submitter: The judge opined: "It makes a mockery out of the whole marriage system,"

submitter fails at reading the article. The Judge said not such thing. It was the erstwhile bride.

The Judge actually did a reasonable job at steering clear of entanglements. She found the "minister" was not part of a "regularly established church or congregation," which was the statutory requirement.

So you on-line ministers better start gathering a flock!

Enough said

bearinewsteam: I have been married for 17 years and really believed in it.....that is until I cought my wife in bed with her fisherman friend last thursday night........(guess there's a joke in here)

trippdogg: The judge is an assclown. This issue has already been reviewed all the way up to the Supreme Court and there is absolutely no precedent for his ruling. The problem with the law is the phrase "regularly established church or congregation", any definition of which comes in direct conflict with the First Amendment right guaranteeing freedom of religion.

I think the best solution to any question of First Amendment issues is just to remove all religious privileges, rights, and benefits, legally speaking. Really make no laws about the establishment of religion, rather than the mess of sorta-not-really ones that currently exist.

While it's a First Amendment issue as this judge worded it, it'd be entirely in keeping with the First to remove the right of any religious organization to officiate.

I get it now. You need to provide proof of pedophilia, in order to perform marriages, right?

A ULC ordained minister performed my wedding ceremony, but my wife and I still had to sign the marriage license stating we were willing entering the marriage of our own free will. The court clerk also checked our IDs and had us sign a statement that we weren't already married. So why should I need a third party to perform a ritual before the contract becomes legal?

BTW - I also have ULC ordination, as well as being a Meti medicine practitioner. The earth and sky make up my church, and the people of the world are all members of my congregation. Perhaps the state of Pennsylvania would like to try its hand at defining religious tenets next . . .

Well, tarnation. I was ordained by the Universal Life Church in the early eighties. A lot of my friends wishing to get married did not have affiliation with any of the local churches, and thus needed something better than running off to some "Chapel of Love Casino" out in Nevada, married by someone pulled from the yellow pages. My license provided them with a place close to home to exchange vows (more family and friends able to witness and share in the event), and presided over by someone they knew and trusted. The couples were free to have the ceremony with their own belief structure in mind. Each ceremony was unique, creative, and incredibly cool. I don't know about this 50% national success rate, but with my 32 and 1 record, I don't see any mockery being made with my ULC ordination.

/Opened an A's-Yankees game once.
//Frederika Von Stade sang "Ave Maria" in another. WAAAY cool.

FTFA: people who can officiate are: "priests or rabbis of a "regularly established church or congregation."
And since the Supreme Court decided years ago that the government isn't capable of determining what is and what isn't a church or congregation or even what a religion is (except for tax purposes a la the Hubbardites), this ruling will go down.

/I married 2 good friends in a bar 2 years ago. Good times.

Gwendolyn: shanec2000: Bishniak:
Did one on the bridge of the Enterprise, we past Anniv #2, have a child and a house

1701?

Actually it's the NC-1701C. That was one of my favorite shows in Vegas.

The one that was lost at Narendra III? Kind of an obscure ship.

Shvetz: I get it now. You need to provide proof of pedophilia, in order to perform marriages, right?

No, that only gets you free room and board at a special county hotel.

I live in a state where common law marriage is recognized, so I'm getting a kick out of this.
Seriously, don't need a witness, sign the certificate yourself. even allow first cousins to marry.

/no, it's not arkansas
//but borders kansas

Where is the church of your spaghetti god now?!

No, really.. There are a lot of people that were married from online judges since that came out. It would cause rather a lot of mayhem is this went federal.

In order to be married, participants still must go to the state and file a bunch of papers, signed & noted. Regardless of who does the ceremony, once you hand it into the state, it can be proven in court that it was an intentional marriage. These idiots got married & made a mockery of online judges, but they'll still be technically divorced.

If my brother can't marry me (to my current husband), then I'm not going to bother getting married.

Thorak: Because otherwise anybody could marry their friends when they're drunk, and it would be easy to find disreputable people to try and marry someone to you when they're drunk out of their mind. It's a matter of earning the trust and position of respect to have that right.

It seems strange to argue that public policy requires a seminary education, a worshiping congregation, or a judicial appointment in order to be able to tell when two people are drunk or not. And it also seems strange to expect that a priest, a minister, or a judge is in a good enough position to judge that for themselves. More than a few grooms wake up after their bachelor party still drunk and get married without their priest saying a word. My dad once told me that when he was best man for his brother he had to physically hold his brother upright at the altar on the day of his wedding. Priest didn't say a thing.

The fact is, if two people got married while blitzed they have a judicial remedy, they can get the marriage annulled. This is the same judicial remedy sought in the case in the article. It is redundant protection.

Gecko Gingrich: Just because society respects someone, doesn't mean I have to, or that I have to pick someone of respect to say to me and someone else, "I now pronounce you man and wife."

If you can prove that "you were not of fit mind" (ie, drunk) or coerced, then a contract is quite easy to get annulled.

Proving it can be quite the trick. Especially if you don't realize how stupid it was for a couple days.

Yes, *that* officiant can decide that *that* officiant won't marry you, but he or she cannot decide that you can't get married.

So what? That hasn't been an argument that anybody but you's been attacking, and it has no relevance to my judge analogy.

In fact, once you've been sentenced by one judge, you need another to appeal you. Much the way that once you've been married by someone, you need a judge to divorce you.

Anyone from Colorado here? It used to be that any adult could perform marriages there, not sure if that still is the case.

This Summer, I got married by a friend of mine who did the online ordination thing, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/Ya, Rly
//We're non-theists anyway
///Several guests said that he did a much better job than any minister they'd seen, including ones at very, very expensive weddings

prjindigo: I wonder if the judge realizes that the issuance of licensing for preachers to marry people who have to have a separate license to even be married when the legal system says that the marriage license IS the marriage is a duplicity of taxation that also aggregates to TAXATION OF A CHURCH.




An oldie but a goodie.

I have been ordained a minister of the Universal Life Church since 1999, I didnt want to pay for a better title like Pope or something.. whaa whaa whaaa whaaaaaaa

Damn, now I'll have to go to the fall back plan of getting the 1-day justice of the peace license for $50 just to marry people.

Any word on Maple Story marriages?

Jsc810:
You can perform your own ceremony in Colorado, no preacher needed.
So anyone can be the "celebrant", you just sign on the line as "self performed"

/just got a marriage license
//getting married the 30th
///third times a mockery charm

Gecko Gingrich: The question you answered was: Can someone explain to me what interest the Government has in knowing who is married to whom.

So they can pay out the appropriate benefits to those who fit into the categories they want to promote.

Unfortunately for the non-breeders, no one cares about you except you. (I'm a non-breeder, easy to tell by my postings)

Societal welfare has passed by the wayside 30 years ago. It's more about pandering to the right group of people while taking contributions from the rich group of people.

//If there was an alternative to the current situation, something with substance and staying power, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

60% divorce rate. People will be better off.
/carry on

studkickass: I have been ordained a minister of the Universal Life Church since 1999, I didnt want to pay for a better title like Pope or something.. whaa whaa whaaa whaaaaaaa

Hah! I got the Archbishop special!
Was great fun with the born again folks in the office!

/never got the cool hat though

As someone who was married by an internet-ordained minister of the ULC, I am really getting a kick out of these replies.

You have to do some research if you want to go this route. It's definitely not legally-recognized in all 50 states, including apparently the feudal state of Pennsylvania. It is cool in Connecticut which is the only state I bothered to carefully research.

The Universal Life Church is easy to find on the interweb. Members of the ULC basically agree to be good people. As far as the "official", you might even say "civil" part of getting married, the officiant is basically signing a piece of paper, and he isn't the one who files it -- typically the happy couple are the ones to file the actual paperwork and blood test results etc.

Phins, sometimes state legislatures pass measures along the lines of what you are talking about -- basically confirming all marriages filed in the state over the past X years, even when the officiant was your college drinking buddy. At least I vaguely recall reading that... somewhere. Since you are reading it on the internet it must be true.

Phins: Also, I seem to remember reading that if you truly believed the person who performed your marriage ceremony was authorized to do so, you're legally married, even if it turns out that person was not actually authorized. Can any of our Fark lawyers confirm that?

California allows it:
"Putative spouse status may be based on the reasonable expectations of the parties to an alleged marriage entered into in good faith...However, a subjective good faith belief in a valid marriage by itself, even when held by a credible and sympathetic party, is not sufficient (citations omitted). A determination of good faith is tested by an objective standard. (Ibid.) Therefore, a proper assertion of putative spouse status must rest on facts that would cause a reasonable person to harbor a good faith belief in the existence of a lawful California marriage."
Estate of Depasse, 97 Cal. App. 4th 92, 107-08 (2002).

So it's possible. But: you'd have to check your own state's case law or legislation.

Modern marriage is a money transfer system so broads don't bring the whole welfare system down.

Better version of headline in 3, 2, 1:

Internet-ordained ministers can no longer legally marry anyone. Judge says "it makes a mockery out of the whole marriage system," grants divorce

What about internet funerals? Are they still ok?

So when we were finished with the clerk, and after a short wait, we went in to see the Judge. We were not even introduced. "You folks want the long version or just get it done?" We told him we really just needed his signature. "You got it," he said, signed the paper and handed it back. "Man and Wife, give it to the clerk," he said, and went back to his stack of papers. We were married.

In 11 days I'm getting married by a friend who got ordained through the Universal Life Church, so I'm getting a real kick out of these replies.

/that and I'm scared it'll be overruled later by some dumbassed judge
//my wife will get 1/2 my slashies!

Anyone paying alimony from a failed marriage performed by a ULC minister should be able to now sue to have all the money returned. Since the marriage wasn't valid, any divorce settlements are null and void. Also, anyone married by a ULC minister is committing tax fraud if they are filling as a married couple. They are also committing insurance fraud if they include their "spouse" on their policy. Not to mention all the "living in sin" that this legislation will cause.

Why does the government even have the right to tell a couple who can act as officiant at their wedding? As long as it is a legal marriage, the government should have no say in the matter. This decision and proposed legislation is essentially government sanctioned religious descrimination.

So by my thinking, this invalidates all marriages performed by a religious figure.

I have a co-worker who is getting married in May.

It'll be her tenth wedding. No seriously, her TENTH. She has NINE ex-husbands. I don't know if she's just seriously wacked or the most optimistic person I've ever met.

Would you marry a woman who had been divorced nine times? Her longest marriage lasted nearly three years. Four kids by her first four husbands.

And amazingly, she expects a wedding shower every time. Her co-workers flat out said no this time. They are collecting for a gift card and that's it.

Goes back to her maiden name between every marriage, so if you work with her for too long, you have to run through all her names in your head before you remember which one she's on now.

So what's a joke? Oh yeah, marriage. At least the way she does it.

TaskForce26: In 11 days I'm getting married by a friend who got ordained through the Universal Life Church, so I'm getting a real kick out of these replies.

/that and I'm scared it'll be overruled later by some dumbassed judge

In that case, you should get a real minister, the way GOD and the State want you to. Then nobody has to worry.

priapus54: A ULC ordained minister performed my wedding ceremony, but my wife and I still had to sign the marriage license stating we were willing entering the marriage of our own free will. The court clerk also checked our IDs and had us sign a statement that we weren't already married. So why should I need a third party to perform a ritual before the contract becomes legal?

BTW - I also have ULC ordination, as well as being a Meti medicine practitioner. The earth and sky make up my church, and the people of the world are all members of my congregation. Perhaps the state of Pennsylvania would like to try its hand at defining religious tenets next . . .

Based on this ruling and the proposed legislation, you and your "wife" have been living in sin. Also, you are committing tax fraud if you file as a married couple. In addition, if your "wife" is covered on your insurance policy, you are committing insurance fraud. This court ruling and proposed legislation will turn thousands of people into criminal fornicators and countless children into bastards.

Ministers and priests around her charge several hundred bucks for the "service" of marrying individuals outside their congregations. We told them all to get farked and got married by a friend of ours who received his ULC ordination over the internet. He paid him with a 12-pack and an open bar at the reception.

Dear religion,

Fark off. Our marriage has nothing to do with your stupid symbology. We wrote our own wedding ceremony specifically to remove all references to god/gods. You have no place in our marriage.

Dear government,

Read the above, and go fark yourself for trying to force me to pay a priest to inject god into a marriage where he is not welcome.

XOXO,
Married in Maryland

Again, this decision will be reversed. Not even a close call.

Thorak: For the same reason it matters whether it's a trained judge or Joe the Poolboy who says "The court finds you guilty as charged, and sentences you to 20 years."

Well, since marriage is a contract and not a sentence (jokes aside), hopefully they'll make sure that people can't buy houses or cars or sign other contracts without a judge's approval. After all, in this market, it's easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a 30-year mortgage.

If they can prove they're actually a valid religious organization, they're good to go.

ULC has the blessing of the IRS as a tax-exempt church, and they have services every Sunday. Is that good enough?

So my Universal Life Church ordainment means nothing?