Anyone here Ordained( able to marry people)?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2014 1:29 PM GMT
    OK so I was just curious if this is more widespread then I thought. I got ordained online( yes online and yes its legal, AMERICA ROCKS)last Nov For a wedding this past January. One of my buddies asked me last year if I would mind marrying him and his new wife as they are not really religious and "don't want a stranger marrying us" and if I was comfortable doing so in front of a few hundred people. Ive never been too intimidated of public speaking after forcing myself way back in middle/ high-school to do tons of public speaking; so I said sure why the heck not,( actually I think I said something along the lines of:
    "you are a great couple and I would be happy to Marry the SH*t outa you two".icon_lol.gif
    A little time and I think 15 bucks later to get a copy of my certificate,I married them last Jan. Anyone else here in this same boat?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2014 1:36 PM GMT
    I was asked to officiate at a civil wedding for much the same reason as your friends, and obtaining an on-line ordination was one means suggested as a means of letting me do that. However because I have a connection to a church that takes ordination pretty seriously I declined to go that route. Instead they got legally married by a judge beforehand, and we created our own service with only a little religious stuff, at which I officiated. My friend told me she didn't "feel married" until I said it!

    The best part was that said wedding was in a castle in Ireland, where 25 of us spent a whole week.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2014 3:37 PM GMT
    I guess I sort of knew it happens but never gave it much thought before, this idea of solemnization by a third party to officially legitimize the ceremony of two. When I do think about it, it seems to me a bit of bullshit, that two people, to be married, would have to have a third party agree to marry them to make them legal--where, of course, it is allowed to be legal. That our word alone is not our bond: I've got issues with that as it perverts the notion of sanctity in marriage by diminishing the sovereignty of it. That relationships between people might be regulated not by themselves of their own free will but by the graces of their state.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0741/0741.html
    741.01 County court judge or clerk of the circuit court to issue marriage license; fee.—
    (1) Every marriage license shall be issued by a county court judge or clerk of the circuit court under his or her hand and seal. The county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall issue such license, upon application for the license, if there appears to be no impediment to the marriage

    741.07 Persons authorized to solemnize matrimony.—
    (1) All regularly ordained ministers of the gospel or elders in communion with some church, or other ordained clergy, and all judicial officers, including retired judicial officers, clerks of the circuit courts, and notaries public of this state may solemnize the rights of matrimonial contract, under the regulations prescribed by law. Nothing in this section shall make invalid a marriage which was solemnized by any member of the clergy, or as otherwise provided by law prior to July 1, 1978.

    2) Any marriage which may be had and solemnized among the people called “Quakers,” or “Friends,” in the manner and form used or practiced in their societies, according to their rites and ceremonies

    741.212 Marriages between persons of the same sex.—
    (1) Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.


    florida-marriage-protection_zps780943d9.
    n-CHARLIE-CRIST-large570.jpg?6
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2014 7:47 PM GMT
    In Florida, Notaries Public are empowered to perform civil marriage ceremonies.

    The word "ordained" generally refers to a religious authority who may perform a reigious marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2014 1:29 AM GMT
    GAMRican saidIn Florida, Notaries Public are empowered to perform civil marriage ceremonies.

    The word "ordained" generally refers to a religious authority who may perform a reigious marriage.


    But whether outright religious or not directly identified as specifically religious, performed civilly instead, it still has that solemnizing requirement. That the two people can't simply vow to each other but that the state requires a third party to dignify the union.

    Lovely in ceremony if so desired but as required a little outrageous. So even before a magistrate or notary, they're not simply checking ID's and collecting witness signatures but by their presence validating the vows of others. All that does is replace God with the auspices of the State.

    http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/notary/wedding_handbook.pdf
    Q: Must I solemnize a marriage if I have a religious conviction against doing so?

    A: No. You have the right to refuse to perform notary services for any number of reasons, including your own religious convictions.


    So if everyone refuses to perform your marriage, you can't marry. That's holy matrimony?

    It just seems to me that if it was so damned holy, then God should be able to overrule their objections.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2014 1:53 AM GMT
    theantijock said

    So if everyone refuses to perform your marriage, you can't marry. That's holy matrimony?

    It just seems to me that if it was so damned holy, then God should be able to overrule their objections.


    Such righteous indignation, AJ!


    Common-law marriage (sometimes spelled without a hyphen), and also known as sui juris marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute, is an irregular form of marriage that can be legally contracted in an extremely limited number of jurisdictions.

    The original concept of a common-law marriage is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally registered with a state or church registry, or a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married acts as the evidence that they are married. In jurisdictions recognizing common-law marriages, such a marriage is not legally distinct from a traditional ceremonial marriage enacted through a civil or religious ceremony in terms of the couple's rights and obligations to one another.

    In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia permit this irregular form of marriage. People in these true common-law marriages are considered legally married for all purposes and in all circumstances.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2014 1:56 AM GMT
    I think USA would be more awesome if they let everyone get married rather than let you marry the rest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2014 2:49 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    GAMRican saidIn Florida, Notaries Public are empowered to perform civil marriage ceremonies.

    The word "ordained" generally refers to a religious authority who may perform a reigious marriage.


    But whether outright religious or not directly identified as specifically religious, performed civilly instead, it still has that solemnizing requirement. That the two people can't simply vow to each other but that the state requires a third party to dignify the union.

    Lovely in ceremony if so desired but as required a little outrageous. So even before a magistrate or notary, they're not simply checking ID's and collecting witness signatures but by their presence validating the vows of others. All that does is replace God with the auspices of the State.

    http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/notary/wedding_handbook.pdf
    Q: Must I solemnize a marriage if I have a religious conviction against doing so?

    A: No. You have the right to refuse to perform notary services for any number of reasons, including your own religious convictions.


    So if everyone refuses to perform your marriage, you can't marry. That's holy matrimony?

    It just seems to me that if it was so damned holy, then God should be able to overrule their objections.


    I can't speak for others but in our church the role of the clergy officiant goes beyond that which a judge or other civil witness would perform. Couples (be they same or hetero-gender) meet with the clergy person for multiple counseling sessions first, to ensure that they understand what they're getting into and to help them make sure they are compatible (similar goals and expectations, etc.). That is a large part of the reason a member of clergy would be likely to say he or she is not comfortable witnessing the marriage... it would be less about "whether God wants them to" than "are they ready?".

    In NJ where I live, I do not believe a civil official has the right to refuse to witness a marriage based on his or her religious convictions; I think that is reserved for clergy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2014 3:37 PM GMT
    ShiftyJK08 saidI can't speak for others but in our church the role of the clergy officiant goes beyond that which a judge or other civil witness would perform. Couples (be they same or hetero-gender) meet with the clergy person for multiple counseling sessions first, to ensure that they understand what they're getting into and to help them make sure they are compatible (similar goals and expectations, etc.). That is a large part of the reason a member of clergy would be likely to say he or she is not comfortable witnessing the marriage... it would be less about "whether God wants them to" than "are they ready?".

    In NJ where I live, I do not believe a civil official has the right to refuse to witness a marriage based on his or her religious convictions; I think that is reserved for clergy.


    My only complaint is what's been made by law mandatory which seems to me a bit degrading, maybe even offensive, that a third public party be required to supposedly bring dignity to the intimate relationship of two sovereign private persons.

    I certainly have zero issues with either a couple's decision to celebrate in ceremony or, and maybe even especially, a person accepting counsel of a qualified professional before they risk inflicting their own misguided personal issues on a previously possible but no longer viable prospective partnership.

    I only ever took crap from one person born into my life and I always said I'd never take that crap from anyone else and I don't and I won't, not even ever again from that bitch. Fix yourself or be gone from my life. I don't need that shit and I do not accept it.

    So if a person has the wherewithal within them to seek outside counsel, even in a religious context which I'm not into personally but I am very for to each their own, I admire that. That I would not dismiss. If you are submitting yourself to such structure that you'd accept someone's decision that you are incompatible with another being such that they'd refuse you marriage, again, not my thing, and I might think that a little odd, but I certainly would not judge for that person but rather would champion that person's decision to live that life as much as I might point out aspects of it that I might not agree with for my own life.

    So for me it isn't the counsel that a church might provide, it isn't the license that a state might issue, but the control freakiness that a person or organization might attempt or succeed in exerting over free people.

    Even in an example of the trending demise of common law marriage, un-requiring of a third party's approval, for anyone who has the brains or heart to bother, even if they don't have the intuition to suspect by correct perception and not in paranoia, we find a history of control issues there, about which is my very complaint (that someone--in some other post or thread or life--might seek to improperly subvert by disgustingly mischaracterizing or misdirecting something I've said).

    For instance...

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20100201.html
    ...During the middle of the Nineteenth Century, most states permitted common-law marriage. By 1931, however, only half the states still allowed common-law marriage. Today, that number is down to nine (plus the District of Columbia)...

    ...Because so many things turned on marital status – inheritance rights, Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, pension rights, and so on – the legal recognition of a kind of marriage that required no paper record became a nuisance. States also tried to assert control during the early part of the Twentieth Century over reproduction, which in turn led to tighter controls on marriage...

    ...states gradually joined the movement to abolish common-law marriage entirely. A few states had abolished it by 1900, but the abolitions spanned more than a century, with the last state, Pennsylvania, not joining the crowd until 2005...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2014 3:43 PM GMT
    ShiftyJK08 saidI can't speak for others but in our church the role of the clergy officiant goes beyond that which a judge or other civil witness would perform. Couples (be they same or hetero-gender) meet with the clergy person for multiple counseling sessions first, to ensure that they understand what they're getting into and to help them make sure they are compatible (similar goals and expectations, etc.). That is a large part of the reason a member of clergy would be likely to say he or she is not comfortable witnessing the marriage... it would be less about "whether God wants them to" than "are they ready?".

    In NJ where I live, I do not believe a civil official has the right to refuse to witness a marriage based on his or her religious convictions; I think that is reserved for clergy.


    I totally disagree with you on this. The clergy require counseling most often to explain the religious connection, expectations and biblical reasons for getting married. They are not nearly as concerned with the compatibility as most often they're not even trained in behavior to recognize issues.

    Most clergy would refuse to marry a couple (gay or stricon_cool.gif because they're not members of their faith or believe in God. Other officiants (Justice of the Peace, civil officiants or judges) would be less likely to care as long as both parties have agreed, signed, filed and of course, paid the piper! Marry away!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2014 6:32 PM GMT
    eb925guy said
    ShiftyJK08 saidI can't speak for others but in our church the role of the clergy officiant goes beyond that which a judge or other civil witness would perform. Couples (be they same or hetero-gender) meet with the clergy person for multiple counseling sessions first, to ensure that they understand what they're getting into and to help them make sure they are compatible (similar goals and expectations, etc.). That is a large part of the reason a member of clergy would be likely to say he or she is not comfortable witnessing the marriage... it would be less about "whether God wants them to" than "are they ready?".

    In NJ where I live, I do not believe a civil official has the right to refuse to witness a marriage based on his or her religious convictions; I think that is reserved for clergy.


    I totally disagree with you on this. The clergy require counseling most often to explain the religious connection, expectations and biblical reasons for getting married. They are not nearly as concerned with the compatibility as most often they're not even trained in behavior to recognize issues.

    Most clergy would refuse to marry a couple (gay or stricon_cool.gif because they're not members of their faith or believe in God. Other officiants (Justice of the Peace, civil officiants or judges) would be less likely to care as long as both parties have agreed, signed, filed and of course, paid the piper! Marry away!


    As I said, I'm talking about within my denomination, where I am not only in conversation with a lot of clergy, but was involved in the passage of resolutions at our last general convention in 2012, at which a rite for blessing same-gender relationships was approved. That rite is currently being used in 2/3 of our 100 dioceses across the country.

    It is true that individual clergy do not have to participate in same-gender marriages at all if they don't want to, which is not true of civil officials.

    Our clergy have at least a master's degree and pastoral counseling is part of their training. I was just part of a conversation about this last night, and the consensus was that the questions and responsibilities are not really different whether it's a hetero-gender or homo-gender couple, and focus a lot on very practical matters. The only requirement we have to be married in our church is that one party be a baptised Christian; you don't have to be a member of our denomination as long as you participate in the counseling.



    You can disagree all you like, but I am quite involved in this work, and this is what we are doing. I can't speak to what goes on in other denominations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2014 9:02 PM GMT
    This is hilarious. A guy asks a simple question to see if other people share his title of "Ordained" and a shitstorm occurs.

    This is why I love RJ. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2014 12:50 PM GMT
    This is a shitstorm? I have seen far nastier threads on here... already today in fact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2014 1:06 PM GMT
    This thready did not go in a direction I could have foreseen, but such is life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2014 1:36 PM GMT
    There is no simple question among gay men regarding any aspect of marriage. It's not as if the topic is old hat. It's sort of kind of actually is a brand new to these generations concept in consciousness never before known to generations before us as we are coming to terms with it ourselves in our time, certainly, at least not in the last few hundred years of thinking.

    So, um, yeah, it's kind of a big deal. Pardon our shitstorm. The heteros have had the ball for at least 2000 years longer with us just watching the game from the sidelines, never thinking they'd let us play. So we might be discussing this for another 50 years or so. Please fasten your seatbelt and put your trays in their upright positions in case we turn fast or hit an unforeseen pothole in the road; we may experience periods of a bumpy ride.

    Enjoy your flight and thank you for traveling with us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2014 3:13 PM GMT
    "marrying him and his new wife as they are not really religious and "don't want a stranger marrying us"

    OP, Wonderful that you could add to your friends' happiness.

    They sound like a couple who have already grappled with the main issues written of above.

    They obviously didn't feel intimidated by the institutions of the state or the church.

    Congrats to them on their love and their sense of freedom!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2014 5:13 PM GMT
    lookinforcars101 saidThis thready did not go in a direction I could have foreseen, but such is life.
    Here's a nice guide to help you understand where RJ threads can go.
    article-2205879-15184B1D000005DC-507_468
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2014 11:15 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    lookinforcars101 saidThis thready did not go in a direction I could have foreseen, but such is life.
    Here's a nice guide to help you understand where RJ threads can go.
    article-2205879-15184B1D000005DC-507_468


    This Info-graphic is amazing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2014 1:49 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    lookinforcars101 saidThis thready did not go in a direction I could have foreseen, but such is life.
    Here's a nice guide to help you understand where RJ threads can go.
    article-2205879-15184B1D000005DC-507_468


    The second traffic pattern from the right is DEFINITELY in Jersey.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2014 2:01 AM GMT
    ShiftyJK08 said
    paulflexes said
    lookinforcars101 saidThis thready did not go in a direction I could have foreseen, but such is life.
    Here's a nice guide to help you understand where RJ threads can go.
    article-2205879-15184B1D000005DC-507_468


    The second traffic pattern from the right is DEFINITELY in Jersey.
    I was thinking LA or DC, but yeah, it's definitely an accurate depiction of metro traffic most places.