I realized that marriage laws are under the control of each state and not the feds.

Marriage, which binds people in a civil contract, is a civil matter.

Therefore, could pressure be applied requiring an open marriage ceremony? Either by a legislative bill or by petition on a ballet?

It would fail in Utah. But maybe work in other states.

Once in place the church would be forced to allow a civil marriage before or after a temple marriage as they do in several countries.

How long after that would they allow the civil marriage with no waiting period across the board?

Mormons merry TMC, vs. 1 another.
Besides, nothing in TMC is civil...
It's criminal - and it's sick!
The ring is to bind these poor souls to TMC for preternity!

M@t

P.S. open? Hahaha. Um, closed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2016 04:33PM by moremany.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean...

But it would be possible to simply make "religious" marriage ceremonies have no legal validity, thus requiring people who wish to be legally recognized as married to have a civil "ceremony" of some kind (which could be as simple as signing a document in front of a justice of the peace).

That's what a number of countries do already. And it wouldn't be unconstitutional as long as it applied to all religions.

There would be an awful lot of screaming & yelling about it, though. And not just from Utah :)

I don't know if I am remembering this correctly or not, but when I was growing up I was reading a biography of the "little princesses" (Elizabeth and Margaret, who grew up not knowing that they would eventually be in the direct line of succession, because it all changed when their uncle, the king, suddenly abdicated the throne so he could marry an American divorcee).

In any case, the point (as I remember it) was made that all legal weddings in the UK MUST be "public" and OPEN to the "public"...

...so, when there are the gigantic, showy royal weddings for those who are (apparently) certain to become [eventual] UK monarchs, there are aides who go out among the crowds and arbitrarily select a certain number of "members of the public," who are ushered inside, and become witness-representatives of the entire UK citizenry.

What I got out of that was that it is REALLY important in the UK to have weddings which are PUBLIC!!!

A public wedding vs a closed hidden ceremony is what I was after.

The constitution gives states the power to govern marriage. States set rules as to who can marry. What property rights exist. Etc. So I theorize what if states required a public wedding?

The church's punishment of a year wait to enter the temple for those chosing to marry outside the temple, would be blunted if a state regulated that a marriage must be public.

A temple sealing of course would be allowed. In fact it could happen before or after a civil marriage.

They have this in several European countries. For example, a Mormon wedding in Hungary would take place civilly, at the courthouse. All would be welcome. The couple would then honeymoon in England, Germany, or Switzerland. The sealing ceremony would then be a small affair (just the couple, rarely any family).

Since marriage laws are set by states, there is probably nothing to stop similar laws from being passed besides political will.

I can't think of a state where I could see this happening. IMO Americans like the freedom to marry as they please -- whether it's in a courthouse, a church, a beach, or a private home.

Are U forgetting property rights of owners to determine who can & who can't be on the property?

That's what LDS & others would claim, For Sure.

As things are now, you go and get a marriage certificate from the court house, then you can have it signed by a judge, civil servant or a member of any clergy can sign it if they choose. People are really unclear on that last point, because they've been lied to about it. No religion will ever be forced to perform a marriage they don't want to (see the first amendment). It would be so much better if the religious rite were completely separate from the civil right. Just deal with the government on the legal aspects of the marriage, and deal with your church separately on the ceremony.

In Florida any Notary Public can sign off on the marriage certifcate, not sure about other states. My ex wife and I had her friends mom who was a Notary at a real estate office where she was receptionist... The minister/priest/rabbi/pastor could easily get certified as a Notary. Or for most churches one of the church employees could be a notary...

Problem solved.

I know quite a few countries require a state document

The problem would not be solved because TSCC could insist that the couple marry in a temple which is in a state which does not require the public marriage. IOWs, how many temples are located in states which would require public marriages? Indeed, because TSCC makes much money off of the temples, it would really fight against the requirement in any state which has a temple. As for other states....

I'm a lesbian and I don't think it makes any sense to attempt to force houses of worship to perform marriages they don't want to perform.

It's a solution in desperate search of a problem. Nobody in the US cares that weddings can be private affairs. Even the exMos that care are really interested in changing LDS sealing policy. They don't care about forbidding private weddings.

If nobody cares, there is zero chance anybody will go to the trouble of changing the law.

I'd love to see it happen. I'd love to see religions taken out of the marriage business and what is really a contractual arrangement handled exclusively by the state. Religious celebration or memorialization would be fine: I would just prefer that the authoritative piece be removed from religious control.

But I don't think such reforms are constitutionally permissible. The 1st Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion and the 14th makes that limitation binding on states as well. So while states may set most conditions for marriage, there are strict national standards for regulation of any element in which religions are involved; and mere equitable treatment of different faiths does not satisfy those requirements.

There is abundant case law fleshing this out. Ironically scores of cases were brought to the Supreme Court by Jehovah's Witnesses and over half of them were decided in favor of that church. The upshot is that the govrnment can infringe on the right of religions to do secular things if those actions are illegal, and rationally so--meaning that the laws are not arbitrary or trivial. So polygamy, human sacrifice (yes, it shows up in the opinions), consumption of peyote are areas in which the state can impose restrictions. But laws requiring draft registration, prohibiting proselytizing, or regarding a lot of other things that a state might want churches to do, or cease doing, are barred.

Put simply, if you can't show a really significant and consistent harm inflicted by private monogamous religious ceremonies, the supreme court will probably consider those ceremonies constitutionally protected. The United States doesn't have the flexibility here that, for instance, France has.