Bunny Trails

[ohio jones]

I think Ken got lost in the produce department.

[Ken]

That's bonkers. PA Title 23 specifically says a minister is not allowed to perform a marriage if the couple chooses not to obtain a state-issued marriage license.

It's also illegal for a couple in PA to get married without a license.

No, you are misreading the regulation. If you read up to the top of the regulation, the entire section refers to:

(a) General rule.--The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons that produce a marriage license issued under this part:

In other words, the entire set of regulations is only applicable to the process of "solemnizing marriages" that produce a marriage license issued by the state.

If neither the minister nor the couple are interested in obtaining a state-issued marriage license than none of these regulations have any relevance whatsoever and they can do anything they want. The state only regulates marriage insofar as it applies to marriages that produce a marriage license. No marriage license, no regulation.

What is happening is that in PA the state is authorizing ministers to act on its behalf and generate valid marriage licenses issued by the that are signed by the minister and probably also witnesses. As such, the state has written regulations to ensure that the process is followed according to the regulations including first applying for a marriage license. Part of this is because the state has a mandatory 3-day waiting period from the time that you request the license until you are legally able to get married. Unlike say Nevada where you can do it instantly. That is why the two regulations you copied exist. To make sure that the minister and couple follow the 3-day mandatory waiting period. Which again, only applies if you are actually trying to get a state-issued marriage license. If you aren't none of it has any relevance.

Ken, that is patently false. #1 - If this section only applies where the couple has a marriage license, then the provision prohibiting ministers from officiating a marriage where no license has been obtained makes no sense. If the provision only applies if the couple has a marriage license, then ipso facto the minister could not possibly ever violate that provision.
#2 - PA does not authorize ministers to generate marriage licenses.

No, what I wrote is true. Any minister or anyone else can perform any sort of religious ceremony they want in PA without restriction or regulation from the state. And if you want to call that ceremony a marriage ceremony you are perfectly free to do so. Under the First Amendment the State has no role in regulating any aspect of any religious ceremony or practice.

A minister is perfectly free to marry anyone without a marriage license. It just won't be a valid marriage in the eyes of the state. So if you were to be married under such circumstance you could honestly say "we are married in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the state" And that would be perfectly fine. And then you would be free to live your lives as you saw fit.

The only time state law or regulation kicks in is if the couple is seeking a state marriage license and seeks to have their marriage recognized by the state. If you want that then you have to follow the state's rules. If you don't want the marriage license or to have your marriage recognized by the state then you are free to do anything you want.

Note: I didn't mean to say that ministers create the marriage license. They obviously don't print it up themselves. But they act on behalf of the state when they sign the marriage license instead of having some state official like a magistrate sign it. Which gives effect to the license. An unsigned marriage license is not valid. It is just a piece of paper.

The only thing the regulations you cite apply to is the issuance of state marriage licenses. If that is not your objective then you and your minister can do anything you want.

[Josh]

No, Ken, it’s illegal for a minister to perform a marriage ceremony without a marriage licence. What is so hard to understand about this?

(c) Marriage license needed to officiate.--No person or religious organization qualified to perform marriages shall officiate at a marriage ceremony without the parties having obtained a marriage license issued under this part.

By your argument, Amos Miller can produce and sell raw milk across state lines if he just calls it “raw milk not sanctioned by the state”. Right?

[MaxPC]

This is an interesting discussion regarding marriage, licenses, and ministers. Apparently in Alabama, none of it is required. There have been changes to the rules in other states too. This article appears to be fairly recent and lists the requirements in each state.
State-by-state requirements for marriage licenses, including where to get them, waiting periods, and how long licenses are good for.

[Ken]

No, Ken, it’s illegal for a minister to perform a marriage ceremony without a marriage licence. What is so hard to understand about this?

(c) Marriage license needed to officiate.--No person or religious organization qualified to perform marriages shall officiate at a marriage ceremony without the parties having obtained a marriage license issued under this part.

By your argument, Amos Miller can produce and sell raw milk across state lines if he just calls it “raw milk not sanctioned by the state”. Right?

The confusion here is that the state of Pennsylvania defines marriage as a civil contract. That is the definition they are using in the regulations that you cite. Read the entire statute including the definitions

§ 1102. Definitions.

The following words and phrases when used in this part shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

. . .

"Marriage." A civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife.

"Marriage license" or "license." A license to marry issued under this part.

If you want to enter into a civil contract that is recognized by the state then yes, you have to follow all of the provisions for obtaining marriage licenses and such. And everywhere in the law where they are referring to marriage, they are referring to this civil contract and some other religious bonding.

If you want to do anything else involving a civil contract. Let's say you want to have a religious ceremony that we will call a wedding. In which you are religiously joined with another person. And you have no interest in having this ceremony legally recognized as a the type of civil contract that the state calls a "marriage". Then you can do whatever you want and call it whatever you want. It just wont be a civil contract under the laws of the state. And the state won't recognize it as a marriage.

[Josh]

According to the law in both my state and PA, it is:

- Illegal to get married and call it a marriage if there is no marriage licence.

- Illegal to represent yourself as married when you are not legally married.

By extension, it is also illegal to tell the state you are married if you are not.

I'm not sure what is hard for you to grasp about this.

[Ken]

According to the law in both my state and PA, it is:

- Illegal to get married and call it a marriage if there is no marriage licence.

- Illegal to represent yourself as married when you are not legally married.
By extension, it is also illegal to tell the state you are married if you are not.

I'm not sure what is hard for you to grasp about this.

It is illegal to represent yourself to the state as LEGALLY married under the laws of the state if you are not. That much is true. Likewise it would also probably be illegal to represent yourself as legally married in any sort of legal transaction where being legally married has a bearing on the situation. Because you would be lying about the existence of a civil contract that does not, in fact exist. The correct answer and description would be to say you are married in the eyes of your religion but not in the eyes of the state or some such.

You are, in fact, free to form any type of partnership that you want with anyone you want and call it anything you want. If you want to have a religious ceremony that you call a wedding you are absolutely free to do that. And you can have anyone you want officiate such a ceremony. And if you want to call yourselves married or husband and wife you are also free to do that. It just doesn't have any legal effect. Likewise you can call yourself a unicorn if you want. There is nothing illegal about doing that either.

My whole point is that this is exactly what you are expecting gay people to do if you outlaw gay marriage. For what reason, I'm not sure. According to the state, marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and not anything religious. That is the actual legal definition of marriage that we are discussing here. A civil contract. And if two people choose to enter into their own private civil contract I'm not sure what business or interest it is of yours.

[Josh]

No, Ken, that’s not what the law says. It simply says you can’t be married without a marriage certificate first. And it says you can’t represent yourself as married to others if you aren’t legally married.

Your argument is similar to ones tax protesters use and other cranks like sovereign citizens.

[Moses]

According to the law in both my state and PA, it is:

- Illegal to get married and call it a marriage if there is no marriage licence.

- Illegal to represent yourself as married when you are not legally married.
By extension, it is also illegal to tell the state you are married if you are not.

I'm not sure what is hard for you to grasp about this.

It is illegal to represent yourself to the state as LEGALLY married under the laws of the state if you are not. That much is true. Likewise it would also probably be illegal to represent yourself as legally married in any sort of legal transaction where being legally married has a bearing on the situation. Because you would be lying about the existence of a civil contract that does not, in fact exist. The correct answer and description would be to say you are married in the eyes of your religion but not in the eyes of the state or some such.

You are, in fact, free to form any type of partnership that you want with anyone you want and call it anything you want. If you want to have a religious ceremony that you call a wedding you are absolutely free to do that. And you can have anyone you want officiate such a ceremony. And if you want to call yourselves married or husband and wife you are also free to do that. It just doesn't have any legal effect. Likewise you can call yourself a unicorn if you want. There is nothing illegal about doing that either.

My whole point is that this is exactly what you are expecting gay people to do if you outlaw gay marriage. For what reason, I'm not sure. According to the state, marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and not anything religious. That is the actual legal definition of marriage that we are discussing here. A civil contract. And if two people choose to enter into their own private civil contract I'm not sure what business or interest it is of yours.

In other words, in many situations it's not illegal to lie and tell people you are married if in fact you aren't. Just like it's not illegal for Ken and Josh to claim that they know what they are talking about even when they make claims that are flatly contradicted by the evidence and the law.

[Ken]

According to the law in both my state and PA, it is:

- Illegal to get married and call it a marriage if there is no marriage licence.

- Illegal to represent yourself as married when you are not legally married.
By extension, it is also illegal to tell the state you are married if you are not.

I'm not sure what is hard for you to grasp about this.

It is illegal to represent yourself to the state as LEGALLY married under the laws of the state if you are not. That much is true. Likewise it would also probably be illegal to represent yourself as legally married in any sort of legal transaction where being legally married has a bearing on the situation. Because you would be lying about the existence of a civil contract that does not, in fact exist. The correct answer and description would be to say you are married in the eyes of your religion but not in the eyes of the state or some such.

You are, in fact, free to form any type of partnership that you want with anyone you want and call it anything you want. If you want to have a religious ceremony that you call a wedding you are absolutely free to do that. And you can have anyone you want officiate such a ceremony. And if you want to call yourselves married or husband and wife you are also free to do that. It just doesn't have any legal effect. Likewise you can call yourself a unicorn if you want. There is nothing illegal about doing that either.

My whole point is that this is exactly what you are expecting gay people to do if you outlaw gay marriage. For what reason, I'm not sure. According to the state, marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and not anything religious. That is the actual legal definition of marriage that we are discussing here. A civil contract. And if two people choose to enter into their own private civil contract I'm not sure what business or interest it is of yours.

In other words, in many situations it's not illegal to lie and tell people you are married if in fact you aren't. Just like it's not illegal for Ken and Josh to claim that they know what they are talking about even when they make claims that are flatly contradicted by the evidence and the law.

Words have multiple meanings. If two people represent that they have entered into a legally binding civil marriage contract under the laws of some state when they have not, in fact, done so. Then they would be lying. And if they were making such as representation to the government or say a mortgage company on some sort of legally binding form that they put their signature on, that would be illegal.

But if they want to represent to others that they have undertaken some religious ceremony that they call a wedding. And that in THEIR eyes they consider themselves married despite the absence of any marriage license issued by their state. Then that is perfectly fine and legal. They are married in their own eyes and perhaps the eyes of their religion but not the eyes of the state. It really isn't very complicated. And there is nothing illegal about it.