Talk:Marriage license
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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."
God need not be involved.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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'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)
