This view is very American, because, as you point out, of the common (but erroneous) conflation of "marriage" and "wedding". The first has a distinct and defined legal meaning, that does not in any way require, invoke or reference the latter. The latter has no formal legal definition, and although it tends to assume (or at least imply) the formal, it does not absolutely demand it, even though the two very commonly go together.
It's very different on the other side of the pond. In Europe, only the civil execution is legally valid; the wedding is entirely ex officio, always. In the U.S., the state qualifies the applicant couple and issues them the license. The marriage becomes valid when the license is completed in accordance of the law by a person legally empowered to do so. In the U.S., legal churches (religious institutions and organisations registered as such with federal revenue offices) are empowered by law in every state to execute and formalise marriages by completion of a legally issued marriage license by persons the legal church designates according to their own rules. Some legal churches, such as Universal Life Church, authorise all of their registered members to do this; but most legal churches have rules for who may or may not perform marriages.
A co-called 'celebrant' of 'officiant' may formalise the license; but in Europe, such persons do not have this power. The common practice in Europe is to execute the legal marriage first, then shortly thereafter perform the formal wedding; but it's understood by everyone involved that the wedding is not a legal act. Since there is no legal connection between the two actions, it's perfectly legal to hold them anytime you like in respect to each other, even years apart. But it's a bit ironic to consider that a European attending a wedding where the couple are not already legally married might think of the ceremony as a 'sham'.
I think both the people here are hugely overreacting to nothing. We're witnessing people's individual reactions to the culture they've come up in, not what I'd call a rational exchange of ideas.
It's very different on the other side of the pond. In Europe, only the civil execution is legally valid; the wedding is entirely ex officio, always. In the U.S., the state qualifies the applicant couple and issues them the license. The marriage becomes valid when the license is completed in accordance of the law by a person legally empowered to do so. In the U.S., legal churches (religious institutions and organisations registered as such with federal revenue offices) are empowered by law in every state to execute and formalise marriages by completion of a legally issued marriage license by persons the legal church designates according to their own rules. Some legal churches, such as Universal Life Church, authorise all of their registered members to do this; but most legal churches have rules for who may or may not perform marriages.
A co-called 'celebrant' of 'officiant' may formalise the license; but in Europe, such persons do not have this power. The common practice in Europe is to execute the legal marriage first, then shortly thereafter perform the formal wedding; but it's understood by everyone involved that the wedding is not a legal act. Since there is no legal connection between the two actions, it's perfectly legal to hold them anytime you like in respect to each other, even years apart. But it's a bit ironic to consider that a European attending a wedding where the couple are not already legally married might think of the ceremony as a 'sham'.
I think both the people here are hugely overreacting to nothing. We're witnessing people's individual reactions to the culture they've come up in, not what I'd call a rational exchange of ideas.
Reply
Leave a comment