Talk:Marriage license/Archive 1

Archive 1

To the person edited this page:

To the person edited this page:

I'm not sure about your answers. However, I strongly urge you to consult a lawyer or another professional; if you can't afford one, there are counseling services available. Wikipedia is NOT a good place to get any kind of legal advice. Best of luck,

Meelar (talk) 04:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I removed your personal information. Meelar (talk) 04:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Current definition of "marriage license"

It is interesting to note the current definition of "marriage license" in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed [1991] (which is the one used in a family law court):

Marriage license - A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry... By statute in most jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to lawful solemnization of the marriage." A license is required for persons who desire to "intermarry". ok; so, what does "intermarry" mean?

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed): Intermarry - See Miscegenation

This is nonsense. "Intermarry" simply means "to marry each other" - Nunh-huh 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--Shouldn't this information be included in the "controversy" part? Marriage Licenses were instigated to prevent interracial marriages, especially between blacks and whites. mpa June 5, 2006

Most also people don't actually understand or know that a license is not normally needed to get married. What you get with a "marriage license" is a "statutory marriage" with the State; as a result the man and woman applying to the State for a marriage license they are entering into a three-party contract with the State. And thusly

The United States Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore 96 US 76 (1877): said "As before remarked, the statutes are held merely directory; because marriage is a thing of common right...".

If it is a common right then a license is not normally required.

This is because a license is a document or agreement giving permission to do something and if something is a right then a license is not needed. Requiring a license would infer that it is a privilege. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

Bdelisle 08:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to shed some light on this conundrum. In England, at least, it gives the couple permission to marry without the usual statutory notice period. Without a licence [sic], a couple must have their intention to marry proclaimed for three weeks (in church) or 15 days (for a civil marriage). A licence allows them to dispense with that requirement and marry immediately.Bluewave 09:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

blood tests

User:Jredmond has already pointed out that blood tests needn't be discussed in detail here, but the information he (appropriately) removed was not only not particularly relevant, it was also wrong. "Blood tests" for marriages were specifically tests for syphilis, intended as a public health measure, and, it has been argued, surviving into the present day only by inertia rather than reason: they had absolutely nothing to do with intermarriage of cousins. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that information is back. I don't know where anyone got the idea that complicated genetic tests are required and performed when blood is tested before a marriage license is issued -- such tests didn't even exist back when my parents had blood tests before their marriage in the 1950's. Such tests have always concerned sexually-transmitted diseases only and not even all of them. Pre-marital genetic tests are optional and are not required by states, which these days, often don't even require the once-routine syphilis test. I'm going to make a change to the article.68.72.80.70 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Divine Right

"In this case you are asking for a license to do (marry) what you have a divine right to do in the first place. Almighty God pronounced that marriage is a sacred act, a contract between you, your spouse and God himself."

The state need not be involved.

POV Material

Why does all this POV material keep getting reverted back into existence, by different editors? It either needs to go, or be edited down into a Controversy section.

UK

This article says that it is a "marriage certificate in the UK". No, it is a marriage licence in the UK. A marriage certificate certifies that a marriage has taken place, whereas a marriage licence gives permission for a marriage to take place, usually as an alternative to the calling of banns. I shall try to write something to correct the article in the next day or two. Bluewave 21:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have had a go at adding stuff about the UK and also (hopefully) indicating why, historically, it was regarded legally as a licence. A couple of problems: one is that I know very little about marriage practices in the US and so I had difficulty with what to do with some of the existing stuff that clearly relates to the US. Maybe someone who knows about US practice can help. The second is on spelling. I decided to use the British "licence" when talking specifically about the UK: it seems wrong to talk about a document as a "license" when the thing has "licence" written on it. However, I appreciate the article now looks a bit odd, with two differrent spellings throughout. Any suggestions? Bluewave 09:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

This section was blank when I came across this page. I noticed there was some fairly benign information from 06/05/2006 that had been inexplicably removed.

Presumably, there should also be some references to states refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex partners, though I'm not sure how to include that without extending the depth of this article beyond its purview. Kevin 06:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Any valid reason that the marriage certificate image has to be for two MEN? A fraction, of a fraction of marriages are same-sex, and yet some genius politico had to use that picture. Thanks for the controversy. User:Micah

Is there any valid reason that it shouldn't be? A marriage license, is a marriage license, is a marriage license. I didn't look at the image closely to see what the genders were, but whether they're both men, both women, or a man and a woman, it illustrates a marriage license. It's possible that the same-sex license was the best illustration available. Since a same-sex marriage license is fairly commonplace, I'd imagine that there aren't many same-sex partners who feel inclined to scan and post their licenses. Kevin 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course there is a reason it shouldn't be. When you choose an illustration, you should select something that is typical rather than atypical. You don't illustrate "tiger" with a picture of an albino tiger; you choose one that's orange with black stripes. In this instance, not only is this particular document atypical, it's not even a legal marriage license: the licenses issued in San Francisco were subsequently declared to be invalid and so in fact are not actually marriage licenses at all. Most marriage licenses would have indications of "husband" and "wife" rather than "1st appl." and "2. appl.". A same-sex marriage license--from Massachusetts, where it would actually be a valid marriage license--might make an interesting addition to an article that already had a typical form shown, but it's a bad choice as the sole illustration. Still, it's better than none. - Nunh-huh 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that's a red herring. This article is about marriage licenses, and is ambiguous towards the parties named on the license. Claiming that this license is "atypical" by virtue of being same-sex puts you on a very slippery slope. I could easily counter that it looks nothing like my marriage license issued more recently in Michigan -- not because of gender differences, but because my marriage license is black-and-white, thus no colored marriage licenses are "typical" in Michigan. While we could pick nits over the differences between marriage licenses from state to state (or county to county, for that matter), I'm sure we can all agree that there are far more obvious differences statewide than whether or not the lines say "1st appl. and 2nd appl." or "bride and groom" , etc. And the current legality of the displayed license is irrelevant. It was legal when it was issued, and is not substantially different from a license that would be issued today. If the names were blocked out (or gender-ambiguous, like Chris, Pat, Jean, etc.), I doubt anyone would notice. Perhaps more importantly, this is all a very U.S.-centric view. There are other first world countries where same-sex marriage is indeed legal. Would a same-sex license from Ontario, Canada clear up the issue? Or are we so jingoistic and homophobic that only an American bride-and-groom license will suffice? Kevin 04:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. No one has objected to having a Canadian or any other nation's marriage license (excluding your objection to an American one). By all means add one. But you are wrong on two things: this was not a legal marriage license - anyone who thought otherwise was mistaken - this is what was decided by the courts. And it is substantially different, since the form was altered to be sex neutral. It's not jingoistic or homophobic to suggest that we illustrate with the usual rather than the unusual. - Nunh-huh 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to an American one at all. I'm simply saying that there are differences between visual aspects of American marriage licenses that are far greater than whether or not the terminology is gender-neutral or gender-specific. I can't reiterate enough that American marriage licenses look different from state-to-state. So raising contentions solely on gender specificity is specious, at best, and ignores other countries where such a document would not be unusual. The legality of that specific document is totally irrelevant. It is, in fact, what a common marriage license looks like. Your argument is akin to suggesting that a picture of a pink Cadillac on an article about Cadillac automobiles should be changed, because GM doesn't sell them in black. Kevin 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no countries in which such a document is the usual one. And your analogy is not particularly appropriate: a pink Cadillac is still an actual Cadillac; this particular document is not an actual marriage license. Try to use your common sense rather than your ideology here: the appropriate illustration is a run-of-the-mill, garden-variety, valid, marriage license. - Nunh-huh 19:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're completely ignoring my point, presumably to support your own ideology. Contradicting me does not make you right. Kevin 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're completely wrong about my ideology. And I'm not ignoring your point, which was that something that looks like a marriage license is as good an illustration as an actual marriage license would be. Which should be self-evidently wrong. Contradicting you has nothing to do with my being right, but I'm right nonetheless. - Nunh-huh 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I seriously have to recommend that the suggested case about "bureaucrats" requiring an "invasive test" of schoolchildren is not adequately documented to the verifiability standards of Wikipedia, despite having a sourcing URL. I would recommend more information be requested (which school? which "bureaucrats"? when? Is it corroborated by anyone else?), as it appears to be only documented on a web page critical of marriage licenses and may not maintain proper editorial standards.71.189.85.130 (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

History

Currently, we have some contradictions between the history stated in the section about Britain and that in the general "history" section. This latter section makes some assertions which I would question:

• "For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families." I don't know if this is true - it would need a citation. There is plenty of evidence of maariage as a ceremony with social or religious significance, rather than purely a private contract between 2 people.
• "For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes etc..." The church also had the role of ensuring that marriages did not violate its own rules. Examples of such violations are polygamous marriages and marriages to close relatives. It was for these reasons that the church introduced "banns" (certainly in Britain but I'm not sure about elsewhere) and licences. The church introduced licences in the 14th century, so I disagree with the 16 centuries.

The remainder of the history section deals with the United States specifically.

I propose integrating the history section with the existing sections on UK and U.S. Any better ideas? Bluewave (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are dealing with a complex topic here. But the sixteen centuries can be justified on the grounds that the Catholic Church recognized clandestine marriages on the grounds that the sacrament was administered by the contracting parties and required only their consent. This was the (often problematic) status quo until the Tametsi decree of the council of Trent in the sixteenth-century declared Clandestine marriage invalid. (notice I changed this in the first part of the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.15.185 (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

i noticed Thinking of England removed the portion regarding Keith Bardwell from the history section of the article. it seems to me that an event that garnered strong international news coverage would be a relevant historical event. i believe it should be in the history and controversy section. any other thoughts?Yourmanstan (talk)

Article contradicts itself

In the Britain section: "In the 14th century marriage licences were introduced". In the History section: "The concept of a Marriage License was introduced in the 1920s". 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As noted just above, the "history" section is really specific to the USA. I suggested a way of sorting this out but have not done any more to it. I agree it needs to be resolved. (And, yes, marriage licenses originated in the 14th century.) Bluewave (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain got marriage license while still married to first wife

What happens if someone obtains a marriage license while still legally married, but with an upcoming divorce? According to the Los Angeles Times:

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.198.9 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

POV dispute

there seems to be some concern of the neutrality of the controversy section. this is surprising because the purpose of the controversy section is to make the controversy known. by removing that information, the reader is not informed of what/why there is a controversy surrounding marriage licenses. there seems to be two particular pieces that bother a few people:

1. the fact that a marriage LICENSE adds government as a third party in the marriage contract
2. the fact that giving government authority over a marriage means it may be used to assert control over the couple.

it appears to me that this information is disturbing to some people, so they find a weak excuse (claiming that it is POV) to remove it. however, this information is NOT POV, it is fact and noteworthy information. Ohio state bar clearly notes that a marriage license adds the government as a third party to the marriage, which IS THE CONTROVERSY. this is not pov, it is simply fact... a fact that many people are concerned about. i don't know how it could be claimed to be anything else, but if you want to edit, please discuss here first to gain consensus and prevent edit warring.Yourmanstan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

Below in italics is the removed text (I removed it again, because the second sentence is soapboxing and does not under any circumstances belong in Wikipedia). Please note that this text was inserted in the Controversy section; I moved the non-POV part to the United States section but that change was perceived to be confusing, so I haven't done that again.

However, a marriage license introduces the government as another party in the marriage contract. This introduction allows the state to burden the couple with additional obligations and jurisdiction over the marriage and children.<ref>http://ohiobar.org/pub/lawfacts/index.asp?articleid=14</ref> As quoted by the Ohio State Bar:

The state is a party to the contract because under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio.

From what you write here, it seems as if this particular state law causes controversy in Ohio. Why is it (in your own words) THE CONTROVERSY? Who finds it controversial? Where are the sources for this specific controversy? And what does "However" refer to in this context? There is no logical link to the rest of the section, which deals with specific groups who are opposed to marriage licences; that text states exactly why there is a controversy in those cases, and quotes some of the people who find the issue controversial (the mercyseat.net site is a bit weak as a source, but it is a source.) That a marriage licence is a document authorising people to marry is already a known fact from the information in the rest of the article - there is no need to reiterate that information.

I agree that the quote from the Ohio state law is relevant and interesting, and that's why I moved it to a more logical place earlier, but unfortunately that change was thought to be confusing. Why was it confusing to add the facts about what the law actually says, to the section about that country? --Bonadea (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

did you not read the controversy? "Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between two people and God, so that no authorization from the state is required. [4]" so it is important to note that by obtaining a marriage license, the contract is NOT between two people and God, it becomes a contract between two people and the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've re-read the mercy-seat.net source and they quote this snippet as well, so it might be worth considering that as specific grounds for controversy. That doesn't mean editorialising comments is OK, and WP:UNDUE also applies. I'm adding a sentence about it; given the length of the section, and the fact that this is all based on one single source with questionable authority, it's not worth devoting too much text to this specific thing. This makes me wonder how authoritative the Ohio Legal Services source is - but that's not really relevant as such, because this is about the fact that the writing has caused controversy. --Bonadea (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yourmanstan is absolutely correct in this matter. Consensus is to insert what he wants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smratlik (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

One brand-new SPA agreeing doesn't really constitute a consensus :-) --Bonadea (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you dare refer to me an an SPA you scum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smratlik (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was fooled by the circumstance that you have few contributions to other articles, which is usually the definition of a SPA. "Scum" is not an appropriate way to refer to any other editor, ever. Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --Bonadea (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics

It seems like a glaring omission to discuss marriage licenses without addressing the subject of eugenics, since many marriage licensure laws sprang up during the early 20th century, when eugenics was still considered an achievable and often even a desirable goal, even by well respected scientists, at least one of which (Linus Pauling) had won a Nobel Prize. Many if not most of the new licensure requirements were nothing more than thinly veiled eugenic laws which tried to prevent "undesirable" unions between mixed races, people with genetic defects or communicable disease. This is verifiable history in the US, and may also be true for other countries, though others who know more of the history in other countries should fill it in. I have supplied a short paragraph attempting to explain this history in the controversy section. It could easily be expanded, as this is a rich, if ignoble, history which should not be forgotten. As it is the sole source and rational for the origin of many existing marriage licensure requirements, this history deserves to be mentioned in an article about marriage licenses. The eugenic aspects of the licensure requirements have largely been revoked, but the licensure requirements remain as a marriage tax (what else can it be called, for it serves little rational purpose). Also, with the current rapid expansion of genetic knowledge, there is the worrying possibility that eugenics could make a comeback and eventually even creep back into the existing licensure requirements. A knowledge of this history is important, therefore, in not repeating the mistakes of the past. Mba123 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC) mba123

Same sex marriage

This sentence was removed from the page by 71.142.208.250 without discussion:

Currently, marriage licensure laws are being used in the United States to prevent same-sex marriage.

On its face, this seems like a noncontroversial and factual statement. Deleting the sentence does not change the facts. Marriage laws are by definition a restriction on marriage and stating what those restrictions are is merely an explanation of marriage licensure itself. No stance has been taken one way or another about the validity of this prohibition. It is merely a factual statement that such a prohibition exists.Mba123 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Mba123

I looked at the edits that this user made and his first edit changed the sentence to read "Currently, marriage licensure laws are being used in the United States to save marriage from gays." This seems like obvious vandalism to me, so...reverting.Mba123 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Mba123

This sentence seems to stir one time users to delete it. This time, 71.143.1.126 has made his one and only contribution to Wikipedia by deleting this sentence without discussion. He did leave an explanation: "you need to edit the information so that a pov in present or not ad it at all." This does not make any sense to me. Without discussion, it can only be assumed that these users are engaging in an edit war. Please discuss.Mba123 (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Mba123

Still waiting on a discussion. After the last delete, I decided to try to eliminate any misinterpretation that a point of view was being expressed. The new addition should be historically accurate, pertinent to the article, verifiable with an excellent reference, and present a neutral POV. Will this also be the target of an edit war? Mba123 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Mba123