New policy re: Lay leaders officiating in marriages

[cacheman]

3 hours 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.

My state passed a law 2 years ago prohibiting those who were ordained online from officiating marriages.  The law was passed just weeks before my brother (who had an online ordination) was set to officiate our daughter's wedding.  Fortunately,  the law didn't go into effect until a week or two after the wedding.  The law is being challenged in court,  but currently it's still illegal for someone with an online ordination to be a marriage officiant. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

You only read the first part.  Later it says this:

Quote

Please note: Virginia is the only state in the U.S. that consistently refuses to recognize ULC ordinations. We suggest you check with the clerk in your county for more information.

ULC is the organization behind most of the online registration sites.  I have read elsewhere refusal is for all online, but didn’t care enough to deep dive. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

My state passed a law 2 years ago prohibiting those who were ordained from officiating marriages.  The law was passed just weeks before my brother (who had an online ordination) was set to officiate our daughter's wedding.  Fortunately,  the law didn't go into effect until a week or two after the wedding.  The law is being challenged in court,  but currently it's still illegal for someone with an online ordination to be a marriage officiant. 

So the websites I am reading are out of date it would seem. 

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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

I think you may be correct in principle, but not directly because of the case you present.

In the case of a justice of the peace, the justice in question is an agent of the state, and if the state's agent refuses to do what the state's law mandates, then that is res ipsa loquitur unlawful, as a breach of duty.

IANAL, I think that it might be argued in law that a clergyman who performs a quasi-official act (such as marriage) between persons neither of whom are adherents to the clergyman's faith group is acting as a justice of the peace. And is thus subject to the state's law, making it possible for the clergyman to be charged with some form of breach of duty. The law is sometimes an equine of certain disrepute, as seen most recently in the release of a certain former comedian from his sentence.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You only read the first part.  Later it says this:

ULC is the organization behind most of the online registration sites.  I have read elsewhere refusal is for all online, but didn’t care enough to deep dive. 

The thing about this refusal to recognize ordinations for ULC -- it's actually a 1st Amendment violation, i.e. separation of church and state issue. IMHO.

The law would appear to be qualifying who may be a clergyman and who may not. Thus making qualification as a clergyman a matter of state regulation. And if the state is regulating clergy status, it must first establish what is a church and what is not. "Establishment of religion" constitutes a state church, or a state-approved church.

It is quite baldly unconstitutional on its face.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Huh.  I wonder what precipitated this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems odd...

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

When I was a bishop in the early 2000s you could only perform marriages for members of your ward( one had to be a member) and in your ward boundaries.  If outside boundaries your had to have permission I think from the FP but it could have been SP.