Marriage Laws in different states

bearded_dave · August 14, 2009, 08:51:40 PM

Dudes!

I was doing some research on this and it seems like CT (the state I live in at the moment) doesn't allow weddings to be performed by ordained ministers that are not active in the ministry. (http://wedlv.com/id98.html) I still have to check with my town clerk on the particulars, but it seems like the Dude can't go ahead and wed people like there's not tomorrow in Connecticut.

Here's a good list to start (http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/index.shtml), but I think we should maybe have a sticky or something in this forum on these issues.

This duder doesn't have $500 nor wants to spend a year in prison.

Whaddaya think?

Elbowski · August 15, 2009, 02:52:49 PM

I am not a Dudeist priest myself, however if I were, I would not be the slightest bit interested in filing any government forms of any kind in this endeavor. I believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state, and therefore reject state intrusion into such matters. A solution would be to perform what ever ceremony is deemed appropriate by the parties involved and let them attend to any legalities themselves. You could perhaps offer to consult them re: marriage license forms and thus achieve the same result without bowing to outside authority, or challenging said authority.

We are free to create and recreate as we wish. A true Dude seeks to preserve that freedom.

greatspiritmonk · September 08, 2009, 01:59:39 AM

Right, unfortunately marriage, as well as other ceremonies have legal and economic effects. That's why there are rules. You are definitely right: the simplest way is for the people to have a civil ceremony with legal effects and then a Dudeist one. This way you should be able to perform legally everything.

Maybe the goverment doesn't like our freedom but in the "Free World" there is complete freedom of religion, until you go against the law. Strangely if your religion tells you to cut the throat of goats it's ok; if instead it tells you to be relaxed it is not. Two weights and two measures?

Fitnessyoda · November 11, 2009, 02:20:16 PM

Hey Dudes!! I am new here, so I appreciate your patience. I think if people actually want you, as a Dudeist, to perform a ceremony it is perfectly cool. I am entirely for separation of church and state, and I think the most wonderful expression of freedom of religion is that a person can become a Dudeist Priest and legally marry people. Proof that we still live in a free and religiously tolerant society. But, you know, that's just like my opinion man.

greatspiritmonk · November 12, 2009, 01:37:47 AM

Far out man.

not_exactly_a_lightweight · November 12, 2009, 08:40:26 AM

This is interesting. I think its cool that I can tell my co-workers that I can perform a marriage.
But if I were asked, I would turn it down and try to get invited to the wedding.

This is my theory: the free liquor part of the wedding is for the guests, not the priest.

But you have also brought up a very important question, what would a person be charged with if he did perform a wedding and it happened to be illegal in your particular jurisdiction???
Practicing

without a license?
I must limber up before I ponder these questions with my friend wiki.

meekon5 · November 13, 2009, 07:50:22 AM

Quote from: Fitnessyoda on November 11, 2009, 02:20:16 PM
Hey Dudes!! I am new here, so I appreciate your patience. I think if people actually want you, as a Dudeist, to perform a ceremony it is perfectly cool.

You could just do a Dudeist blessing rather than the whole legal thing, it is common for people here in the UK to have a blessing outside of the official registry office (where non religous people get their license).

Personally I have done blessings for other things as well for friends. (a Van going to the Dakar rally was possibly the bigest).

Hylton · January 05, 2010, 05:37:23 PM

So like, you can only perform a wedding here in England if you get a licence from the registry office, not just because you're shown up in your white russian stained dressing gown?

not_exactly_a_lightweight · January 05, 2010, 11:54:33 PM

Do you mean 'robe'? Are we going to split hares here?

meekon5 · January 18, 2010, 07:57:26 AM

Quote from: Hylton on January 05, 2010, 05:37:23 PM
So like, you can only perform a wedding here in England if you get a licence from the registry office, not just because you're shown up in your white russian stained dressing gown?

Nothing stopping you performing the ceremony, I know I have performed wedding ceremonies previously (mostly drunk and at parties). But the legality lies with the piece of paper (in the UK).

restrictions have recently (in the last ten years or so) been lifted on where you can have the ceremony, but the facists still insist you have a license to be legal.

Emrys M · February 21, 2010, 04:37:34 AM

So we can [I havent actually become a priest. yet.] preform weddings in england? awesome

Chan · June 21, 2010, 08:30:47 PM

In Maryland, any adult can sign as clergy, as long as the couple who are getting married agree that he is a clergy. The celebrant doesn't have to be a resident, register in advance, or fulfil any other requirements.

ispamforfood · June 23, 2010, 02:05:50 AM

The nice thing about Rhode Island is that their marriage law is very vague: Any ordained clergy can perform a marriage legally. It's my understanding that they really CAN'T specify under what circumstances a reverend is given his ordination.... Separation of church and state and all. The law basically states that any clergy properly ordained by the standard ordination procedure of the specific church is allowed to perform marriages legally. It just so happens that the procedures involved with the dudeist church are that you put your name and some other info on a form online and submit it and thats it. The state has no authority to regulate how a church practices its religious ceremonies. They can only mandate that your ordination is done by the book in your specific denomination. This state is one of the sane ones that actually recognizes this fact.

ispamforfood · July 12, 2010, 11:18:54 AM

See, this actually doesn't make a lot of sense... The law says "as long as they are active in the ministry"....... What defines "active in the ministry?" Having a church? Performing a marriage every 30 days? I could contend that "Active in the ministry" is simply promoting it by word of mouth. How could they dispute it if there's no definition of "active in the ministry?"

Quote from: bearded_dave on August 14, 2009, 08:51:40 PM
Dudes!

I was doing some research on this and it seems like CT (the state I live in at the moment) doesn't allow weddings to be performed by ordained ministers that are not active in the ministry. (http://wedlv.com/id98.html) I still have to check with my town clerk on the particulars, but it seems like the Dude can't go ahead and wed people like there's not tomorrow in Connecticut.

Here's a good list to start (http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/index.shtml), but I think we should maybe have a sticky or something in this forum on these issues.

This duder doesn't have $500 nor wants to spend a year in prison.

Whaddaya think?

meekon5 · July 12, 2010, 11:37:16 AM

Quote from: ispamforfood on July 12, 2010, 11:18:54 AM
See, this actually doesn't make a lot of sense... The law says "as long as they are active in the ministry"....... What defines "active in the ministry?" Having a church? Performing a marriage every 30 days? I could contend that "Active in the ministry" is simply promoting it by word of mouth. How could they dispute it if there's no definition of "active in the ministry?"

You think we have problems try this on for size.

I think the position in Britain is anyone can do the blessing but you still need the "legal" ceremony. It just happens that a lot of christian clergy in Britain are licensed to perform the legal documentation.