Bunny Trails

[Josh]

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.

OK, so let's say I want to have an employee, but not in the eyes of the law. So I will just call this person a "volunteer" and then call the wages paid to him "volunteer love and appreciation free will offerings."

Would that work?

In OUR eyes we consider ourselves employer and employee, despite the absence of any employment license issued by the state... is that perfectly fine and legal? We can be employer and employee in our own eyes (and our religion) but not in the eyes of the state. It isn't really very complicated. And there is nothing illegal about it?

[ohio jones]

Likewise you can call yourself a unicorn if you want. There is nothing illegal about doing that either.

Calling yourself a unicorn isn't illegal, but it's also not truthful. Does truth matter, or just legality?

Representing yourself as a medical doctor is illegal though, if you're not properly qualified and licensed.

Seems to me that an MRS is more similar to an MD than a unicorn.

[ken_sylvania]

No, the state doesn't ask you to do anything. You are free to have whatever kind of religious ceremony you want and not report it to the state. Nor do you need to ever claim to be married when interacting with the state. You can simply tell the state that it is no business of theirs whether or not you are married. The only reason to record your marriage with the state in the form of a state-issued marriage license is to claim the legal benefits of being married. The same legal benefits you want to deny to others.

In Pennsylvania it's illegal for a minister to perform a marriage ceremony if the couple has not obtained a marriage license from the state.

No, it is not.

It simply means the marriage is not legally valid under the laws of PA if they don't FIRST obtain a marriage license.

Ministers are free to perform any ceremonies they wish to perform if no one is seeking a state-issued marriage license.

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.

So, when Moses said it's illegal for a minister to perform a marriage ceremony if the couple has no marriage license, he was obviously using the commonly accepted and legal definition of "marriage." Why did you tell him he was wrong?

[Ken]

So, when Moses said it's illegal for a minister to perform a marriage ceremony if the couple has no marriage license, he was obviously using the commonly accepted and legal definition of "marriage." Why did you tell him he was wrong?

The definition that Moses and the state of Pennsylvania are using is that Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT. Under this definition there is no religious element at all. It is right there in the actual definitions section of PA marriage law.

Is that YOUR understanding of marriage? That is is merely a civil contract like any other civil contract that one can enter into or dissolve as the parties agree? Like a rental contract for an apartment or employment contract?

Or do you have a different definition of the word "marriage" in mind? If you do then you are talking about something different from what is written in Pennsylvania law.

[Josh]

OK, so by that standard, you can't go around saying you're in a civil contract with someone when you actually aren't. That is indeed illegal.

[Ken]

OK, so by that standard, you can't go around saying you're in a civil contract with someone when you actually aren't. That is indeed illegal.

No, you could do that too. It might be lying but not illegal.

What would be illegal is to represent to the state on a legal form with your signature that a marriage contract exists between you and another person when no such contract actually exists. That would be fraud or perjury. And if you made the same representation with your signature on a bank form or some such that would also be fraud and illegal.

But you can lie all you want in ordinary conversation. People do it all the time.

[Josh]

OK, so by that standard, you can't go around saying you're in a civil contract with someone when you actually aren't. That is indeed illegal.

No, you could do that too. It might be lying but not illegal.

It is definitely illegal to misrepresent contracts. For example, if I go around saying I have a contract with you to provide some kind of goods/services, and I don't, that is an element of fraud.

What would be illegal is to represent to the state on a legal form with your signature that a marriage contract exists between you and another person when no such contract actually exists. That would be fraud or perjury. And if you made the same representation with your signature on a bank form or some such that would also be fraud and illegal.

But you can lie all you want in ordinary conversation. People do it all the time.

You can stop using the phrase "marriage contract". Marriage is a thing that predates the concept of "contracts". Marriage does imply a civil contract in some places, just like how "marriage" also implies "a thing that is between two people". That does not mean that ALL marriage is is a "thing between two people"; a seesaw is also a thing between two people, but any similarities between marriage and a seesaw end after that.

In any case, the law is rather clear that it's illegal to claim to be married when you are legally not married. This is something I have actually discussed at length with some fringe type of people who think you shouldn't get a marriage licence to get married. Their reasoning is the same as their reasoning for why they shouldn't have to pay taxes, pay Social Security tax, file tax returns, comply with building codes, and so on and so forth. They have bizarre "sovereign citizen" type of arguments that they don't have to actually comply with any laws they don't want to. But that doesn't change the rather established facts of what is illegal and what is not.

My state hasn't recognised common law marriages formed after 1991 and also only recognised marriages that were legally recognised in another jurisdiction, if they happened out of state. That is not particularly unusual either. There might be some jurisdiction in America where it's legal to represent yourself as married without actually being legally married; I just don't happen to live in one. (Incidentally, the same law also makes it illegal to claim to not be married when you are married, which occasionally comes up as a cause of civil action.)

[Ken]

How do Orthodox and Catholics interpret and apply this NT instruction?

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Having spent a lot of time in Catholic churches I would suggest that lay Catholics generally don't discuss or interpret these sorts of Biblical teachings on their own. They just go along with whatever the church says. Or just ignore the church (i.e. birth control and divorce). That is part of the difference between Catholicism and most Protestant denominations. There is a clear separation between clergy and laity and in Catholicism, church doctrine is the exclusive domain of the clergy.

If you were to press some priest on the subject he would probably cite Cannon Law 1262 which addressed head coverings for both men and women and basically went out of date with Vatican 2. So at this point, removing one's hat in church if you are a man is probably more an issue of church etiquette or tradition than cannon law.

[ohio jones]

You can stop using the phrase "marriage contract". Marriage is a thing that predates the concept of "contracts". Marriage does imply a civil contract in some places, just like how "marriage" also implies "a thing that is between two people". That does not mean that ALL marriage is is a "thing between two people"; a seesaw is also a thing between two people, but any similarities between marriage and a seesaw end after that.

Both of them have their ups and downs.

[Ken]

You can stop using the phrase "marriage contract". Marriage is a thing that predates the concept of "contracts". Marriage does imply a civil contract in some places, just like how "marriage" also implies "a thing that is between two people". That does not mean that ALL marriage is is a "thing between two people"; a seesaw is also a thing between two people, but any similarities between marriage and a seesaw end after that.

Thank you for making my actual point for me. We both agree that the word "marriage" has various meanings and different people are free to interpret the word differently.

However, if you and others here want to cite Pennsylvania law on the subject of marriage. Then the word "marriage" does, in fact, mean a civil contract. That is the actual legal definition of marriage under Pennsylvania law that is relevant to all the different provisions of law that you are citing. And that is the ONLY definition of marriage that is relevant to any provision of the Pennsylvania marriage code.