New policy re: Lay leaders officiating in marriages

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Lay leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer can perform civil marriages between nonmembers.

The faith’s governing First Presidency announced changes Wednesday to “conditions in which church officers may perform civil marriages between a man and a woman.”

Starting immediately, bishops, mission presidents and other congregational leaders can perform such ceremonies only if “the bride or the groom” is a Latter-day Saint.

Church policy previously allowed these lay leaders to do the honors for nonmembers.

The church also states that at least one of the prospective newlyweds must be a member in the leader’s ecclesiastical unit. And the officiator must be legally authorized to perform a civil marriage in that jurisdiction.

Huh.  I wonder what precipitated this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

Perhaps the church is adding one additional layer (church membership) of insulation against perceived potential litigation out of concern over this?:

 

Quote

 

Justice of the Peace's suit about refusal to wed same-sex couples tossed by Travis County judge

A Travis County judge has thrown out McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley’s lawsuit against the state panel that sanctioned her in 2019 for refusing to perform same-sex weddings.

Judge Jan Soifer of Austin’s 459th State District Court listed a variety of reasons for dismissing the lawsuit. She ruled that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct has sovereign and statutory immunity from the claims and that Hensley failed to exhaust other legal remedies before filing her lawsuit.

Neither Hensley nor her attorney, Jeremy Dys of the First Liberty Institute, returned phone messages Monday from the Tribune-Herald.

In dismissing the suit, Soifer also ordered Hensley to pay court costs associated with her lawsuit. Hensley initially filed the suit in McLennan County, but commission attorneys David Schleicher and Mike McKetta succeeded in getting it moved to Travis County.

Schleicher, of Waco, and McKetta, of Austin, both declined comment Monday on the dismissal.

Hensley, a justice of the peace for six years, officiates weddings between men and women but refuses to perform weddings for same-sex couples, saying it goes against her “Bible-believing” Christian conscience. Her lawsuit claims the agency violated state law by punishing her for actions she took in accordance with her religious beliefs.

In issuing its sanction against Hensley — a public warning — the commission said Hensley has refused to perform same-sex weddings since August 2016, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision a year earlier that established constitutional rights to same-sex marriage.

The commission said Hensley is violating the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct by “casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.”

Hensley, who has said she is entitled to a “religious exemption,” filed her claims under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act under the backing of the First Liberty Institute, a high-profile religious liberty law firm based in Plano.

Hensley has said that she, along with most all of the county’s JPs, stopped performing any weddings on legal advice from the county so as not to appear that those who chose not to perform same-sex weddings were discriminating against same-sex couples.

While most local JPs still do not perform weddings, Hensley chose to resume performing ceremonies, but only for heterosexual couples. She has said her office declines same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs but refers those couples to Justice of the Peace David Pareya, of West, or others in the county who will officiate their weddings.

Hensley was seeking at least $10,000 in damages, including lost income when she stopped performing all weddings in response to the commission’s investigation and sanction. She also asked for a declaratory judgment that the commission and its members violated her religious rights and applied for class-action status to allow any justice of the peace the freedom to decline to officiate at same-sex weddings while performing those of heterosexual couples.

https://wacotrib.com/news/local/jps-suit-about-refusal-to-wed-same-sex-couples-tossed-by-travis-county-judge/article_8e8df980-d85d-11eb-9e10-bf220ccdd2fc.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

 

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Daniel2

[Hamba Tuhan]

It's a shame. Our bishops here have frequently performed marriages for non-members at our chapels. Many of them could afford no other option for a 'church wedding' or had friends or family who are members. Totalitarianism often hurts more than its intended targets.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Huh.  I wonder what precipitated this.

Thanks,

-Smac

The wording about making sure you are able to perform the marriage in your jurisdiction suggests to me that some bishops and stake presidents were freelancing their ability to perform marriages to non-members. There may or may not have been a profit motive but I am guessing the apostles were not comfortable with our clergy marrying anyone who asked (or offered to pay). If there was such a problem I am guessing it was not in the US but that is just a guess based on culture.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's a shame. Our bishops here have frequently performed marriages for non-members at our chapels. Many of them could afford no other option for a 'church wedding' or had friends or family who are members. Totalitarianism often hurts more than its intended targets.

Totalitarianism? What?

[Craig Speechly]

My guess is that this is a consequence of marriage equality 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

My guess is that this is a consequence of marriage equality 

I think this is guesswork more out of the school of "If all you have is a hammer...etc."

[Rain]

This part:

"The church also states that at least one of the prospective newlyweds must be a member in the leader’s ecclesiastical unit."

Isn't new.  My son and his wife had to get first presidency approval to be married by my mom's bishop at her church.  He interviewed with the bishop over him, that bishop talked to my mom's bishop and then sent in for the approval.

I appreciated it.  It was my parent's 50th wedding anniversary and all my family was coming across the US for that. Some of them wouldn't have been able to make another trip later in the year. 

[Duncan]

The thing is though the government gave you the authority to marry people, not the church. I don't see what the issue is, if the presiding authority has no concern why should the church that didn't give them the authority in the first place? 

[Daniel2]

32 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The thing is though the government gave you the authority to marry people, not the church. I don't see what the issue is, if the presiding authority has no concern why should the church that didn't give them the authority in the first place? 

Additionally, while the LDS Church can create policies prohibiting it's lay leaders from performing civil marriages for non-LDS members, from using it's facilities, and using any of its marriage certificate documentation, the government still allows all US citizens regardless of religious affiliation to perform legally-recognized civil marriage ceremonies for other US citizens who qualify for a civil marriage license.  My guess, though, is the Church's own prohibition will be enough to keep most devout members of the church from doing so. 

Edited to add: I wonder if this policy would lead to any sort of church discipline if a member chose to civilly marry someone at a private location (not on LDS property) not as an acting lay clergy member but as a non-denominational US citizen...?

Edited July 1, 2021 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The thing is though the government gave you the authority to marry people, not the church. I don't see what the issue is, if the presiding authority has no concern why should the church that didn't give them the authority in the first place? 

Because a bishop is acting as a representative of the church as well as of the state when performing the marriage. If one bishop does something outside the lines on their own initiative some members will assume their bishop can and should do it as well. Some will and then the lives of bishops become more complex.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Additionally, while the LDS Church can create policies prohibiting it's lay leaders from performing civil marriages for non-LDS members, from using it's facilities, and using any of its marriage certificate documentation, the government still allows all US citizens regardless of religious affiliation to perform legally-recognized civil marriage ceremonies for other US citizens who qualify for a civil marriage license.  My guess, though, is the Church's own prohibition will be enough to keep most devout members of the church from doing so. 

In the US this actually varies a lot by state as to who can sign off on a wedding.

https://www.thespruce.com/recognized-marriage-officiants-2300735

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Perhaps the church is adding one additional layer (church membership) of insulation against perceived potential litigation out of concern over this?:

 

 

That was my first thought — even before I saw your link. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I had never even considered that bishops might be performing marriages for non-members. I wonder how common it was. 

[Daniel2]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In the US this actually varies a lot by state as to who can sign off on a wedding.

https://www.thespruce.com/recognized-marriage-officiants-2300735

My understanding is anyone can register to become an ordained marriage officiant for free through a couple of online options, such as American Marriage Ministries , Ministry Now!, Universal Life Church, Get Ordained Now, or (for those that want a more trendy option) Universal Life Church Monastery. It's pretty easy to get ordained to a church, after all, the US government tries to avoid getting into the business of saying which religions are legit and which aren't....

Edited July 1, 2021 by Daniel2

[Rain]

 

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had never even considered that bishops might be performing marriages for non-members. I wonder how common it was. 

I suspect it was somewhat common.  You can't be baptized while living with someone.  Both my son and my husband taught investigators who were married by someone (not sure who) from the church.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

My understanding is anyone can register to become an ordained marriage officiant for free through a couple of online options, such as American Marriage Ministries , Ministry Now!, Universal Life Church, Get Ordained Now, or (for those that want a more trendy option) Universal Life Church Monastery. It's pretty easy to get ordained to a church, after all, the US government tries to avoid getting into the business of saying which religions are legit and which aren't....

Usually that will get you in but there are a few where you have to be registered by the state by name so there is more paperwork and expense. In some states you don't even have to claim to be a minister. In my state there is a weird almost extra hoop you have to jump through if you are clergy but not Christian or Jewish. Probably wouldn't survive a court challenge but no one probably cares enough to try as I think the difference is one simple form submitted. If it hasn't changed since I last looked Rhode Island is complicated as to who can do it with all kinds of weird exceptions.

If I ever become a politician my unpopular platform will be cleaning up nonsensical laws, getting rid of obsolete ones, and simplifying bureaucracy where the complexities are required by pointless bits stuck in laws that maybe made sense at the time. I would be remembered by no one and would not be reelected.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I suspect it was somewhat common.  You can't be baptized while living with someone.  Both my son and my husband taught investigators who were married by someone (not sure who) from the church.

This is the one concern I would have. Bishops would often marry unmarried couples who decided to get baptized. I guess you just do the baptism and the marriage on the same day?

They already changed the handbook. Chaplains still have their own exceptions to the general rules.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had never even considered that bishops might be performing marriages for non-members. I wonder how common it was. 

As I mentioned above, it's pretty common here. Our population is overwhelmingly secular, so many people don't have a faith community that they belong to. Many faith communities aren't interested in performing rites for outsiders and/or they charge exorbitant sums, both for the officiator and, if needed, for access to the facility. In contrast, we charge nothing for the hall or the ceremony and just feel happy to have helped launch another family. We don't care if the couple were living together beforehand (very common!), if they share our faith or values, etc. I think the only 'rules' we impose is that there is to be no smoking or alcohol on the premises, and if people smoke in the car park anyway, we just turn a blind eye. (It's impossible for people to control all their guests, and we understand that.)

This move will really impact people in our community. On many occasions, I've shown up to our chapel on a Saturday only to realise that some random wedding was going on. It's a shame.

39 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

My understanding is anyone can register to become an ordained marriage officiant for free through a couple of online options ...

This may be true in America. Here, all bishops and stake presidents have to apply to the national government to become authorised marriage celebrants, and the cost is so great (many hundreds of US dollars) that the Church covers it. And then it has to be renewed annually, which the Church also pays for.

[Ginger Snaps]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had never even considered that bishops might be performing marriages for non-members. I wonder how common it was. 

My husband did it for a friend’s daughter when he was serving as Bishop. The local preacher she called was going to charge a lot and my husband said, “I’ll do it for you for free!” (I’m sure policy would have prohibited him from charging anyway!) He did run it by the Stake Pres first. 

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

My husband did it for a friend’s daughter when he was serving as Bishop. The local preacher she called was going to charge a lot and my husband said, “I’ll do it for you for free!” (I’m sure policy would have prohibited him from charging anyway!) He did run it by the Stake Pres first. 

You are explicitly not allowed to charge anyone to perform a wedding.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

My understanding is anyone can register to become an ordained marriage officiant for free through a couple of online options, …

I know from personal observation this is true. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know from personal observation this is true. 

Apparently not in Virginia and a few counties in Pennsylvania in the US.

https://getordained.org/state-marriage-laws/virginia

Other countries may be more restrictive.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Apparently not in Virginia and a few counties in Pennsylvania in the US.

https://getordained.org/state-marriage-laws/virginia

Other countries may be more restrictive.

I don’t understand. Your link says you CAN become an ordained minister online in Virginia. Why did you say, “Apparently not in Virginia”?

[JustAnAustralian]

When I woke up this morning to an email from CHQ titled "Civil Marriages and Church Officers", I was thinking, "Is the church going to stop performing civil marriages? This will make for some interesting discussions".

When I actually read it, I just assumed that a bishop somewhere had gone rogue and performed same-sex marriages for non-church member friends or something.

When I didn't see a thread here I just assumed it must have been a non-issue for most people. A few hours later of course, Spencer posted, but alas, I am still none-the-wiser about whether there as a specific trigger or not.