Is there a way not to be legally married by the church?

[Seatuck]

I’ve just realised that I’m perhaps missing something.
In the US, do any papers need to be signed to make the marriage valid in the eyes of the State, or does the State consider the marriage valid merely by virtue of the ceremony?

It depends upon the state. Some states recognize common law marriages. Many don’t. In my state there are papers that must be signed and filed for it to be legal. Although they do recognize common law marriages from other states. Ministers generally act as proxy witness for the state and sign the forms and send them in to the local authority.

 

[Corki]

It depends upon the state. Some states recognize common law marriages. Many don’t. In my state there are papers that must be signed and filed for it to be legal. Although they do recognize common law marriages from other states. Ministers generally act as proxy witness for the state and sign the forms and send them in to the local authority.

And even if you are in a state that recognizes common-law marriages, it isn’t usually an “instant” marriage. With a signed marriage certificate, you are married from that moment on. With common-law, you act as husband and wife and your marriage may be recognized as common law at some point in the future. It’s a “looking back” process.

The Federal Government doesn’t recognize common law marriage either (although oddly Washington DC does). So the INS and Social Security examples aren’t helped by a common-law marriage.

 

[SMHW]

The INS was also defrauded. It is against immigration law to enter as a “visitor” when you intend to be married while you are “visiting”.

But unless I am misunderstanding the post, the legal marriage took place *after *the permanent immigration papers came through.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

We aren’t discussing “secret” marriages, only marriages that are not legal in the eyes of the state.

Suppose I was a 98 year old hippie, and my fella (102) and I go in the woods with our friends. We sit on the ground while our friends dance around us with their walkers and throw flower petals on us and chant about the blessings of Mother Earth and Father Sun and invoke all the good of the force and the universe upon us. We then go home, eat tofu and brown rice and open the wedding gifts. The “marriage” is not a secret, everybody knows about it. But with no legal documents the state will never recognize it.

In Florida some elderly couples have their unions blessed by the priest, but the state does not recognize it because there are no legal documents. (Of course, in Floriday some priests don’t believe in celebacy and turn Episcapal.) Why is this a problem?

 

[Corki]

But unless I am misunderstanding the post, the legal marriage took place *after *the permanent immigration papers came through.

Well, I may have misunderstood Brendan’s post.

We went off on our honeymoon, and she came in to the States as a regular Canadian on a visit.

Paperwork came through about a month later and we did a Justice of the peace thing with two friends to keep INS happy.

When you petition for a Visa to get married, you enter the country with that Visa. You are supposed to be unmarried when you enter the country. This looks like she entered as a Visitor, prior to getting the Visa to get married. When you enter as a Visitor, your intent is supposed to be to return to your home country.

If you get married in another country and want to bring your spouse to the US, it is a much longer wait. From the viewpoint of the INS, she was not unmarried when she entered and she misrepresented her intent.

The INS is kind of picky about these things. I used to work in immigration and one of our clients was barred from ever entering the US just because they found out he had misreprested his intent on one of his border crossings (out of dozens). He was Canadian as well.

 

[Corki]

We aren’t discussing “secret” marriages, only marriages that are not legal in the eyes of the state.

But the two are related. In the US anyway, clergy are authorized to perform marriages by the state. That is both a right and a responsibility. Part of that responsibility includes properly completing the documents the state requires. Well, the Church says that for a just reason, you can have a Sacramental Wedding and not let anyone know, including the state. And that would be a secret marriage. That seems to be the only possible “loophole” or way to have a Sacramental marriage that is not civilly legal. For a ‘grave and urgent’ cause, the duty to the state could be licitly ignored.

 

[Seatuck]

But the two are related. In the US anyway, clergy are authorized to perform marriages by the state. That is both a right and a responsibility. Part of that responsibility includes properly completing the documents the state requires. Well, the Church says that for a just reason, you can have a Sacramental Wedding and not let anyone know, including the state. And that would be a secret marriage. That seems to be the only possible “loophole” or way to have a Sacramental marriage that is not civilly legal. For a ‘grave and urgent’ cause, the duty to the state could be licitly ignored.

So, then should the couple live together as man and wife or not? That’s really what at issue. With a “secret marriage” , they would not be doing so. With the type of marriage that is being discussed in this thread they would be living together.

 

[Soler]

It depends upon the state. Some states recognize common law marriages. Many don’t. In my state there are papers that must be signed and filed for it to be legal. Although they do recognize common law marriages from other states. Ministers generally act as proxy witness for the state and sign the forms and send them in to the local authority.

Thanks.

(In Ireland, the couple and witnesses sign forms after or before the ceremony.)

Would I be right in saying that in the states where forms must be signed, it is perfectly legal under civil law to have a sacramental marriage not recognized by the State?

—Soler.

 

[Corki]

So, then should the couple live together as man and wife or not? That’s really what at issue. With a “secret marriage” , they would not be doing so. With the type of marriage that is being discussed in this thread they would be living together.

Well, in my opinion (which is worth less than 2 cents), no. If they do not meet the conditions for a secret marriage, they shouldn’t be married. And living together without marriage is a sin, so that’s out too.

Keeping in mind that if the government decides, and some have suggested they should, to separate the civil and religious marriage process, then a Church marriage without a civil one would be fine as long as it isn’t done to commit a fraud or other crime.

 

[SMHW]

Thanks.

(In Ireland, the couple and witnesses sign forms after or before the ceremony.)

Would I be right in saying that in the states where forms must be signed, it is perfectly legal under civil law to have a sacramental marriage not recognized by the State?

—Soler.

The problem is that priests and deacons are considered to representatives of the state and and as such are not supposed to perform ceremonies with the appearance of legality but not legally binding. (In the case of convalidations the couple is already legally married so from the viewpoint of the state a couple is merely renewing their vows.)

 

[Digitonomy]

The problem is that priests and deacons are considered to representatives of the state and and such are not supposed to perform ceremonies with the appearance of legality but not legally binding.

This is a slight tangent, but how do polygamous denominations handle these issues - do they register just the first marriage, or are they generally in states with common law marriage? And how does the state show that an illegal second marriage exists, rather than a legal concubine or mistress relationship, in order to prosecute for polygamy?

 

[Corki]

The problem is that priests and deacons are considered to representatives of the state and and as such are not supposed to perform ceremonies with the appearance of legality but not legally binding. (In the case of convalidations the couple is already legally married so from the viewpoint of the state a couple is merely renewing their vows.)

That’s what I was trying to say several posts ago. You stated it much clearer. The Michigan law that I pasted says it’s a crime punishable by a fine. I would assume most states have similar statutes.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It would seem that recognition is overdue!

As previously stated, while the current law may be a hardship and ill-conceived that does not make it intrinisicly unjust.
Secondly, preforming a secret marriage could leave the diocese/bishop open to criminal charge of fraud.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is a slight tangent, but how do polygamous denominations handle these issues - do they register just the first marriage, or are they generally in states with common law marriage? And how does the state show that an illegal second marriage exists, rather than a legal concubine or mistress relationship, in order to prosecute for polygamy?

I am not 100% certain, but simply holding yourself publicly to be married to two women could be constituted an admission of polygamy.
And of course, the marriage records of the Church could be used against you.

 

[SMHW]

This is a slight tangent, but how do polygamous denominations handle these issues - do they register just the first marriage, or are they generally in states with common law marriage? And how does the state show that an illegal second marriage exists, rather than a legal concubine or mistress relationship, in order to prosecute for polygamy?

My guess is that they only register the first marriage. Today I think the prosecutions are mainly on the basis of having sexual relationships with minor females who are not legal spouses. And a minister could probably get in trouble if a couple he/she “marries” is publicly representing themself as married, by that minister when in fact one (or both) of them is/are legally married to someone else. Chances are that unless a the participants in a polygamist “marrige” are doing something of a legal and/or financial matter that is only possible for legal spouses then they will be left alone.

I’m guessing that the issue is how a minister and the “married” couple represent the supposed marriage. If a same sex couple in a location that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages goes before a minister for a “wedding” or if someone “marries” their pony before a minister then everyone knows that this is not a binding legal agreement; it’s just a religious affair.

 

[Sir_Knight]

To re-ask the question so that there is less confusion: can one get married in the eyes of the Church but not in the eyes of the government? Nothing about secret marriages, double marriages, multiple spouse marriages. Two people who are free to marry in the Catholic Church, can they be married sacramentally but not civilly?

Other than the reply from EWTN, which seems to indicate that one ca not, is there any other documented information on this point?

 

[Corki]

To re-ask the question so that there is less confusion: can one get married in the eyes of the Church but not in the eyes of the government?

Other than the reply from EWTN, which seems to indicate that one ca not, is there any other documented information on this point?

We’ve already given you the canon law sections and pointed to state laws that prohibit it. I am not sure what other documentation would help.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What has me confused is that this is being done in Florida. What is their Church defense for doing it? It has to be based on something. A priest can’t just do as he pleases.

 

[Corki]

What has me confused is that this is being done in Florida. What is their Church defense for doing it? It has to be based on something. A priest can’t just do as he pleases.

Well… A priest may not do as he pleases, but we have seen lots of examples of priests who frequently do as they please.

I guess you would have to ask the priest involved what documents or authority give him that permission. He might just be a scoff law on the matter, especially if the risk is low.

For example, in the Michigan law I cited, the only penalty listed is a fine not to exceed $500. I thought they might risk not being allowed to perform legal marriages if caught, but evidently in Michigan that’s not the case. So if a priest had a Bishop who was unlikely to object and a law in place that had little teeth, he might just decide to risk it.

If that were the case, it would likely be one of those “valid but illicit” situations.

 

[Seatuck]

Thanks.

(In Ireland, the couple and witnesses sign forms after or before the ceremony.)

Would I be right in saying that in the states where forms must be signed, it is perfectly legal under civil law to have a sacramental marriage not recognized by the State?

—Soler.

I don’t think so. There seems to be a problem with the appearance of it being legal since that is how it has always been done.My personal opinion is that it should be ok as long as the couple doesn’t seek any civil benefits. But you can’t count on that. In any case Canon Law has a problem with it so that is that.

It seems to me that the Church is going to have to get out of the civil witnessing portion anyway due to the recent legislations on same sex marriage. Just as she is being forced to get out of the adoption business.