A religious ceremony of marriage is not a legal marriage

[Peacetrain]

or civil union.

Not until that union has been filed at the court house. A religious ceremony gives you no protections under law.In other words the only legal marriages are civil unions.


This in not an op on any one side or another, just a clarification of legal standing. Seems to be some real confusion on that issue.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Absolutely right - and so the UCC and MCC, among others, have been doing gay marriages

for decades; but none of them are legal (excepting, obviously, those that have been in those few areas in which they are legal).

Also why elderly people sometimes opt to have only the religious vows of marriage, and not do the legal stuff, to protect their assets and whatnot.

Which makes it even more atrocious that anyone could be against legal marriage of gay couples - assuming that any law that legalized it also made clear that religious institutions are not required to marry anyone they don't want to (a freedom that all religious institutions have now, anyway - anyone religious leader can deny religious vows to anyone they want, for any reason they want; the government, however, as far as I know, cannot deny it to anyone who shows up at the courthouse (unless, obviously, there is some legal issue, like the girl is nine, or the man is already married, and so on)).

[Peacetrain]

2. As a UCC, unless in a state such as Mass, where you can

file for a civil union after the religious union, no UCC religious celebration is legal, unless filed. Religious marriages are promises before God, but have no legal standing, till filed and then basically as a civil union.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. Yes, I know. I thought I was clear on that.

[Peacetrain]

5. yes you were, I was just agreeing with you

[LiberalFighter]

9. People are too blind with rage to see the facts.

I wonder how many religions allow a couple to be married in their church if neither are of that faith?

I wonder how many churches perform the marriage ceremony knowing that the bride is pregnant. Considering that they most likely do not condone sex outside the marriage?

I wonder how many churches perform the marriage ceremony knowing that the bride and/or groom had been previously married and had sexual relations while still married to their previous partners?

[htuttle]

4. And yet even a secular marriage license requires a 'solemnization' ceremony

My long-time (16 years so far) S.O. and I got legally married this summer, and found that if we didn't want to pay a judge a couple of hundred bucks for the privilege of getting married in the courtroom, we had to find a religious leader to sign the document. The State gets to decide which religious leaders are valid for this, too. At least that's how it is in Wisconsin.

What we ended up doing was what a lot of people have been starting to do -- we had one of our family members get ordained online at the ULC and sign the license.

But for what is SUPPOSED to be a secular license, it seems pretty ridiculous that there is a 'solemnization' requirement at all. Why should a couple have to hire a witch doctor of any kind to wave their magic wand over the thing as a requirement of what is essentially a state property-sharing contract?

[Peacetrain]

6. Licensing, just like plumbers

You have to be licensed to unite two people for purposes of shared legal standing. Unlicensed documenters of marriage contracts have no legal standing

EDIT...they don't have to add anything for solemnization..that is a tradition more or less. Most people expect it, because getting married in 99.9% of the times is an emotional event, not pragmatic, so there is this expectation of something to acknowledge that emotional tie. But not needed at all.

[LiberalFighter]

10. They charge an awful lot for just a couple of minutes.

Here is the relevant Wisconsin Code for the license itself

765.15 Fee to county clerk. Each county clerk shall receive as a fee for each license granted the sum of $49.50, of which $24.50 shall become a part of the funds of the county, and $25 shall be paid into the state treasury. The county shall use $20 of the amount that it retains from each license fee only for expenses incurred under s. 767.405. The county may, but is not required to, use any or all of the remainder of the amount that it retains for education, training, or services related to domestic violence. Each county board may increase the license fee of $49.50 by any amount, which amount shall become a part of the funds of the county. The clerk shall also receive a standard notary fee of 50 cents for each license granted which may be retained by the clerk if operating on a fee or part fee basis, but which otherwise shall become part of the funds of the county.

Best to research the counties to find which if any has the lowest fee. It is ridiculous for any county to charge more than the $49.50.

Dane County charges $115 just for the license itself. And it must be in cash.


As for the person officiating the marriage here is something worth considering:

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. The following are authorized to be officiating persons:

(3) The 2 parties themselves, by mutual declarations that they take each other as husband and wife, in accordance with the customs, rules and regulations of any religious society, denomination or sect to which either of the parties may belong.

[htuttle]

11. That's only the license -- it doesn't cover the cost of having a judge officiate the marriage.

For example, retired judges charge from $120-$200, even if you go down to their offices for it.

Regarding the 'self officiation' clause -- we looked into that, but were warned by the county clerk that only certain religious sects are allowed to do so.

As the regulations read:
"...in accordance with the customs, rules and regulations of any religious society, denomination or sect to which either of the parties may belong."

'Atheist' doesn't appear to be one of them, according to the clerk who sold us our license. That's what kind of pissed us off.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Something to work on. Eventually it will happen.

I saw online where a registered officiant that charged $300 in Ohio.

[whirlygigspin]

7. Reality strikes again

You are quite correct.

bravo!

[LiberalFighter]

8. And the person officiating has to be authorized by the state.

[EFerrari]

12. I think the confusion is that people are mixing up civil law and church law.

Two different systems of law and legality. For the STATE to recognize a marriage, a marriage must be registered under Civil law.

[verges]

13. Thank heavens for this thread!

I spent at least an hour last night trying to defend this stance and suggesting that the best solution is for states to get out of the Marraige business altogether (replaced by CU's {or some such thing} for ALL couples) on another thread. I felt felt like I had sugggested genocide!!

With (I think) seventeen states with Constitutional amendments banning gay "marraige" in one form or another, it just seems to make more sense to change the approach to secure legal rights. Reduce Marraige to an optional religious status.