So, wait…I have to…agree with the ACLU on this one? No, that can’t be right…
While I would doubt the “divine validity” of anyone who graduated from onehourordination.com, I do not think that the ruling should stand, especially given how broad it is; many religious figures do not necessarily have “their own church” (heck, Jesus didn’t have one, did he?). I think the judge here may have done this by mistake; it sounds as if Pennsylvania (and, I would guess, other states) probably need a different way to validate clergy then through their specific church or denomination.
God bless.

There may be more bastards in Pennsylvania than people thought.

Joey,
Your comments are astute. “Divine validity” is of no consideration in a court of law when considering a marriage contract. From the states perspective, it is a legal contract between private citizens and the state. Nothing more, nothing less. Beyond that, people entering into a marriage can choose a minister that affords them the “divine” or spiritual component of their union as they see fit. The state has no damn business sticking its nose into this.
If the state is concerned about fraudulent engagement of the contract they should see that it is witnessed by a notary public. Not a priest. Notary publics are subject to government licensing. Members of establishment religions are not. It just doesn’t fit.
This seems to me to be just another example of a near-sighted judge attempting to ensure that the long standing tradition of established religious institutions asserting influence over government of the citizenry be upheld.
Disgraceful.
And temporary. The ACLU will prevail.

Thank God for the ACLU, the people who straighten out the muddled masses of confusion! People have relatives who are clergy, without churches sometimes who come from other states to marry relatives, and many other senarios. Why was the PA law changed to begin with? Doesn’t say here. When states leave laws to be interpreted by judges it seems hit and miss. If states can’t use good judgment then perhaps it’s time for the government to step in and have laws become the same in every state in the Union. Everyone who is married as of Feb. 15th of 2008 is married for all time, what ridiculous nonsense to say other wise.

Don’t people have to get a marriage license before the big day? And after the ceremony it is filed in some office or another? What difference does it make if a minister/priest/rabbi etc. has a congregation or not, to marry someone? Ministers/rabbis,and even priests retire, and would still be that same person, just without a congregation. How absolutely stupid! Does this mean that if 2 people were married by a Justice of the Peace that they aren’t really married…because a Justice of the Peace doesn’t have a congregation! Let’s really hope that the ACLU wins this one. This is one of the dumber things done by a judge.

Pagansister—
If I understand right, the issue is based on the idea that the state had no real definition of what made someone a “real minister.” After all, what’s to stop me from declaring myself a clergyman without a church, and saying that I can marry anyone I want? So it seems to me they had a legitimate problem, but the judge’s attempt to define a “clergy(wo)man” was flawed. I don’t think this ruling had any effect on Justices of the Peace, since there would be a clear definition on who is “official” in that regard.
God bless.

“So it seems to me they had a legitimate problem, but the judge’s attempt to define a “clergy(wo)man” was flawed.”
Okay, this has always puzzled me. Why is this a “legitimate problem?” What business is it of any state who officiates weddings for whom?

Nice to know that Mike Huckabee and John Danforth can’t marry anyone in PA, as well as the (ordained) faculty at seminaries of all faiths that do not hold pulpits. What about David Steinberg and Jackie Mason – rabbis of long standing without congregations?
David Cleaver was my probate professor but it looks like he didn’t think this one through.

The State should certify NO CHURCH OFFICIALS for officiating at weddings which have civil standing. Whether by signing the license or performing any other civil actions clergy should stick only to work in their own religious institutions. Like most other countries the State should issue a license for marriage that gives it civil standing. Thus religious questions over gay marriage, inter racial marriage etc would make no difference. Marriages in Church should be at the discretiion of the members of the church. However the blessing of a marriage in a Church should carry no civil status.

In canada, provinces regulate who can officiate a marriage, religious affiliation has no bearing. So a priest in Ontario can not perform a marriage in Alberta if he is not licensed to.
In Alberta, you can even become a Justice of the Peace for the day so favorite uncle Bob or aunt Lucy can marry you if you want. No faith required.

Jack McNulty makes a good point and once again Canada sets a good example for us.

“The State should certify NO CHURCH OFFICIALS for officiating at weddings which have civil standing.”
Actually, you’ve got it backwards. The obstacles to essentially religious questions such as gay or interracial marriage come about because the State has poked its nose where it doesn’t belong. We would be far better off if the State got out of the business of recognizing marriages in the first place. That would remove all politicization of the institution. The only “service” the state is really providing, anyway, is to serve as a repository of witnessed statements that two people have agreed to live as a married couple. I don’t see that as particularly noteworthy. It’s certainly doesn’t seem worth the trouble it causes.

“In canada, provinces regulate who can officiate a marriage, religious affiliation has no bearing. So a priest in Ontario can not perform a marriage in Alberta if he is not licensed to.”
I’m not at all comfortable with that idea. Granted, I feel it’s better for the provinces to decide these matters rather than the Canadian government as a whole. Nevertheless, I still fail to see how a couple’s choice to marry is the legitimate business of the State.

It seems to me the state has an interest in marriage in that legal rights and benefits and responsibilities flow to participants. Churches have an interest only to the extent people choose to involve them in their marriages.
The problem is that the two facets are all mixed up and some churches have chosen to try to get a monopoly on the definition of marriage, said monopoly involving their particular religion but not other people’s religions (or philosophies).

“It seems to me the state has an interest in marriage in that legal rights and benefits and responsibilities flow to participants.”
I’m still not seeing it. Stripped from all its romantic connotations, marriage is a legal contract between two people. Citizens enter into contracts every day, most of which involve benefits and responsibilities, without the state bothering to catalog each one. How is the marriage contract any different?
“Churches have an interest only to the extent people choose to involve them in their marriages.”
I certainly don’t agree with that. I just don’t see how the state has a vested interest here.

Why do we even need to get the state’s permission in to get married. It seems
that marriage must be illegal in the first place, since we need a license to do it. ( Illegal to drive, hunt, fish without one) Couples should be able to declare to the state that they have taken up the dynamic of marriage. Then necessary paper work can be filed for the legal rights and benefits that afford that institution. If this were in place now, one would not even need an
officiant or public servant to sign the paperwork. Most people would probably still have a
ceremony to celebrate their love and commitment, and that could be done by whoever they are
comfortable with. It just seems very feudalistic to have to ask the “lord of the land” for
permission to enter into the state of matrimony.

With no limits on marriage cousins could do it with no thought to the results for any children they had; heck siblings could do it. As could twelve year olds or in fact an eight year old and a fifty year old. And there’d be churches that would countenance that, at least for influential fifty year olds.
No, there need to be some rules and the state needs to be the one making them.

“With no limits on marriage cousins could do it with no thought to the results for any children they had; heck siblings could do it. As could twelve year olds or in fact an eight year old and a fifty year old. And there’d be churches that would countenance that, at least for influential fifty year olds.”
Surely you can do better than this, Nnmns.
First, cousins can already marry in some states. In fact, there are some rather famous examples if memory serves. Perhaps just as importantly, genetic fears of the consequences of marriage between cousins are greatly overblown. As for siblings getting married, you seem to be arguing that state intervention is the only thing enforcing social taboos. That is far from the case.
As for twelve year olds getting married, that argument is simply silly. I don’t know of any states in which minors are deemed fit to enter into legal contracts, at least not by themselves. Your scenario of a marriage between a 50 year old and an 8 year old falls flat for much the same reason. Moreover, that scenario is doubly protected against given that laws against statutory rape would still apply.
“No, there need to be some rules and the state needs to be the one making them.”
Non sequitur. If, indeed, there need to be some rule, it does not logically follow that the state needs to be the one making them. Even if I were to grant that the state is the best agency to craft such rules (and I could probably be persuaded for a limited role of the state here), I would still argue that there are more general ways of doing that, such as those I described above involving who may enter into legal contracts, without requiring registration of marriages with the state.

So you want to let anyone who can legally enter into a contract get married by signing a contract. Interesting idea. Is there a country anywhere that does that? What about people too young to sign a contract who get pregnant? Would you impose limitations on the terms of such a contract? What about a family contracting its daughter, with her permission, to a rich guy in return for a big payment?
And yes, often state intervention is the only thing enforcing sensible taboos like close blood relatives not getting married.

You may be surprised at the variety of laws regarding marriage. Each state has different regulations in regards to who can perform (read, “validate”) a wedding. In some states all it takes is a notary public.
I have been expecting this problem for a long time. It touches on many issues. Nonetheless, I have also been uneasy with being an “officer of the state” in regards to weeddings. I think it would be best if the Church were completely removed from the legality of the proceedings. In that these are legal issues it seems more appropriate to set aside the age old traditions and accept that the Church should step out of this role. I have no problem with blessing couples and helping them make their wedding day festive and distinct. But my signature on their marriage license is not what santifies the moment and their relationship. That is a functionary act for the state.
So get the clergy OUT of this mess and let the state be the state and the church be the church.

“Is there a country anywhere that does that?”
That’s a good question. However, the breadth of what constitutes “marriage” in different cultures is really outside the scope of this discussion. Moreover, it’s quite irrelevant. In any case, you might look no further than our own history as a nation to find that the state didn’t always take an interest in meddling with marriage. As I recall (though, admittedly, it’s been a while since I’ve studied this), having to register your marriage with the state is a relatively new phenomenon. I see no reason why we can’t return to our roots.
“What about people too young to sign a contract who get pregnant? Would you impose limitations on the terms of such a contract?”
How would that be different than the current situation? Minors in many states are prohibited from getting married, even if pregnant, without special dispensation, usually with the consent of the parents.
“What about a family contracting its daughter, with her permission, to a rich guy in return for a big payment?”
That would require some sort of contract between the daughter and the parents, which as I’ve already pointed out, she is unable to enter into.
“And yes, often state intervention is the only thing enforcing sensible taboos like close blood relatives not getting married.”
Really? So you believe that there would be a run on, say, brothers and sisters running to the wedding chapel if the state were suddenly to step out of the way? Interesting. Could you perhaps provide some sort of frequency with which cousins marry in states that permit such unions?
Aside from that, when talking about taboos, “sensible” is often in the eye of the beholder. Even a cursory cross cultural look at marriage customs around the world, both contemporary and historical, will reveal just how much latitude there is in terms of “sensibility.”

Nnmns and jestrfyl make the most sense here, and myself. The state issuing a license is necessary for records to prove who you married, on what day, in what year, and if it is your first marriage or 5th marriage. It also has your blood type and that no STD’s show. It is necessary for social security payments, and for divorce proceedings, I would assume, if this occurs somewhere along the way. This occurs in variations in different states, and it should be the same in all states. The religious ceremony is the marrying couples choice or no choice to pick. Law trumps in any type of contract, and is necessary for protection with all concerned.

“So you believe that there would be a run on, say, brothers and sisters running to the wedding chapel if the state were suddenly to step out of the way?”
I think that would be one natural fallback for some socially challenged people. And I think the effects on their children, on average, would be severe enough to make it worth there being a prohibition against fertile siblings marrying.
“Could you perhaps provide some sort of frequency with which cousins marry in states that permit such unions?”
Here’s an interesting article on cousin marriage that states: “Most other countries permit first-cousin marriages without restriction, and the rate of cousin marriages in some countries is as high as 60 percent of all marriages.”
That article also points out studies that say birth defects among first cousin marriages are not as common as some, including me, might have thought but they are still about twice as common as for children of unrelated parents. I don’t know but I’m guessing that study or those studies were done in the US where cousin marriages are relatively rare. I’m no geneticist but it wouldn’t surprise me if problems would become more common when children of cousins married cousins, piling up duplications of genes.

“I think that would be one natural fallback for some socially challenged people. And I think the effects on their children, on average, would be severe enough to make it worth there being a prohibition against fertile siblings marrying.”
How high a percentage? Honestly, I have never met anyone who would seriously consider marrying a sibling. I’m sure there are some out there who would, but I remain unconvinced that it’s a high enough percentage to warrant state intervention. In any event, people who are open to breaking incest taboos are unlikely to be dissuaded from sexual intercourse simply because the state says they are unable to be married, making the supposed “protection” of the state moot.
“Here’s an interesting article on cousin marriage that states: “Most other countries permit first-cousin marriages without restriction, and the rate of cousin marriages in some countries is as high as 60 percent of all marriages.”"
While interesting, I don’t find it compelling. Cross cultural comparisons of marriage practices are rarely useful in terms of predictive value. Most subcultures within the United States discourage marriage between first cousins. I would be very surprised to learn that marriage between cousins is common in the United States even in those states where such practices are legal.
Even if they were, though, as you point out:
“That article also points out studies that say birth defects among first cousin marriages are not as common as some, including me, might have thought…”
Which was the point I made earlier. The genetic dangers of close kin mating practices are greatly exaggerated, propagated more from cultural programming than from scientific evidence.
“…but they are still about twice as common as for children of unrelated parents.”
Twice an uncommon event is still an uncommon event. Again, I don’t see a compelling reason for the state to get involved.
“I don’t know but I’m guessing that study or those studies were done in the US where cousin marriages are relatively rare. I’m no geneticist but it wouldn’t surprise me if problems would become more common when children of cousins married cousins, piling up duplications of genes.”
That’s been the “common wisdom,” now, for a very long time. Scientific study after study, however, has not born these fears out. There is some risk involved, of course. However, the degree of the risk depends on a number of other factors, including the overall size of the gene pool. In small, isolated societies such as certain Jewish populations that are often cited as examples of the danger involved, the risk is much higher than in more fully integrated societies where there is still significant input from more distantly related individuals. Note, however, that if the population is small enough and isolated enough, the risk is still present even if marriage between first cousins is not allowed.

“The state issuing a license is necessary for records to prove who you married, on what day, in what year, and if it is your first marriage or 5th marriage.”
Is the state necessary to prove you signed a lease, on what day and what year or if it’s your first lease or your fifth? As I said before, people enter into contracts all the time without having to register each one with the state.
“It also has your blood type and that no STD’s show.”
Not in every state. In fact, probably not in many states.
“It is necessary for social security payments,…”
Only because the government has deemed it necessary. Other forms of documentation could easily suffice.
“…and for divorce proceedings, I would assume, if this occurs somewhere along the way.”
Divorce is a civil matter, just as marriage is. There’s no need for any special documentation by the state, just as there is no need for the state to register your lease if you and your landlord can’t reconcile your differences.
“This occurs in variations in different states, and it should be the same in all states. The religious ceremony is the marrying couples choice or no choice to pick. Law trumps in any type of contract, and is necessary for protection with all concerned.”
And how to you make the leap from the rule of law to the state must therefore register marriages? The one doesn’t naturally flow from the other and, in fact, is one of the biggest obstacles to issues such as gay marriage. It’s because the state has placed itself in the position of deciding what a legitimate marriage is that religious groups have a vested interested in wielding political influence to protect their definitions of marriage. Restore marriage as a civil, contractual relationship between two people and religious groups lose their political power to enforce their standards on the rest of society.

The state has a vested interest because it has made particular recognition of marriage in its tax codes. Also the rules regarding social security make sigificant recognition of marriage. This is, in some part, what the furor over same-sex marriage is all about. If the government were to acknowledge marriage, or the unity of a single household, in different ways, the religous aspect of marriage would be removed. In many countries marriages are a civil concern and churches simply add their blessings, rituals, and traditons after. That seems to be the better system. Either that or the state pays no particular attention to marriage or any other household arrangements (it has not been mentioned by the entire polygamy question can enter right about here too).

Considering the state’s role in divorces then I think they should have some in marriage say insomuch as license be required, if not for anything then for informational tracking.
The downside of that is these guys are now saying who can have the right to marry, here they are out of line.

“The state has a vested interest because it has made particular recognition of marriage in its tax codes.”
And, finally, we are at the heart of the matter. The state has a vested interest solely because it has chosen to tax individuals based on whether or not they are married. How sad that we have become so accustomed to such tautological justifications for state intervention that, rather than question the legitimacy of the underlying foundation, we instead invite greater governmental regulation and insist it is good!
“Also the rules regarding social security make sigificant recognition of marriage.”
As you might anticipate, I am not a big fan of social security. As such, I still find this justification for state recognition of marriage nefarious. Even so, if I were to concede the legitimacy of social security I would still maintain that documentation other than a marriage certificate issued by the state could suffice.
“Either that or the state pays no particular attention to marriage or any other household arrangements (it has not been mentioned by the entire polygamy question can enter right about here too).”
Obviously, I find this solution ultimately more equitable.
On the subject of polygamy, I don’t see how it’s the business of government to declare such unions illegitimate even though I believe there are far greater social justifications for doing so than the government has ever proffered for prohibiting gay marriage or, in the not too distant past, interracial marriage.

“Considering the state’s role in divorces then I think they should have some in marriage say insomuch as license be required, if not for anything then for informational tracking.”
Why should the state have any greater say in divorces than it does in any other contractual dispute? The state hardly needs an archive of certificates in order to mediate in the dissolution of a marriage. Deciding how to split up the fine china or how to award custody of children is in no way expedited by a piece of paper saying when the couple exchanged wedding vows.
“The downside of that is these guys are now saying who can have the right to marry, here they are out of line.”
Once you concede the one, the other almost inevitably follows.

This does underscore a real problem as I see it. The State has no authority over the religious union of persons. Just as the Church has no authority in defining what is or is not a civil union for legal purposes.

One is a matter of the heart, as well as a sacred union granted under the authority of the Divine. The other is merely a legal definition… taxes, property, health care and visitation, etc, and entirely within the domain of Man.

The best solution is to maintain each as entirely separate affairs. But this is unlikely to happen any time soon given the history of the USA. We simply love to tell others how to live!

In light of being forced into a nonsensical choice, “God” should trump the State. In other words, whatever the observing persons consider to be appropriate to declare their union valid is to be the standard. The opinion of the State or of some judge has no meaning.