Marriages Ruled Invalid in PA- attacking the constitution once again
July 7th 2008 18:30
Last year, there was an important but little talked about case in York County Pennsylvania.
A couple who was seeking a divorce decided that they may have a cheaper way out if they could prove that their marriage was not valid in the first place. They had been married by a friend who became a minister of the Universal Life Church through online ordination.
The judge in York County decided that this type of ordination does not meet the PA state requirements for someone who is valid to perform a marriage. The law states that someone must be either a judge, mayor, or a minister of a “regularly established church or congregation.” The ULC has repeatedly been found to be a regularly established church in lawsuits around the country and in their defence, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in February 2008 to uphold the validity of marriages performed by ministers of this church.
You may ask why I am interested in this. There are both personal and political reasons.
Last March, we were attending a wedding of a close family friend in Florida. They were an interfaith couple, Jewish and Catholic, and wanted to do a single ceremony that reflected both sets of beliefs. The bride’s sister, on online ordained minister who lived in Vermont, was supposed to perform the ceremony. It just happened to be the same weekend that a huge snowstorm hit New England and shut down all methods of travel. Not only was the bride’s sister unable to attend, but now they were left without a minister the day before the wedding.
My father has always been an extremely spiritual man. His daily activities outside of work involve Bible study both alone and in groups, reading stacks of religious research books, and watching endless hours of ministry on TV. He was their logical choice of “next-in-line” ministers. He got an online ordination that night and married the couple the next day to stellar reviews.
When we returned home, he decided that he wanted to make a career of his abilities as a well read and well spoken man. This desire was greatly increased after he suffered a near heart attack and had to have quadruple bypass surgery. After the surgery, he started advertising as a minister and taking online classes to learn more about ministry.
Flash forward 6 months and several marriages performed later. Since this ruling, he is no longer allowed to pursue this career and the marriages he performed may not be considered valid if questioned in court.
A ruling such as this is an absolute threat to our freedom. It allows for the government and courts to decide what type of religion is allowed to be valid. It allows a type of sovereignty over religious choice that hasn’t been seen since Henry VIII.
Moreover, is it even necessary that couples be married by someone that the state rules is valid? Before the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, there was not even a universal definition of marriage. When there was one it was, in my opinion, an unconstitutional one. The only good thing that it did was to give rights to the states to decide for themselves what they wanted. Unfortunately, many states are not making good decisions on this either. Since they seen to be tiring of the old gay marriage argument, they've decided to start attacking other forms of marriage. Same old game, different victim.
When is comes down to facts, marriage is a contract. When you sign on the dotted line, you verify that you want to be married to the person on the opposite line. Why should it take a minister or a judge saying words or witnessing the signing to make it valid. Could it not be just as valid if I witnessed my friends signing the paper and could testify to that fact? It would be when entering into most other contracts.
The kicker is that this entire debacle was started by someone being selfish and trying to save themselves a few bucks at the expense of thousands of other citizens. The good of the one outweighing the good of the many once again, and the PA government allowing it to take place.
Freedom of religion, freedom of choice…these things are in severe danger when a ruling like this takes place. It is completely unamerican and against the basic principals that our country stands for.
A couple who was seeking a divorce decided that they may have a cheaper way out if they could prove that their marriage was not valid in the first place. They had been married by a friend who became a minister of the Universal Life Church through online ordination.
The judge in York County decided that this type of ordination does not meet the PA state requirements for someone who is valid to perform a marriage. The law states that someone must be either a judge, mayor, or a minister of a “regularly established church or congregation.” The ULC has repeatedly been found to be a regularly established church in lawsuits around the country and in their defence, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in February 2008 to uphold the validity of marriages performed by ministers of this church.
You may ask why I am interested in this. There are both personal and political reasons.
Last March, we were attending a wedding of a close family friend in Florida. They were an interfaith couple, Jewish and Catholic, and wanted to do a single ceremony that reflected both sets of beliefs. The bride’s sister, on online ordained minister who lived in Vermont, was supposed to perform the ceremony. It just happened to be the same weekend that a huge snowstorm hit New England and shut down all methods of travel. Not only was the bride’s sister unable to attend, but now they were left without a minister the day before the wedding.
My father has always been an extremely spiritual man. His daily activities outside of work involve Bible study both alone and in groups, reading stacks of religious research books, and watching endless hours of ministry on TV. He was their logical choice of “next-in-line” ministers. He got an online ordination that night and married the couple the next day to stellar reviews.
When we returned home, he decided that he wanted to make a career of his abilities as a well read and well spoken man. This desire was greatly increased after he suffered a near heart attack and had to have quadruple bypass surgery. After the surgery, he started advertising as a minister and taking online classes to learn more about ministry.
Flash forward 6 months and several marriages performed later. Since this ruling, he is no longer allowed to pursue this career and the marriages he performed may not be considered valid if questioned in court.
A ruling such as this is an absolute threat to our freedom. It allows for the government and courts to decide what type of religion is allowed to be valid. It allows a type of sovereignty over religious choice that hasn’t been seen since Henry VIII.
Moreover, is it even necessary that couples be married by someone that the state rules is valid? Before the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, there was not even a universal definition of marriage. When there was one it was, in my opinion, an unconstitutional one. The only good thing that it did was to give rights to the states to decide for themselves what they wanted. Unfortunately, many states are not making good decisions on this either. Since they seen to be tiring of the old gay marriage argument, they've decided to start attacking other forms of marriage. Same old game, different victim.
When is comes down to facts, marriage is a contract. When you sign on the dotted line, you verify that you want to be married to the person on the opposite line. Why should it take a minister or a judge saying words or witnessing the signing to make it valid. Could it not be just as valid if I witnessed my friends signing the paper and could testify to that fact? It would be when entering into most other contracts.
The kicker is that this entire debacle was started by someone being selfish and trying to save themselves a few bucks at the expense of thousands of other citizens. The good of the one outweighing the good of the many once again, and the PA government allowing it to take place.
Freedom of religion, freedom of choice…these things are in severe danger when a ruling like this takes place. It is completely unamerican and against the basic principals that our country stands for.
| 68 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Triple B
SPL Focus
Black Books
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Josie
Waxing Political
Unique Parent