Marriage License

[Ambrose]

Originally posted by satz

Originally posted by py3ak
I think having a big wedding is almost certainly a sin. So small is definitely my recommendation.

How so?

I plan on keeping my daughters' festivities down to no more than 7 days of feasting and dancing. I do want to save some money for their dowries.

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by Chad Degenhart]

 

[Puritanhead]

Who cares anyway? The bride's family picks up the tab.

I like my father-in-law already, and I have never met him, and I am willing to bet he will drop a cool ten grand on the big wedding.

Sucker.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Who cares anyway? The bride's family picks up the tab.

I like my father-in-law already, and I have never met him, and I am willing to bet he will drop a cool ten grand on the big wedding.

Sucker.

Not always so. My wife's mother's first comment when we told them we were getting married was "we can't afford it." So I said I would pay for the wedding.

Actually it ended up with them helping a bit on the reception.

And I know you're being tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Ambrose]

Originally posted by victorbravo
Chad, things vary by state. You are right that people can act and be married without a license from the state, but if you are in a position to ask the state to adjudicate something that depends upon the validity of a marriage, then the problems start.

In Montana, for instance, common-law marriage is recognized by statute. The problem comes up often in the case of widow's benefits to a state or private pension. A common law wife may obtain the benefits, but she will have to prove in court that she was a common law wife. If she had the license recorded in a county, a certified copy would solve the question.

In Washington State, on the other hand, a common law marriage is not recognized. But, ironically, Washington will recognize a marriage that was recognized in another state; so common law marriages that are formed in Montana are legal marriages in Washington. But, if a situation arose as stated above, the surviving spouse would still have to prove in court that they were married according to Montana's laws.

I'm not saying it is the right thing to have a state officially recognize marriage, only that this is what we have.

Vic

How would the state of Washington regard a certificate of marriage from a Church - signed by both parties, the minister, and witnesses?

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Hey Gerry, I'd love to go up to the Soo sometime. I've never been there.

My fiancee is from Goshen, IN. Yes, I will be moving there if I'm allowed to. I have family up in Wisconsin as well.

What a small world indeed. I had distant relatives in the Goshen area. And, it's kind of on our way back to visit the moms.

I do hope you will be allowed to move there. Your wife would get pretty lonely.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart
The women have driver's licenses and all the conveniences of the modern mobile society. My point is simply that it is not necessary to have the state license to be married and function in society as a married couple.

It may be true in IL (where we just moved from)...particularly if the women were married in that state, etc. But I am someone who was born in one state, got married and my license in another, and now have to get a new license in a third (after I aquire my birth cert from the original state). Therefore, I and others entering THIS state HAVE to prove who we are and why and how our name has changed.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Who cares anyway? The bride's family picks up the tab.

I like my father-in-law already, and I have never met him, and I am willing to bet he will drop a cool ten grand on the big wedding.

Sucker.

Well, I can tell you won't be marrying any of my daughters

 

[py3ak]

Because it is self-indulgence and bad stewardship. I made a profit on my wedding.

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart

How would the state of Washington regard a certificate of marriage from a Church - signed by both parties, the minister, and witnesses?

Chad, Washington will certainly honor such a certificate of marriage. But they still want a license and they want the certificate filed:

RCW 26.04.140
Marriage license.

Before any persons can be joined in marriage, they shall procure a license from a county auditor, as provided in RCW 26.04.150 through 26.04.190.


RCW 26.04.120
Marriage according to religious ritual.

All marriages to which there are no legal impediments, solemnized before or in any religious organization or congregation, according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced therein, are valid, and a certificate containing the particulars specified in RCW 26.04.080 and 26.04.090, shall be made and filed for record by the person or persons presiding or officiating in or recording the proceedings of such religious organization or congregation, in the manner and with like effect as in ordinary cases.
[Code 1881 § 2389; RRS § 8448.]

On the positive side, WA has a statute that specifically prohibits recognizing "marriages" from other states that violate its definition of marriage. That includes homosexual marriage. So WA will not grant "full faith and credit" to one of those Canadian or Massachusetts decrees. But the statutory definition is being challenged by the homosexual lobby. A WA Supreme Court decision is expected any day now.

If you want to read up on all the marriage statutes in WA, here is a link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.04

Vic

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by victorbravo]

 

[Ambrose]

Originally posted by victorbravo

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart

How would the state of Washington regard a certificate of marriage from a Church - signed by both parties, the minister, and witnesses?

Chad, Washington will certainly honor such a certificate of marriage. But they still want a license and they want the certificate filed:

RCW 26.04.140
Marriage license.

Before any persons can be joined in marriage, they shall procure a license from a county auditor, as provided in RCW 26.04.150 through 26.04.190.


RCW 26.04.120
Marriage according to religious ritual.

All marriages to which there are no legal impediments, solemnized before or in any religious organization or congregation, according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced therein, are valid, and a certificate containing the particulars specified in RCW 26.04.080 and 26.04.090, shall be made and filed for record by the person or persons presiding or officiating in or recording the proceedings of such religious organization or congregation, in the manner and with like effect as in ordinary cases.
[Code 1881 § 2389; RRS § 8448.]

On the positive side, WA has a statute that specifically prohibits recognizing "marriages" from other states that violate its definition of marriage. That includes homosexual marriage. So WA will not grant "full faith and credit" to one of those Canadian or Massachusetts decrees. But the statutory definition is being challenged by the homosexual lobby. A WA Supreme Court decision is expected any day now.

If you want to read up on all the marriage statutes in WA, here is a link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.04

Vic

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by victorbravo]

Thanks for the link. Its interesting because they require a license, but the sanctions are applied to the minister. So if I produced a church certificate, they might find my minister and fine him.

Yet I could get married by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas (who was also licensed to officiate) and that would be cool with them.

I do appreciate the requirement for public notice prior to the wedding, though.

 

[ServantOfKing]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
If one could not afford a typical wedding and decided to get married legally and save for a marriage would that be ok from a biblical viewpoint?

blade

So here are a few random thoughts...
From a socially appropriate standpoint - it depends on who you ask. Some people think it's fine while others would think it was inappopriate. The whole topic of weddings brings up all kinds of social etiquette rules, stupid traditions, and dumb rituals. Just ask an older woman in the south if it's okay for a bride to wear ivory instead of stark white. She'll likely tell you that it means the bride isn't "pure." In the Victorian times brides wore colorful dresses and that was considered socially acceptable. So it depends on who you're talking to.

I would say, why not just have a really small wedding. I helped my friend pull one together in less than a month. They didn't spend alot and it was beautiful. If you don't have alot of money but want to get married and want to have the "typical wedding"- just compromise and do a smaller wedding.

Another thought. It's not wrong to have a big traditional wedding by any means - if you can afford it. As I have been planning my own wedding (in December) I've had to question my own motives. Am I having this wedding to "show off" or out of pride? Humility and a desire to exalt Christ, not ourselves, should be at the forefront. Just something to think about!