Marriage – What's an atheist, agnostic or humanist to do?

In Pennsylvania, as in most states, it's fairly easy for a couple to get married. Typically, it's a matter of filing and receiving a license and having that licensed signed by the officiant of the wedding and possibly a witness(es). Some states still require a blood test in order to receive a license, but most just require identification, any divorce papers, and the couples signed intent (consent).

(I'll leave the discussion of gay marriage as well as animal and necrophilia marriages to other threads)

In Pennsylvania, they also have what's commonly called "the Quaker Law". This law says that a couple may marry themselves provided they file a separate form attesting to their legal right to do so.

What I'm discussing in this article is specific to Pennsylvania but may affect other states in time to come.

Who may officiate at a wedding ceremony?

Pennsylvania law specifically says:

Persons qualified to solemnize marriages.

(a) General Rule. -- The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons that produce a marriage license issued under this part:

1. A justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth.
2. A former or retired justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth who is serving as a senior judge or senior district justice as provided or prescribed by law.
3. An active or senior judge or full-time magistrate of the District Courts of the United States for the Eastern, Middle or Western District of Pennsylvania.
4. An active or senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who is a resident of this Commonwealth.
5. A mayor of any city or borough of this Commonwealth.
6. A minister, priest or rabbi of any regularly established church or congregation.

* I have read of recent changes to accommodate Native Americans and to restrict the "Quaker Law" to those of the Quaker or Amish faiths. However, I can find no verification on the state web site.

At issue is the last item. A minister, priest or rabbi of any regularly established church or congregation.

Well, what is a "regularly established church or congregation"? And can a "church" offer ordination via mail or over the Internet? Is a person ordained over the Internet (which, in many cases involves no training or education and can be done in minutes) legally permitted to solemnize a marriage?

Many couples, particularly atheist, agnostics and humanists, are opting for a friend or relative to officiate at their wedding. And for good reason. As they are typically not members of "a regularly established church" but still desire a wedding ceremony that just can't be provided by a judge or mayor.

Pennsylvania documents and, specifically, a disclaimer sent out by the register of wills and clerk of orphans' court of York County state:

"If you choose to be married by someone other than the officiants specifically listed & authorized by PA law, the burden of proof regarding the legality (or lack thereof) of your marriage will be upon you - should future issues arise that require a determination of the marriage's validity."

So the state of PA has become concerned with the legality of marriages.

What if the couple decides to divorce but one of the couple declares that the marriage was never valid?

What if one dies and the Social Security Administration or the Life Insurance company declares that the marriage was not valid?

To that end, Rep. Stan Saylor, (R-Windsor Township), has introduce legislation (HB1099) this year that would amend the law to exclude churches or congregations through which ordination is available by mail order, the Internet or other electronic means.

(d)  Definition.--As used in this section, the term "regularly established church or congregation" excludes churches or congregations through which ordination is available by mail order or via the Internet or any other electronic means.

In addition, David Cleaver, solicitor for the Pennsylvania State Association of Registers of Wills and Clerks of Orphans' Court has stated "the state association has taken a stand that it will not recognize people who are ordained over the Internet as those legally entitled to marry under Pennsylvania law". He also says that "the 10th Amendment of the Constitution allows states to regulate the issues of health, safety, welfare and morals. Marriage falls under morals, and it has the right to determine who is authorized to perform a marriage."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

In response to a letter sent to Rep. Saylor, his office writes:

"As you are no doubt aware, every state within the United States has a statutory mechanism in place to regulate marriage. That is, the institution of marriage as a model and foundation of our society is protected by law, and states have a strong interest in ensuring that marriages are valid in order to provide certainty that persons who enter into unions can rely on such legal protections.

In states across the country, concerns have arisen among court officials regarding the proliferation of internet ordinations. These concerns do not focus on issues of spirituality: rather, court officials are fearful that marriages performed entirely outside existing procedures may be found to lack validity in a legal sense."

"These concerns do not focus on issues of spirituality…

…may be found to lack validity in a legal sense".

In my opinion, the amendment introduced in PA House Bill 1099 is:

1. Restrictive to the rights of citizens in regard to separation of Church and State.
   The State should not determine what constitutes an established religion and, more so, how a Church may or may not ordain it's clergy.
2. Exclusive of people who are not members of a "typical" Judeo-Christian or Muslim religious organization. Many religions and churches are established to satisfy the need of people who are not satisfied with the organized religions that have been available to them. These churches are, in many cases, small and distant and communication (as well as ordination) is often by mail or via the internet.
3. Exclusive of atheist, agnostics, humanists and others that are not members of established Churches but who would still want a spiritual wedding ceremony rather than an uneventful procedure in front of a Mayor or Justice of the Peace.
4. Makes little sense when you consider that the state of Pennsylvania will recognize a marriage by a Notary Public in Florida or via a "drive-through" chapel in Las Vegas (or even a "bankruptcy judge of the United States Bankruptcy Courts") but will not recognize a marriage performed in Pennsylvania because of the method in which the officiant obtained ordination.

I understand and appreciate the state's (and the people's) want and need to legitimize, endorse, and control marriages from a legal perspective. I don't understand the State's apparent concern that an officiant ordained outside traditional methods would bring question to the validity of a marriage.

The State has the power and authority to legitimize and validate marriages through the issuance of licenses and the requirement of witnesses. Provided that the couple complies with these procedures, legal and validity issues have been met as well as any legitimacy or accountability concerns.

Given that most wedding ceremonies are of a spiritual nature, they are also, by definition, a personal spiritual event. A couple getting married should be able to determine how and with whom the ceremony takes place.

Back To Top