Canonical Witness to Sacramental Marriage

[Asinner]

may not (in good faith) refuse to perform a civil wedding

That’s not immediately obvious to me. I know there have been cases when a court clerk on the clock refused to do a marriage and got in trouble, but I don’t think the law can compel a justice of the peace to go to a private ceremony on his own time and not at the courthouse.

That’s not even a standard that a Catholic cleric must meet

Sure it is! I got married just last month. The pastor interviewed us well beforehand, he made sure we completed the catholic marriage prep class, and even asked us the questions of intent at the wedding itself. Now, it’s not like an FBI background check, but the only wrong answer to my question is “nothing.”

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think the law can compel a justice of the peace to go to a private ceremony on his own time and not at the courthouse.

It’s a valid civil ceremony. Therefore, regardless of location, it’s not “private”.

The pastor interviewed us well beforehand, he made sure we completed the catholic marriage prep class, and even asked us the questions of intent at the wedding itself.

That’s prior to the wedding. Is that all you were asserting – verifying before the fact ?

In any case, the couple would have these discussions with a priest or deacon prior to placing a request for dispensation. The JP isn’t responsible for – and has no role in – that action. It’s a requirement for a valid Catholic marriage, and not for the civil ceremony which a JP conducts.

 

[Asinner]

Is that all you were asserting – verifying before the fact ?

Yup

Therefore, regardless of location, it’s not “private”.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Asinner:

The semantics still don’t convince me that the law can compel a JP to be dragged anywhere in the world off the clock and not at the courthouse for a wedding.

 

[Gorgias]

The semantics still don’t convince me that the law can compel a JP to be dragged anywhere in the world off the clock and not at the courthouse for a wedding.

Not what I’m claiming, and not what was argued. Rather, the assertion was that it’s ok for a JP to refuse a wedding merely because it doesn’t fit the standards of a particular wedding. That’s what a JP can’t do.

 

[TomH1]

This sentence is so divorced from its context that your meaning is unclear!

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, even though it is wrong.

I have noticed a theme of you responding to people in this way. I shall not engage with you again.

 

[Asinner]

Will the wedding be outside of normal business hours? Will the wedding be somewhere other than the courthouse? If the answer to those two questions is “yes,” then I assert a JP can refuse the wedding for any reason. I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Gorgias]

I have noticed a theme of you responding to people in this way. I shall not engage with you again.

Hang on a sec – I point out that I have no idea what you’re referencing, and your response is “I’m not gonna tell you”? Umm…ok. Have a lovely day.

If the answer to those two questions is “yes,” then I assert a JP can refuse the wedding for any reason. I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Fair enough. Given that the subject was “refusal based on religious standards” and not “refusal based on timeframe”, I think we’re talking past one another at this point.

 

[Asinner]

I think we’re talking past one another

Well we’re talking about different things. You’re talking about a “courthouse wedding,” and I’m talking about a wedding not in a courthouse. The main thing is that it seems the OP is not talking about a “courthouse wedding” either.

 

[Gorgias]

You’re talking about a “courthouse wedding,” and I’m talking about a wedding not in a courthouse.

Actually, I’m not talking about location or timing at all. That’s something that only you are asserting. I’m only addressing whether a state official can refuse a civil wedding on the grounds that the wedding doesn’t meet religious standards.

 

[Asinner]

whether a state official can refuse a civil wedding on the grounds that the wedding doesn’t meet religious standards

And they can, as long as they are not on the clock at the courthouse.

Edit: the Kim Davis case actually isn’t exactly what I thought, and isn’t a useful example in this case.

 

[TomH1]

“I’m not gonna tell you”

This further confirms my decision, Sir, to no longer respond and this will be my last. That is a complete misquote and it is not even a correct paraphrase.

 

[Gorgias]

This further confirms my decision, Sir, to no longer respond

Have a nice day, then.

 

[Phemie]

Gorgias:

This sentence is so divorced from its context that your meaning is unclear!

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, even though it is wrong.

I have noticed a theme of you responding to people in this way. I shall not engage with you again.

I have to admit that I also couldn’t figure out to whom and to what you were responding.