why open bars at wedings are fun!

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. *snort*

[LostinVA]

14. The two of them are now engaged -- I swear!

[Ioo]

12. I do not want to "strike clergy" - You are just another OPTION is a sea of many

As you said.

[nichomachus]

13. No one is saying couples can't get love and comfort from their clergy

AFTER they fulfill the marriage requirements from the state.

They go to city hall, get married, then hustle on up to your church where you can all have a group hug and you can declare them married in the eyes of your church as well as in the eyes of the state.

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. Sorry, but that still doesn't satisfy the ritual needs for some people.

In my state you don't even have to have witnesses. However, the license still has a spot for two people to sign. Not only do couples still want witnesses to sign this document, they can be incredibly picky about whom exactly signs and in which order!

There are people who sincerely want their clergy to be the person whose name is on that document. I do not think it is right to take that option away from them.

That being said, I also believe that the current lists shouldn't be so restrictive and anyone who can be trusted to properly fill out the paperwork and file it should be able to witness vows and function as an "agent of the state."

Now, THAT being said, you get what you pay for. People (religious or secular) who are professionally trained and possess the right talents and skills can make all the difference in the world when it comes to presiding at a wedding and managing the emotional energy of the day.

[KittyWampus]

16. You may be entitled to do a ceremony but your presence or signature shouldn't have any legal weight

two people joining their households together need to sign a legal contract. That alone should be sufficient in LEGAL terms. And there is zero reason to necessitate someone to officiate other than someone to notarize and then file the legal document with the state.

Since when do two business partners NEED to hold some kind of ceremony after completing a business deal and signing a contract? There might be a custom of going out for a drink. But it's hardly mandatory in legal terms.

If someone wants a secular or religious ceremony, that's a whole other extraneous and personal issue that may be related to the legal contract but is not intrinsic to it.

And MOST people think of getting "Married" as the ceremony held after the contract is signed and filed at the court house.

VERY few people think of getting "Married" as the occasion when you go to the court house and sign a binding legal contract.

Most people who think and plan their weddings are envisioning the ceremony that is optional and which comes after signing the legal contract.

And that ceremony can be secular (judge, ship captain, shaman) or religious (priest, rabbi).

But it is optional and should be an independent in all ways from signing a binding legal contract.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. My signature has no more or less legal weight than does a...

notary (in my state), a judge, a clerk, a captain, a sham, a rabbi, or anyone else on the authorized list. Nor do I think it should. My only argument is that the couple should decide whom they wish to function in this capacity. If that is a member of the clergy they should have that option. See my post above. I actually think the list is too restrictive as is.

[KittyWampus]

20. Thanks! I guess my 2 points (not made very well) is that a ceremony should be optional

and that most people DO want and benefit from even a most basic ceremony and call that ceremony "getting married". Doesn't have to be religious. Secular is still ceremony, too.

In other words, getting married does have a ceremonial aspect for almost everyone.

On the other hand, most see going to the courthouse to file the legal document as just a clerical thing. That's why I prefer to have the word "marriage" taken off that license and "domestic partnership" or "civil union" used instead.

Let "Marriage" designate whatever ceremony (secular or religious) people prefer to have. Even if it's just a nice cozy dinner for two.

Have a great week!

What a nice thing, to preside over happy occasions like ceremonies like weddings.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. Witnessing an exchange and countersigning signatures is a very limited notary act

In three states -- Florida, North Carolina and Maine, I believe -- it actually is a notary act and any notary public can officiate at weddings. Really, all the officiant is doing is taking a jurat.

I would have no problems if clergy were stripped of this very limited power and handing it to notaries. If they want to be a "one stop marriage shop" and be able to officiate a marriage just like they can officiate a wedding, let them get licensed as a notary public.

[Critters2]

21. I disagree. I don't have a lot of time, so I'll make this short.

I believe it is important for a couple's marriage to be recognized by their religious and cultural community, but that the legal wedding is just a civil contract. The two are completely different. The wedding ceremony is the way the couple make that transition in their lives, the way their friends and family acknowledge that change and celebrate it, and the moment when the covenant of that change becomes a covenant with their deity.

But the legal thing is like any other contract, laying out the legal relationship between the couple and the government. It legalizes the change in their lives, but is a completely different matter than the religious/cultural ceremony. The arguments against glbt marriage are nearly all religious arguments. Separating the religious from the civil will remove those arguments, and move us closer to legalizing same sex marriage. I hope. But tying the state and religion in this way is seen as validating the religious anti-gay arguments.

I personally don't think clergy should be expected to sign marriage licenses. That is a function of the state, and for clergy to do it seems a clear violation of the establishment clause and the concept of separation. I'm fine with people with no religious community simply signing a contract at the courthouse. Those who want their marriage also recognized by family, friends, and their cultural or religious community should have a ceremony. But the function of the state should be completely separate from this. i sign licenses, but have an attitude that I'm doing it under protest.

In the eyes of my church, those whom I marry are married, whether I sign a license afterwards or not. This is not just an issue for the glbt community. Last year, I did a wedding for a couple who had been earlier married at the courthouse so that their coming child would be on his father's health insurance, and other benefits. They wanted a religious ceremony, but wanted it to be thoughtfully and carefully designed. Their own pastor turned them away, because they were "already married". I had no problem officiating at their wedding (which was beautiful btw), without signing a license after the fact. The two things are different functions.

I hope, among other things, that people will begin to see the differences in these functions, now that the gay community is calling for marriage equality. I would much rather have couples do the contract signing at the courthouse to be legally married, then come to me or not, depending on whether they want a religious ceremony.

[LostinVA]

22. She has another thread saying most of this -- here in GD

You two agree.

[Critters2]

23. Thanks, Lost. I'll hunt up the other thread. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. We're actually almost saying the same things. The only difference is that...

I believe clergy should remain on the list of those authorized to sign the marriage license as an option to a couple who desires that. I also believe the list is too restrictive and should be expanded. I might be persuaded to change my mind at some point, but right now I can't get beyond my attachment to a person's right to choose. I would rather see more people as an option to signing the license than become more restrictive and say only a clerk can do it.

[Critters2]

26. Yeah, we differ on this one point. I don't want to work for the state in

any way. I think the county clerk should sign the license. I give couples I marry a certificate which I sign. For straight couples, this supplements the legal license. For gay couples, it an acknowledges their wedding, even of the state won't. But, really, I'd like that to be the only certificate I sign. Let the state do the state's job.

But it is a minor point of disagreement. Have a good afternoon, PP! :hug:

[Pacifist Patriot]

28. That is something else we both do. Every couple I marry receives a nice pretty...

certificate I sign. Much more attractive than that ugly piece of bureaucratic paperwork anyway. :)

And they get that whether it is a legal marriage or a "symbolic" one. Both are real marriages in my eyes.

[Critters2]

31. Me too. Now, I need to take communion to nursing home residents.

Have a good one, Patriot!

[ieoeja]

27. Validating and submitting the paperwork is the work you do for the state in return for all those ...

... tax breaks.

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. Bwaa! Tax breaks? I don't get any tax breaks.

The congregation that contracts with me enjoys some tax breaks, but not me. All of my income as a minister and wedding officiant is completely subject to income tax, just like your income.

[Critters2]

32. Tax breaks!

:rofl:

[ieoeja]

36. In that case ...

Validating and submitting the paperwork is the work your employer subcontracts you to the State in return for all those tax breaks your employer enjoys.

Better?

:)

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. Not in my case. The couple pays me to officiate their ceremony, not my congregation.

So it still doesn't work. Sorry!

[Critters2]

38. Yep. And that honorarium is taxable income. nt

[ieoeja]

25. They actually require vows in your state?

I know they don't in Indiana.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. Yeah well, it can be...

"do you want him?"

yeah, sure

"do you want her?"

yeah, okay

Fine, you're married.

But yes, the whole point of an officiant signing the license is as a witness to the declaration of intent to be married. i.e. vows

[ieoeja]

35. Well, as I say, in Indiana it is not required.

We signed. The witnesses signed. The priest signed. He then told us that legally made us married (assuming he would submit the paperwork).

We still had had a marriage ceremony the following day at which the priest officiated. But by then it was all for show.

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. *snort* I just realized my OP says "exchange of wows"

That's one way of putting it.

Anyway, that's undoubtedly my professional and experiential bias showing through. Exchange of vows probably should more technically read "expression or declaration of intent to be married." I don't see why that necessarily has to involve anything more than a signature. Seriously, if we were held to having to say something, how would someone who is mute or had wicked laryngitis on their wedding day get married?

I think in very broad terms when it comes to words and phrases like "ceremony" or "exchange of vows." It can be virtually anything as far as I'm concerned. So, in my opinion, you had two ceremonies. Just very different from one another and both totally cool.

[ChickMagic]

34. I'm ordained to perform weddings

In TX, you just need the group to say, "Okay, he/she can do it". I've got a certificate and everying. Now I just need the vestments. I'm an atheist, so no religious component here. :P