Re: "Love" and Marriage

1

That's a really weird vestigal law. How on earth does "The officiant at a marriage has to be either (a) a clerk at City Hall or (b) a real-life no kidding genuinely religious cleric" make any sense at all?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
2

The ULC thing makes Massachusetts's "anyone can register in advance to solemnize a particular marriage" look a lot more sensible. That said, I know a guy who performs quite a few marriages based, I believe, on ULC credentials, and has been doing so for years. Enough so that I suspect he could defend the "no kidding genuine" aspect at this point.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
3

ML: "Emotional monogamy is bad, mmmkay?"


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
4

It's a sign of my mental state that my first thought was 'Oh my god, I hope no one had a green card application pending based on marriage to an American spouse!'


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
5

Such a minister "doesn't meet the requirements of the state statutes," said William Gerrish, a spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Public Health.

Whatevs.


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
6

I can't say I read the ML column carefully, but I liked the five bits of it I read. It has been better recently, no? Maybe they secretly read your posts. Advantage: Becks!


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
7

"pinkish tuna roll"

Subtle.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
8

This is the kind of thing that makes me sympathize with people like that annoying guy in CA suing over the words 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, it's purely ceremonial, yes, it shouldn't be any big deal, but this is a freaking secular country in which the government should not be privileging any religion over any other or over no religion, and the idea that you have to talk to a forrealz God-type to get married if you want to get married someplace pretty rather than in a city office annoys the secular bejeezus out of me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
9

8: I'm shocked that that's actually true, is it?

I keep thinking "ZOMG it'll be awkward to find a random minister for the marriage, I should go to church regularly so I can have an obvious minister to ask". Then I think "That's a stupid reason to go to church", and it makes me wonder why other people go to church. It's annoying.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
10

Related to the ML topic, if your friends cannot stand your new significant other, that is often a great sign of trouble ahead.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
11

It really was. Before getting married, I had the illusion that the category of judges and such who can marry you was broader than it is -- there really aren't a lot who will come to a wedding. If you don't happen to have a personal connection, it's go to an office or you're SOL. We got married by a very goofy weird Unitarian we found through, literally, 1-800-Dial-a-Priest, because it was the only thing we could find that didn't involve faking our way through premarital counselling.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
12

Are you kidding, Will? David sounds great. They drank absinthe for three days and then she decided to move back to San Francisco to be with him. Clearly, her friend was just hurt that she had to make room the emotional life raft for threesies.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
13

Come on, the article doesn't say anything about needing to talk to a forrealz God-type. It's saying that in many cases the government will allow someone who has an existing role as a spiritual leader in your life that you take seriously to marry you; but if you don't have such an alternate structure you have to go to the government.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
14

Heebie:

I didn't really mean the ML situation. In real life, your emotionally mature friends are important sounding boards. A new significant other who isolates you from your friends is bad news.

Of course, a good friend understands that your time and your emotional energy will wax and wane depending on your love interests and time. Navigating that balance can be delicate.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
15

Strangely, this is just about the only ML column I've read that I didn't find totally repulsive, perhaps because I am fond of platonic affairs. But seriously, dumping your platonic affair for some random guy in Prague is almost certainly a bad idea.


Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
16
"It's like you want your favorite cousin to do a surgery, so they go online to get a medical degree," she said.
Suddenly I support the analogy ban.
Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
17

I hope that spiritual leader in your life that you take seriously is never defined so broadly as to include founder of your favorite blog.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
18

It's saying that in many cases the government will allow someone who has an existing role as a spiritual leader in your life that you take seriously to marry you; but if you don't have such an alternate structure you have to go to the government.

No it doesn't. The law doesn't say a damn thing about my spiritual relationship to the minister in question, just that he has to be a real minister. If he's got a congregation on Sundays, and on the other six days a week works the night shift in the Reverend Elvis's All-Night Marriage Parlor, that's cool.

I say Feh.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
19

My sister and her husband were married by his fairly goofy brother, who got a mail-order credential for the purpose. Apparently that works in Oregon. Concluding line of the ceremony: "By the dubious powers vested in me, I now pronounce you husband and wife."


Posted by: DaveL | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
20

I had an eight-year friendship of the "we're closer than siblings" kind that died a few years ago. We dated other people pretty often and the friendship was always more important; our intimacy threatened our boyfriends, but if they couldn't handle it, we told them to fuck off. A few years ago, my friend started dating this really hypersensitive guy, about whom my friend was gaga. I liked the guy too and invited him to a party while Friend was out of the country. We talked, and he asked me what Friend used to be like. I casually mentioned a few things about Friend's previous marriage, assuming Boyfriend knew. Boyfriend and I suddenly realized that Friend is a sneak and was lying to BF about, well, a lot of things.

It sucked, because when Friend found out, he was fucking livid at me. I didn't even know that I was supposed to lie for him, or what about, but he was enraged. He said I was just lonely and jealous and trying to split them up. I didn't realize his new relationship required me to back off and stop being Most Intimate Friend of All Time, and I don't think he realized it until that moment either.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
21

20: Was Friend's previous marriage to a woman? And was that part of the withheld info?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
22

Heebie: I didn't really mean the ML situation.

Will, I will doggedly continue to distort what you say in order to make silly jokes. So there.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
23

If he has any congregation at all. He could preach the gospel of Ogged. Just that enough people takes his (or her!) role as a leader in the community seriously enough that her (or his) endorsing the marraige counts for something.

I don't think it's any different than whatever the rules are about what actually counts as a sale for tax or accounting purposes. But as this is an analogy, I hereby ban myself.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
24

I'd be really pissed about having to go the government option if it meant getting married at City Hall. I became soured on the whole City Hall thing when I learned that (in New York, at least) only three people besides the couple getting married are allowed to watch the ceremony. Three! What a terrible number! That's not even both sets of parents!

If I couldn't find anyone else to perform the ceremony, I'd just have to go to Vegas or something. At least there you can have 30 people and it's streamed on the Internet.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
25

He could preach the gospel of Ogged.

Praise Ospel!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
26

21: Yes, and I also casually mentioned the fact that Friend and I used to date. So not only did BF discover that Friend used to be married to a woman, but that he went on to date women for some time afterwards. BF was understandably upset about finding this out from me. Of course, I should emphasize that I seriously had no idea that BF didn't know.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
27

Will, I will doggedly continue to distort what you say in order to make silly jokes. So there.

And I will doggedly misspell words and not correct my grammatical mistakes in order to amuse you. So there.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
28

I would personally get married if I could be married by someone who preached the Gospel of Ogged. I don't think I'd want it to form my guiding principles in married life, though.


Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
29

Actually, the Star Trek wedding is much cheaper.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
30

How about getting married by someone who preaches the Gospel of Emerson?


Posted by: DaveL | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
31

And I will doggedly misspell words and not correct my grammatical mistakes in order to amuse you. So there.

You may have been dropping tons of jokes that have flown under my radar, dear Will. I'm not number one ladies detective agency on the grammar tip.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
32

I'm pretty sure McManlyPants has officiated a few marriages as a heathen something-or-other.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
33

I would personally get married if I could be married by someone who preached the Gospel of Ogged.

I considered that, but becoming a Zoroastrian would play havoc with any plans to be buried in a family plot.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
34

I would personally get married if I could be married by someone who preached the Gospel of Ogged. I don't think I'd want it to form my guiding principles in married life, though.

Agreed. In addition, I will only marry my super-fabulous, much-better-than-me gf if the preacher speaks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
35

30: Oooh, transgressive!


Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
36

You may have been dropping tons of jokes that have flown under my radar, dear Will. I'm not number one ladies detective agency on the grammar tip.

I'll make math mistakes next time.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
37

They're called masthakes.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
38

I would prefer if you littered the comments with master shakes.

Anyway, it's a shame that Modern Love has given us so little idiotic writing recently.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
39

I think that everybody should be required to marry in front of a government official. Anyone who wants a pretty wedding or a religious wedding can do it on their own time and turf, but the government shouldn't recognise those frippery ceremonies.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
40

39 is right.

I was under the impression that the church wedding was irrelevant legally and after you had the wedding in the eyes of God you had to go to the courthouse and become married in the eyes of the state. The idea that some religious weddings actually do have legal force sounds weird.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
41

I too agree with 39.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
42

I married in Chile, a country with a lot of instutionalized religion, and there everybody has to do the civil ceremony in the office. France has the same thing. I would have been seriously annoyed if we had been obligated to have someone officiate our wedding, especially if it couldn't just be anyone of our choosing.


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
43

I believe they mostly do - you go to City Hall and get the certificate, but a qualified officiant has to sign and return the "You're really married now" tear-off coupon.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
44

I think that everybody should be required to marry in front of a government official.

I can understand requiring the couple to consummate the marriage in front of a government official (to mitigate fraud), but doing the actual actual ceremony in front of an official? Count me out.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
45

My sister's top-secret Mormon temple wedding was a legally binding ceremony. I waited outside on the parking lot with my other sister and our parents.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
46

44: It's the only way to be truly sure that you're preventing gay marriage.


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
47

I think that everybody should be required to marry in front of a government official.

There should also be a Republican ceremony and a Democratic ceremony.

The Republican one needs to include a provision about supporting the husband when he has gay sex or visits prostitutes behind the wife's back.

After the most recent wiretapping vote, the Democratic one should include a provision about supporting the husband when he becomes a big pussy who has no spine.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
48

If marriage is going to be a legal institution, then getting married at city hall oughta be a requirement. You can go on to have a religious ceremony with a jillion guests and little net bags of jordan almonds later.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
49

If notary publics are good enough for wills and deeds, they ought to be good enough for weddings.


Posted by: DaveL | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
50

While we are fixing the marriage system, I'm going to throw in my suggestion of 7 year renewable marriages.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
51

49: Since ben isn't here: that's "notaries public."


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
52

50 is a good idea that worries me. I'm going to advocate instead for abolishing marriage altogether and replacing it with some kind of binding contract thingy between parents (including parents-by-choice).


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
53

48 and everyone else who said the same thing -- you already have to go to the gov't for the marriage certificate. At that point, why do you need a particular officiant at all? Just have both parties sign the damn thing and send it in.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
54

53: Eh, it makes sense to have something like that legally witnessed. But okay, you can have it notarized instead of having the witnessing done *at* city hall.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
55

51: My brain knows that. Apparently my fingers sometimes forget.


Posted by: DaveL | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
56

53: not everywhere.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
57

Probably true -- I'm talking about NY State, which I figured was pretty standard.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
58

"It's like you want your favorite cousin to do a surgery, so they go online to get a medical degree," she said.

Yeah, this made me livid. NO, Elnora Douglas, it is not like that. I hate you forever.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
59

51: No, no, clearly he meant "Notah Republics," as in Ute Reservations.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
60

I'm talking about NY State, which I figured was pretty standard.

Typical liberal in a bubble.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
61

Notarization is a joke anyway.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
62

Notarization is a joke

A landmark in the history of hip-hop.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
63

32: Indeed I have. I have my ULC certificate, of course, as well as a ULC certification as a rabbi (it was a special request for one ceremony; I made them pay the $20 to get the certificate). ULC isn't recognized in NC, either, and in none of the weddings I've performed was I the legal officiant who signed any marriage certificates; they all (in the cases where they were legal hetero marriages) had the legal version performed on a separate, prior occasion. I just did the big ceremony for friends/family.

I also think everyone should have to get married at city hall and the state shouldn't give two shits who performs or where or how is performed any religious component. It's none of the government's goddamn business.

I also endorse trial marriages. I once assisted in performing a month-and-a-day handfasting then assisted with performing their year-and-a-day when they decided to re-up, then helped with the post-breakup listening when they decided not to re-up a year later.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
64

This thread has given me the idea to specialize in gay or heterosexual (non-marriage) partnership agreements. Forget marriage. I will help my friends forge a new way. Then, let those marriage devotees come begging to learn our way.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
65

The first time I got married, it was by a notary public at the Dillon Wedding Chapel, just over the SC state line. We got hot dogs at South of the Border afterwards. A year later, we had the big churchy shindig with guests and presents and stuff.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
66

This last one, we just went to the Durham Courthouse.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
67

My sister, who had sworn off marriage entirely after her first one, backslid dangerously from Emersonian principles and married a wonderful man a few years ago. She was going to just do the courthouse thing and was perfectly happy with it but my mother guilted her into doing some semblance of a churchy ceremony so that there could be pictures. As a result, my sister threw the ceremony together in less than a week and got the church on the only Saturday still available with such short notice: April Fool's Day. I think my mother still wonders whether that was an intentional jab at her insistence on a ghost of a ritual.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
68

My parents got married at Oak Creek Canyon by a little old Reform rabbi who came up from Phoenix. They had a hell of a time finding a rabbi who would do an interfaith ceremony.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 3:58 PM
horizontal rule
69

68: hell of a time finding a rabbi who would do an interfaith ceremony

this was true for me as well, which was why I ended up being married by a pimp.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
70

I know I've voiced approval of Will's 7-year renewable policy before. I'll throw in an added proposal, however, of a one or two-month mandatory hiatus before you can re-up. Absence makes the hindsight clearer.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 6:46 PM
horizontal rule
71

Excellent idea Di Kotimy.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
72

Will! I was hoping you'd show up. I just read an article on autistic girls and thought of you. Did you see it?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
73

You are sweet. If you are talking about the NY Times article, I did read it.

I was disappointed because it focused on higher functioning Asberger's syndrome kids. My daughter is much lower functioning from a cognitive standpoint.

Of course, she is very high functioning when it comes to kisses and hugs. And sometimes hitting.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
74

Asperger's, not Asberger's.

I have special sensitivity to this mistake because a couple years ago someone I knew was talking about her relative with Asperger's syndrome, but she pronounced it "Ass-Burger's" (second syllable accented more than the first, as well), and she got upset when I thought she was making some weird joke.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
75

Will, if you don't mind me asking, how old was your daughter when you realized something was amiss?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
76

Yup, that article.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
77

Sorry Cryptic. My stupid failure to re-read and edit.

Apo: She was slow developmentally, but by 22 months we definitely knew something was wrong. The doctors were reluctant to label it until later.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 08- 6-07 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
78

45: apo, I almost got married to my highschool boyfriend in dillon, but luckily my little brother, who was in the car, talked us out of it.


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 08- 7-07 12:00 AM
horizontal rule
79

On the marriage thing, you need a resolution like we have, where you have to be married by a city official (unless you do it in the CoE, where the priests are counted as city officials for this purpose), but anybody who has a hotel, night club, ruined castle, etc. where people might like to get married, can get it registered as a place for marriages, an you can arrange for the official to drive out to do the ceremony there.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 08- 7-07 3:36 AM
horizontal rule
80

At that point, why do you need a particular officiant at all?

Indeed, up until the mid 16th century, "do it yourself" marriages, where the happy couple simply swore fidelity to one another (sometimes in secret) were considered perfectly valid in Europe.

It wasn't until the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church instated the requirement for a marriage ceremony to be celebrated by a priest in the presence of witnesses--thus making the institution of marriage a more reliable vehicle for social control and the inheritance of property.

The Church of England tightened the screws even further, making a valid marriage contingent on the pronouncement of "banns" in the home parish of bride and groom on the three Sundays preceding the wedding. Thus could elopement be forestalled or rendered invalid.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08- 7-07 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
81

But not in Scotland! Yay, Gretna Green!


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 7-07 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
82

The Catholic church has banns, too. They print them in the church bulletin and the best part is that no one knows why.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 7-07 10:57 AM
horizontal rule