Having recently gotten married in PA, I can see the judge's point. The law (which is widely posted around the county office where you have to go to get the license, and is also in the documents you sign) says that the marriage must be officiated either by a judge or a minister of a recognized faith (although they law is a bit vague on who does the recognizing, the way some of the warnings are written you get the clear impression that this phrase was meant to combat ULC-like "pastors" from marrying folks). I can kind of see the point, but on the other hand I think it's a bit nit-picky. Many faiths (the Amish, for example) don't really have ordained ministers - everyone's a lay pastor. If I was getting married, if I had issues with using a traditional minister I'd probably just go before the JP (something that is legal in PA - the state definitely doesn't require a religious component) before I used a ULC/like officiant, but I really don't see why that shouldn't be an option. All the heavy lifting (paperwork, etc) is already taken care of at the county office one way or another - all the pastor does is sign and then you mail that in. Given that, I don't see what the big deal is. My guess is that the judge felt sympathetic for the couple and used the law to give them an easy out. Hopefully it won't set too much precedent, but I guess only time will tell...
Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.
2
 1
|
Re: PA Marriage Ban Extends Beyond Homosexuality
Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:48:15 PM EST
|
"midnight ceremony Aug. 24, 2006, in their home while a friend, who had obtained an Internet ordination, officiated."
Makes me think some, or all of the people involved in this were drunk or high. Or both. I know there is supposed to be a several day waiting period/drying out period before you get your marriage license from the clerk, but perhaps they got it anyway the same day and then this happened.
The whole thing just seems crazy to me.
Spread it on!
5
1
|
ironic
Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:16:52 AM EST
|
It's ironic to me that the state founded by a Quaker doesn't have a statutory exception for them. My state (Virginia, not known for its accepting views as a whole) has one, and I suspect we Quakers have something to do with that.
I realize that from what you say of the PA law, a judge could do it instead, but it seems a shame that the validity of a Quaker ceremony (which uses no ministers, since we don't have any) isn't recognized there the way it is here.
Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
6
5
|
Re: ironic
Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:36:25 AM EST
|
It's ironic to me that the state founded by a Quaker doesn't have a statutory exception for them. My state (Virginia, not known for its accepting views as a whole) has one, and I suspect we Quakers have something to do with that.
I was under the impression that PA let Quakers and those without formal leaders to allow people to marry themselves. See Title 23 - Chapter 15 - Section 1503 of the PA Code:
(b) Religious organizations.--Every religious society,
religious institution or religious organization in this
Commonwealth may join persons together in marriage when at least
one of the persons is a member of the society, institution or
organization, according to the rules and customs of the society,
institution or organization.
and this new amendment:
(b) Marriage performed by parties.--If the marriage was
solemnized by the parties themselves, the original certificate
shall be signed by the parties to the marriage, attested by two
witnesses and retained by the parties contracting the marriage.
The duplicate certificate shall be signed by the parties to the
marriage, attested by the same two witnesses and returned for
recording within ten days to the court issuing the license.
If the first passage wasn't good enough for religious societies such as the Amish and Quakers to marry or self-marry their members then the second part should do the trick. If you're using the second does that mean all you have to do to nullify an ill advised marriage is kill off the signing witnesses?
Spread it on!
I nominate Lou to be our site chaplain. If we're Lou's congregation then Lou can technically perform legal marriages under this decision.
It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.
4
3
|
Re: Minister Lou
Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:59:14 PM EST
|
Is that a good thing? If he has no congregation then he can marry people, but they can get the certificate annulled without a hassle if it does not work out. It's the best of both worlds.
But, hell, if he wants to, sure, he can be the site's chaplain. Just so long as he is cool with all of us calling at 3am with our personal problems.
Spread it on!
