What do you dudes think?

[DarthMoose74]

I went to the county clerk here in my state and this is what they had written up about ministers for our area. What do you think with what is written below? Could I legally do a Dude wedding?



Must a minister be a resident of or certified in Nebraska?

No. Nebraska certification or residence is not needed as long as the minister is authorized to perform marriage ceremonies by the denomination to which he or she belongs. "Every judge, retired judge, or clerk magistrate, and every preacher of the gospel authorized by the usages of the church to which he or she belongs to solemnize marriages, may perform the marriage ceremony in this state.@ '42-108. If the marriage is consummated with belief of the parties that they have been joined in marriage, the validity of the marriage is not affected by any want of jurisdiction or authority of a supposed minister, '42-114. However, if any person undertakes to join others in marriage, knowing that he or she is not authorized to do so or knowing of a legal impediment to the marriage, he or she shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. '42-113.

[meekon5]

I suppose that the phrase:

"every preacher of the gospel authorized by the usages of the church to which he or she belongs to solemnize marriages"

May be slightly problematic (remembering that US law is particular and specific in the wording) because we don't preach. But by being ordained may be enough to authorize you by the church.

As per usual I must make it particularly clear I in no way am a lawyer, and do not practice law in the US, do check with a qualified practitioner.

[DarthMoose74]

But what about the part that says...

"as long as the minister is authorized to perform marriage ceremonies by the denomination to which he or she belongs."

and

"If the marriage is consummated with belief of the parties that they have been joined in marriage, the validity of the marriage is not affected by any want of jurisdiction or authority"

[Banjo Dude]

I am most emphatically not a lawyer, nor a husker.

That said, the bit that says:

If the marriage is consummated with belief of the parties that they have been joined in marriage, the validity of the marriage is not affected by any want of jurisdiction or authority of a supposed minister

surely sounds like, even if you were found by some judge NOT to meet their vague-ass criteria, while you might have to pay a fine or do some community service (marrying people is a service to the community, innit?) or something, at least the couple you done hitched up would be legally hitched. 

... I think.

[DarthMoose74]

I am not a Husker either man, I am originally from Queens New York, but besides that I have not watched football in years.

Got hobbies that are way more interesting that watching that man.

Thanks for your input though dude.
Hopefully some new shit comes to light when I go see the local Clerk. I hope they are not fascists.

[meekon5]

But what about the part that says...

"as long as the minister is authorized to perform marriage ceremonies by the denomination to which he or she belongs."

and

"If the marriage is consummated with belief of the parties that they have been joined in marriage, the validity of the marriage is not affected by any want of jurisdiction or authority"

A lot of this depends on the previous case law that exists.

The usual form is for someone to be prosecuted under the legislation and a judge to give their opinions on how the ambiguous terminology should be interpreted. There are also (in English law especially) set precedents such as "The Test of the Reasonable Man", but these tend to be even more difficult to pin down than  the original ambiguity in the legislation in the first place.

Oh and as for the "I'm not a lawyer" bit, I am being very particular and legally correct in making that statement. All I can do is express my opinion as a well informed laymen, the statement is a legal requisite (in other words I'm covering my ass legally speaking), because I'm not in the legal profession, I just happen to have studied law as part of other qualifications.

[Abideist]

But what about the part that says...

"as long as the minister is authorized to perform marriage ceremonies by the denomination to which he or she belongs."

and

"If the marriage is consummated with belief of the parties that they have been joined in marriage, the validity of the marriage is not affected by any want of jurisdiction or authority"

Well, although I'm not a lawyer

I would say you're in the clear. As long as you have documentation, and you cross your t's and dot your i's.

I suggest if you're planning on doing it to open up a LLC, in your name, and label it as dudeist weddings, officially ordained. Embrace the novelty, but stay within the law. I wouldn't perform any gay dudeists weddings if your state doesn't allow that.
It also couldn't hurt if you had a local chapter. Kind of like a knights of columbus deal, rent a hall one weekend a month or such.

but you're better off asking the court and a lawyer.

But again, I am not a laywer and have no legal experience...

ps. i am not legally obligated by this in any contractual or binding way. have a dudely day.

[meekon5]

Don't get carried away Koog

But again, I am not a laywer and have no legal experience...

ps. i am not legally obligated by this in any contractual or binding way. have a dudely day.

Having said the first line is enough to cover you in most countries (test of a reasonable man again), and actually saying you're not legally bound doesn't always exempt you.

For instance though films traditionally have the statement "Not intentionally based on any living or dead person etc etc." You can still sue for deformation if you can prove substantially that they are talking about you. The problem with Slander (spoken deformation) and Liable (written, film, recordings) is that you as the plaintiff have to prove that what is implied is in fact not factual.

As a dyslexic I adore English Law because it is by the letter. It's like programming, only what is said is covered, nothing is implied. My heavy pedantic streak used to do wonderfully at my law module.