Content deleted Content added
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#cbsnews.com/stories |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 28:
A requirement for [[banns of marriage]] was introduced to [[England and Wales]] by the Church in 1215. This required a public announcement of a forthcoming marriage, in the couple's [[parish church]], for three Sundays prior to the wedding and gave an opportunity for any objections to the marriage to be voiced (for example, that one of the parties was already married or that the couple was related within a prohibited degree), but a failure to call banns did not affect the validity of the marriage.
Marriage licences were introduced in the 14th century, to allow the usual notice period under banns to be waived, on payment of a fee (see [[droit du seigneur#Europe|Droit du seigneur]] and [[merchet]]) and accompanied by a sworn declaration, that there was no [[canonical impediment]] to the marriage {{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}. Licences were usually granted by an [[archbishop]], [[bishop]] or [[archdeacon]]. There could be a number of reasons for a couple to obtain a licence: they might wish to marry quickly (and avoid the three weeks' delay by the calling of banns); they might wish to marry in a parish away from their home parish; or, because a licence required a higher payment than banns, they might choose to obtain one as a status symbol.
There were two kinds of marriage licences that could be issued: the usual was known as a "common licence" and named one or two parishes where the wedding could take place, within the jurisdiction of the person who issued the licence. The other was the ''special licence'', which could only be granted by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] or his officials and allowed the marriage to take place in any church.{{cn|date=May 2024}}
[[Marriage Act 1753|Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753]] affirmed this existing ecclesiastical law and built it into statutory law. From this date, a marriage was only legally valid, if it followed the calling of banns in church or the obtaining of a licence—the only exceptions being [[Judaism|Jewish]] and [[Religious Society of Friends|Quaker]] marriages, whose legality was also recognised. From the date of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act up to 1837, the ceremony was required to be performed in a consecrated building.
Line 56:
Marriage licenses in the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the state in which the ceremony is performed; however, the marriage is generally recognized across the country. The state in which they are married holds the record of that marriage. Traditionally, working with law enforcement was the only means of searching and accessing marriage license information across state lines.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.marriage-licences.com/|title=Marriage Records Records Retrieval|access-date=2011-09-05|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120125092827/http://www.marriage-licences.com/|archive-date=2012-01-25}}</ref>
In Alabama, a law was passed in 2019 which abolished the issuance of marriage licenses and repealed a requirement for solemnization.<ref name="newbill">{{Cite web |last=Kirby |first=Brendan |title=Here's how getting married in Alabama will change with no marriage licenses |url=https://www.fox10tv.com/news/here-s-how-getting-married-in-alabama-will-change-with/article_6766168e-87de-11e9-bead-8f16dc6c173a.html |access-date=2019-06-17 |website=FOX10 News |language=en}}</ref> Instead, couples of legal age are allowed to jointly fill out a marriage certificate, have their certificate notarized by two notaries public, and submit their certificate to an Alabama judge, who is required to accept their certificate.
===Controversy in the U.S.===
Line 63 ⟶ 65:
Marriage licenses have also been the subject of controversy for affected [[minority group]]s. California's [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]] has been the subject of heavy criticism by advocates of [[same-sex marriage]],<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/26/same-sex-marriage-activists-seek-repeal-of-californias-prop-8/|title=Same-sex marriage activists seek repeal of California's Prop. 8|author=The Christian Science Monitor|journal=The Christian Science Monitor|date=September 26, 2009}}</ref> including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ([[LGBT]]) community whose ability to marry is often limited by the aforementioned state intervention. This changed on June 26, 2015, with the Supreme Court decision in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. However, the state and federal intervention still continues to limit the ability of members of other minority religious groups from marrying according to the dictates of their religious tenets, as is the case with Islamic [[polygamy]], for example. Polyamorous and polyandrous marriages are, likewise, still prohibited.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818|title=Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy|date=27 May 2008|work=NPR.org}}</ref>
In October 2009, [[Keith Bardwell]], a [[Louisiana]] [[justice of the peace]], refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, prompting civil liberties groups, such as the [[NAACP]] and [[ACLU]], to call for his resignation or firing.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/|title=Justice stands by refusal to give interracial couple license to wed|work=cnn.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=
In the state of [[Pennsylvania]], [[self-uniting marriage]] licenses are available which require only the signatures of the bride and groom and witnesses. Although this is an accommodation for a [[Quaker wedding]], any couple is able to apply for it.
| |||