Proposed initiative: Strip clergy of the power to officiate legal marriage

[TechBear_Seattle]

Poll question: Proposed initiative: Strip clergy of the power to officiate legal marriage

The brouhaha over the New Jersey court ruling has once again brought up the lie that legal marriage is a religious institution and that laws mandating equal marriage would, somehow, force religious groups to do something that they don't want to do.

In every state, the officiant of legal marriage has one and only one duty: to countersign the signatures of the people getting married along with a required number of witnesses. It is, essentially, the act of a notary public. I speak from first hand knowledge of this, as I have been officiating at non-religious weddings for several years. There is no legal reason why clergy should have this authority, and a strong argument can be made that this deputizing clergy to be clerks of the court solely because they are clergy is a violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state. An equally strong argument could be made that this limited notary power should properly rest in the hands of notaries public. This is already the case in Florida and Maryland, where the signing of a marriage license by the various parties is nothing more than a jurat (a notarized oath.)

I would therefore propose an initiative to the people: Shall the authority to act as officiant to legal marriage be removed from clergy and given to notaries public?

Clergy would still be authorized to conduct any religious ceremony they and the principles felt was necessary, but no such ceremony would have legal standing. Legal marriage would require the services of a notary public or other clerk of the court to sign and file the marriage license. Clergy can be notaries, of course (it would be unconstitutional to ban them just because they are clergy) and any clergyperson who files the appropriate paperwork etc. can also get the notary authority to legally validate the ceremonies they conduct; legally, however, it would be a separate and entirely secular power and not something inherent to being clergy.

If such an initiative were on your state's ballot, how would you vote? And, much more interesting, why?

:hi:

[hobbit709]

1. In Europe

no church marriage is legal, you have to be married in front of a magistrate first. You can have a church wedding afterwards but it has no legal standing by itself.

[librechik]

7. self delete

[displacedtexan]

2. I attended 2 such weddings in Germany.

About 20 years ago, I was in school in Germany, and I attended both
the church wedding and the civil ceremony of a German couple.

The family explained that the church wedding was for God, and the civil
ceremony was for legal purposes.

I've always thought this was the best way for society to handle marriages.

[MadHound]

3. Ummm, I believe that is how it works already

A couple can have their church wedding, but the actual marriage license which makes it legal has to be signed and notarized by a notary public, which is generally either the pastor or the church secretary, witnessed by two people, generally the best man and bridesmaid, and the marriage license is filed with the county government. This is how it works in Missouri, this may vary elsewhere:shrug: You can have the actual ceremony conducted by whoever you wish, clergy or not. But there has to be a notary public present to officiate the license. I believe that most states follow this practice to one degree or another.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. In most states, no

In the vast majority of states, if not all, clergy have the statutory power to countersign a marriage license solely because they are clergy. Clergy is not necessary, however, as most judges have that power, too. The only states that allow notaries public to actually officiate are Florida, Maine and South Carolina (my previous information incorrect, but I just checked with the National Notary Association); all states require notarized signatures on the marriage license application, which is a different document than the marriage license itself.

It might be that Missouri allows clergy to officiate at a marriage, but still requires a notarized signature on the license itself.

[Bridget Burke]

4. Mexico is another country with civil marriage....

Although many people choose to go to the Church, afterwards.

It's a sane idea.

[geek tragedy]

6. False question. People should have the choice to get

married however they want.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. This would not affect religious ceremonies at all

People would still be free to have or not have a religious ceremony, that would not change one bit.

This would implement only two things: Clergy would not be allowed to take the jurat (legal oath) involved in signing the marriage license, and notaries public would be allowed to conduct that notarial act. That's it.

[geek tragedy]

10. What if the clergyman/woman is also a notary? eom

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. As I said in the OP...

There is no reason why a clergyperson can not also be a notary public, as such a ban would be a violation of the Constitution. (Specifically, the prohibition against there being any kind of religious test to hold any "office of public trust." Notaries public are de facto clerks of the court and, as such, are also holders of an office of public trust.)

HOWEVER, the minister would have to be qualified to hold the position of a notary public, would be required to file the appropriate application with the appropriate government office, would need to obtain status as a notary public and and then adhere to the laws applicable to conducting notarial acts and maintaining status as a notary public. It would not be a power inherent to being clergy, and anything that would disqualify the clergy from being a notary would likewise remove the power to notarize marriage licenses. Two separate authorities: one religious and one civil.

[geek tragedy]

13. If I'm not mistaken, a notary is required for marriage anyways.

Someone has to notarize the marriage license, certificate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. In some states yes, in many states no

In Washington, the process works like this:

1. Couple fills out a marriage license application from one of the state's counties. The parties must either sign in the presence of a county clerk or deputy county clerk (who, in this state, automatically have powers of a notary) or a notary public. The idea here is to verify the identities of the parties and to take two jurats (legal oaths) required by the state: the parties "swear or affirm" that they meet the legal requirements to be married in Washington State; and that they either have no sexually transmissible diseases or, if they do, that said condition is known to the other party.

2. Couple files marriage license application with the county from which it was obtained. They get the marriage license itself, which becomes valid on the third day after it was obtained. (Ie pick it up on a Monday and the earliest the couple can get married is Wednesday. I've heard an amusing story as to why this is, but that can wait.)

3. For 30 days starting the day the license becomes valid, the couple may stand anywhere in Washington State, before any person authorized to conduct a marriage and in the presence of at least two witnesses, and state their intention to live together as a married couple. (Washington requires no more ceremony than that.) The couple and the two witnesses sign the marriage license in the presence of the officiant, who then signs also. Technically speaking, at that moment, the officiant is acting as a notary public who has taken the jurat of the couple being married. No notary public or other clerk of the court -- except the officiant -- is necessary. Under state law, an officiant may be a superior court judge, active or retired, or a member of the clergy. If the license is not used in the time period given, it becomes invalid and the couple will have to file a new application.

4. The marriage is now legal. Officiant takes license and has 30 days, starting from the day it was signed, to file it with the county from which it was obtained.

It is my understanding that most states operate in a similar way. I know for certain that California, Oregon, Idaho and Nevada do.

Another issue would be addressed by such a change in the laws, one that I had overlooked: the problem of defining "clergy." Past court rulings have declared it to be unconstitutional for any law to define who is and who is not clergy of any religion. It would be perfectly legal to claim self-ordination in your own church and start doing marriages. (My own credentials come through the Universal Life Church, which is pretty close to that.) Washington gets around that through RCW 26.04.060:

A marriage solemnized before any person professing to be a minister or a priest of any religious denomination in this state or professing to be an authorized officer thereof, is not void, nor shall the validity thereof be in any way affected on account of any want of power or authority in such person, if such marriage be consummated with a belief on the part of the persons so married, or either of them, that they have been lawfully joined in marriage.

So as long as you claim to be clergy, whether or not you really are, the marriage is valid. This change in the law would make it much easier to prevent fraud and other abuses.

[Tyo]

9. Isn't it the job of the clergy is to bless and sanctify?

Maybe they should stick to what they do best.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. A very silly idea indeed.

It would make getting married more stressful, complicated and time-consuming, cost the state and individuals money, and upset a lot of people, and would do no good whatsoever to anyone.

The only reason anyone is even considering it is because it sends a loud, clear message of "fuck you" to the religious.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. I strongly disagree

With such laws, you and your fiance(e) could walk into any bank with your marriage license, request the services of a notary public, and be married on the spot. How much less stressful could it get?

Also, most states have caps on what a notary can charge. In Washington, it is $5 per signature (I know because, in addition to being a humanist celebrant, I am also a notary public.) If I were to propose such a law in this state, I would place a similar fee on what a notary can charge for a marriage license jurat to, say, $20 per marriage license. Hardly a huge fee.

As for upsetting a lot of people... what is so difficult to comprehend that marriage is and always has been a civil institution in this country? This initiative would only make centuries of fact a bit clearer, and clean up the unconstitutionality of clergy inherently having power to act as agents of the government. If anything, it would free up clergy from possible legal entanglements: they would have no reason to fear refusing to conduct a marriage between any two people. Please, explain how this is a "fuck you" to religious people?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. It's still more fuss.

"With such laws, you and your fiance(e) could walk into any bank with your marriage license, request the services of a notary public, and be married on the spot. How much less stressful could it get?"

*Not* having to walk into a bank etc. Most people would still want to get married in a church anyhow, so letting that get as much of it out of the way as possible makes more sense than not.

[Initech]

15. Better idea: just tell Dobson and Falwell to shut the fuck up!

Wouldn't our lives be far easier if we did that?

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Well, yes, but...

What would be the fun in that? And would you really trust anyone with the power to enforce such an edict? :hi:

[Nikia]

19. Clergy can always choose not to marry a couple

Whether it is because the couple is not actually affiliated with that particuliar religion, one or both of them are breaking some kind of religious rule, they do not believe that the marriage will be successful, or any other reason. There are some clergy who already officiate homosexual unions that are not legally binding. A homoseuxal couple would be free to find such clergy or be married by a judge or other legal officiate.