
Hacking the Law: The Role of the Marriage Officiant in the State of Washington - brudgers
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2015/10/02/10645222.aspx
======
rdancer
The government doesn't create marriage, it merely recognizes it, and provides
useful services like ensuring bigamy or incest doesn't take place. It
surprises no-one that the bride and groom entering (and consummating) the
marriage is the essential part, the ritual is the part that signifies the
marriage has happened, and the particulars of the person presiding over the
ceremony carry no significance at all.

------
geofft
I feel like this is generally in line with estoppel. If you have been acting
like the marriage is valid, you _don 't_ want the law to give an opportunity
for one of the people to say "jk lol that minister was fake" and get out of
their responsibilities, especially if it would let them bypass the division of
property from an actual divorce. While this seems to be codified explicitly
for marriage, my (layman) understanding is that this sort of thing is true in
general: if people have been acting like a certain thing is true, and it would
be unjust to follow the letter of the law retroactively, you don't get to use
the law to facilitate injustice, if it doesn't bring about any justice to you.

New York has a law that you can change your name at any time to anything
simply by using a new name without intent to defraud. There are procedures for
changing your name, including, oddly enough, _restricted_ procedures on how
you can change your last name at marriage (you can't pick a brand new last
name; it has to be one or the other, or a hyphenated or smashed-together
version). But if you just start using a new name, there is the self-
referential authorization to use a new name simply because you're using it
non-fraudulently.

------
blahedo
It's not just Washington; this is basically the same as in Illinois, for
instance. (I performed a wedding for friends this past summer in Chicago, so I
investigated. :) The bit about validity is really a good idea, because it's a
protection for the people getting married.

I think that something like this is true in most states, actually. The
Universal Life Church wouldn't work if it weren't.

~~~
bbanyc
In New York, there's case law that ULC ministers don't meet the statutory
qualifications for a marriage officiant, and therefore marriages in New York
before ULC ministers are invalid.

But the case in point involved a marriage outside the state, invalid under
local law. The city clerk of NYC still registers ULC ministers as officiants
and still accepts marriage licenses from them, so the case law is meaningless
unless someone raises it in the divorce case.

------
MichaelGG
Sounds like this was just passed down without via religious institutions, then
stripped of authority to make it sane for government. Probably no one
bothering to remove the officiant as it doesn't really impact anyone? What
happens if you don't even involve an officiant and just send them a copy of
the form?

------
heydenberk
One of Pennsylvania's few vestiges of Quaker law is the self-uniting
marriage[0]: a couple can enter into marriage simply by mutual consenting to
marry and having two witnesses. I married this way and it was delightfully
civilized.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-
uniting_marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-uniting_marriage)

------
dmckeon
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..."[0]

Why would the state be deciding who is qualified to be an officiant?

For civil purposes, think of the officiant as an additional witness or co-
signer of the license - more like a notary public or master/mistress-of-
ceremony than as someone designated by some external entity to perform
weddings.

For religious purposes, consult your entity, or their designee.

[0] currently contested in Rowan County, Kentucky, sigh.

~~~
MRPockets
The answer lies in your question. State =\= Congress.

~~~
bbanyc
The 14th Amendment has been held to apply the First Amendment against the
states. And even in the likely event that incorporation gets overturned, most
state constitutions have their own establishment clauses.

