Religion

Who Gets To Decide Where You Go In The End?

port1080.

Posted to Religion on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:16:57 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

On Saturday, October 13th, Jeanea Irvin was shot to death on the streets of Chester, PA. Although the violent murder was (sadly) in itself not all that exceptional, what came after has developed into a religious controversy. Irvin's husband, Timothy A. Boyer, is Muslim, and wished to bury his wife in an Islamic ceremony. Irvin's parents, who are Christian, wished for a Christian service.

Normally this would be an open and shut case - spouses are typically allowed to arrange for whatever funeral services they desire. This case, however, was complicated by the fact that while Irvin and Boyer had taken vows in a Muslim religious ceremony, they had not yet filed the legal paperwork to get an official marriage license from the state. Due to this lack of legal standing on the part of Boyer, Irvin's parents decided to go ahead with their plans for a Christian burial service and have their daughter interred according to their wishes. This action was immediately challenged in court.

Boyer filed for an emergency stay of the funeral proceedings, but was denied because of his lack of legal standing. According to Chancery Court Vice Chancellor John W. Noble:

As such, he does not have the right to dictate or determine the proper process for the funeral, and that then passes to the surviving parents to decide how to arrange for things, which, as I understand it, there is no disagreement with that

Noble generally stayed away from the religious aspect of the controversy, simply focusing on a narrow legal interpretation of the law. This did not sit well with Ismaa'eel Hackett, director and religious adviser of the North American Islamic Federation. Hackett filed the petition for Boyer (as Boyer is currently in prison awaiting trial on drug charges). In the petition he argued that religious marriages should receive the same respect as government sanctioned ones. According to Hackett:

This is a sad day for every citizen of the United States...The court had a responsibility to hold up the Constitution of the United States, which protects all human and civil rights...When you take that away, that becomes a sad, sad day for the people

With the legal arguments settled, Ivin was laid to rest in a Christian service at the Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, DE, just before noon on Friday.

Tags: written by Port1080, edited by 1fastdog, Islam, Religion, Controversy, funeral, law (all tags)

This story: 8 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
4

procedure

gerrymander.

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:57:08 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

This case, however, was complicated by the fact that while Irvin and Boyer had taken vows in a Muslim religious ceremony, they had not yet filed the legal paperwork to get an official marriage license from the state.

I've been to Catholic, Jewish and various Protestant denomination weddings, and in every case the officiant required the secular component to be concluded prior to the ceremony. A certificate signed by the officiant was then forwarded back to the state as verification.

So, why the breakdown here? Is this just a one-time failure to follow procedure, or is it one more example of Muslims trying to get preferential treatment, as North American Islamic Federation director Ismaa'eel Hackett suggests in the third link?

5

^ 4

Re: procedure

port1080.

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:19:26 AM EST

none

A certificate signed by the officiant was then forwarded back to the state as verification. At a (Protestant) wedding in Pennsylvania where I served as a best man, the bride and groom had to get the wedding license before the ceremony, but they also had to sign a related document after the ceremony and then mail it (or hand deliver it) back to the county courthouse - if they hadn't sent it back in, the marriage wouldn't have been considered valid (it was considered proof that the ceremony took place, I guess). At my own wedding (also Protestant, but in a different county in Pennsylvania - in PA the marriage laws vary by county), we had to have the marriage license in hand before the wedding, but we didn't have to mail anything back - they just took your word for it that you would have a valid ceremony once you got the license. I don't know what the rules were for the bride and groom in this case, but considering the wide variety of local laws in PA I can see how they could have made an honest mistake.

6

^ 5

Re: procedure

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:12:07 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

I can see how they could have made an honest mistake
That's why it's always good to have a checklist so you don't leave out a step. Here's what my checklist said:

I. Requirements for an American to Marry in Korea

   1. Proof of U.S. Citizenship, such as a Birth Certificate, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, Naturalization Certificate or U.S. passport.
   2. A completed Affidavit of Eligibility for Marriage. (EA Form 737-E).  (4 Copies).
   3. A completed Report and Certificate of Marriage.  (EA Form 736-E).  (3 Originals).  
   4. Proof of identity: for example, a driver's license, military I.D., etc.
   5. Proof of termination of any prior marriage(s), including an original or certified copy of a divorce decree, annulment or death certificate for your previous spouse.
   6. If the American Citizen is under the age of 18, written permission to marry from both parents is required.

II.  Requirements for the Korean Partner

   1. Three copies in Korean and one in English of the Family Census Register (Hojuk Dungbon) issued within three months of the proposed date of marriage.  This will include Proof of Termination of any Prior Marriage(s).
   2. Valid Korean identification card (Jumin Deungnok Jeung) and name stamp (Tojang).
   3. If the Korean spouse is under the age of 20, written permission to marry from both parents is required.

IV. Getting Married in Korea

         1. Gather the documents listed above for each partner. Be sure to bring four completed copies of the Affidavit of Eligibility for Marriage (EA Form 737-E), three originals of the Report and Certificate of Marriage (EA Form 736-E) and documents required to get married.  (Do not sign any documents before you get in the Legal Office)
         2. Take the completed Affidavit of Eligibility for Marriage (EA Form 737-E) and Report and Certificate of Marriage (EA Form 736-E) to the Legal Office to be notarized.
         3. OR - You can bring all of the documents listed above for each partner to the Embassy.  The embassy will check all of your documents and notarize your Affidavit of Eligibility for Marriage.  The total fee for the notarization is $90 (no charge for military members).
         4. Take the 4 notarized copies of Affidavit of Eligibility for Marriage along with 3 copies of completed Report and Certificate of Marriage and W10,000 to your local ward office (Gu Cheong) for approval and signature by a Korean government official.
         5. Finally, bring the two copies of the Report and Certificate of Marriage signed at the ward office to the Embassy for authentication. The Embassy does not charge service members for this authentication. Make sure to take your military ID.

So, yeah. I find it hard to sympathize with the tiny amount of red tape that Irvin and Boyer had to contend with.

1

Re: Who Gets To Decide Where You Go In The End?

port1080.

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:10:41 AM EST

4.50 (astute, interesting)

This sucks for Boyer, but the judge made the right decision, without a doubt.  This is why we should have two separate institutions - religious marriage (which has no force of law, but can be carried out with whatever restrictions your particular church wishes) and civil unions (which anyone can get, for whatever reason).  These two institutions should have nothing to do with each other - one should be done by a religious figure, the other granted by a religiously neutral state employee.  If what we now call marriage was clearly divided into these two institutions, people wouldn't just assume that because they got married by a religious leader, that they are married in the eyes of the state (something that's easy to assume, and more than a little confusing - after all, even if you do it right, unless you're married by a judge in most states your marriage license isn't valid until the ceremony is carried out by a "recognized religious official" - is that really something we want the state deciding?).  The law needs clarity here, not the half-muddled mix of religious law and state law that we currently have.

2

^ 1

Re: Who Gets To Decide Where You Go In The End?

dgraham.

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:54:58 AM EST

3.00 (interesting)

I agree completely. But then that raises issues how about how inclusive should secular marriage be? And if it's all inclusive, why bother having it, not just removing marriage from legal discourse?

3

^ 2

Re: Who Gets To Decide Where You Go In The End?

port1080.

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:14:58 AM EST

4.00 (informative)

There are two questions here:  first, "Should anyone be allowed to form a legal domestic partnership?", and second, "Is there any advantage to having this institution if anyone is allowed to enter into it?"  I think the answer is "yes" to both questions.  I see no reason that civil unions need to be based on love or sex (although I would limit them to being between just two people, and only allow people to be in one at a time).  Say two sisters are in their 70s, are widowed, and live together.  Under current law they have relatively limited rights and would have to draw up a living will, give each other power of attorney, and so on, to even approximate the sort of rights that a spouse has towards his or her partner is a marriage.  Allowing civil unions would wrap up all those considerations into one legal action (getting the civil union) and would allow a person to say "from a legal standpoint, I implicitly trust this person to act on my behalf".  Right now the only real way to do that is through marriage - but if civil unions were allowed (and their context was divorced from sex, love or any religious meaning), these advantages could be made more widely available.  This is why we do need some sort of state sanctioned institution, though - there are many good reasons to give someone all the legal rights that married spouses currently have, and if we do away with that institutions entirely (from a legal standpoint), then we're back to having to draw up five or ten separate documents to try to approximate those rights.

7

^ 3

Re: Who Gets To Decide Where You Go In The End?

dgraham.

Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:03:56 AM EST

none

That's an interesting point that I've not heard before. So, it's essentially based in convenience?

8

^ 7

Re: Who Gets To Decide Where You Go In The End?

port1080.

Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:19:40 AM EST

none

So, it's essentially based in convenience?


A combination of convenience and basic civil rights concerns.  There are some advantages (like making medical decisions, for example) that we only give to spouses and parents.  I'd say it's discrimination against unmarried people to say that they can only gain the advantages of having a proxy make decisions for them by getting married.  To take another example - social security benefits can be extended to a spouse, but not to a platonic live-in dependent.  Part of the reason that marriage seems so "natural" is that we legally discourage people from engaging in any other sort of living arrangement.

This story: 8 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment