Why Do Wedding Officiants Need to Be Ordained?

No, ship's captains are not empowered to officiate at weddings. Other than that, the rules and regulations regarding who may serve as a wedding officiant vary from state to state, and even within some states. In some jurisdictions notaries are authorized, in others, the county or city clerk. In some states you can effectively declare yourself married by simply filling out the proper paperwork. Judges are often on the list of approved officiants, and then of course there's clergy. But who defines "clergy"?

In Nebraska, where I reside, the law refers to "preachers of the gospel", which would seem to rule out ministers from any religion other than a Christian denomination, but in practice, Nebraska makes no attempt to decide who is a "real" minister & who isn't, and rabbis, imams and ministers ordained online are all recognized, or at least ignored. In fact, Nebraska Statute 42-114 states that if someone says that they're authorized to perform marriages and the couple believes that the officiant is authorized to perform marriages, then the marriage is valid. Part of me wishes they would excise "preachers of the gospel", but the other part of me just wants to leave well enough alone!

There are several states that have a narrow definition of who is authorized to officiate a wedding ceremony that specifically rules out ministers ordained online. These rulings have in general been spurred by court cases where someone is attempting to invalidate a prenuptial agreement or avoid alimony by claiming that being married by an online minister means that theirs was not a valid marriage. In most cases the legislation isn't unambiguous, and in some states there are contradictory court rulings. The big question is: why is this a subject in which the state has an interest?

In some religions, marriage is a sacrament that is to be consecrated by that religion's holy man or woman. In others, it's a matter of the minister, as representative of their religion, giving his or her blessing or approval for the marriage. In those cases, it makes sense to have an officiant who is in sync with the couple's faith, but that should be the business of the couple; the state should have no role in deciding whether a particular minister is in fact in sync with the couple. Of course, in most places there are secular options. As I mentioned above judges, active or retired, can usually officiate, as well as other designated government representatives.  But for many people, weddings done by a judge or city clerk lack the warmth and uniqueness that they are looking for. In many places, including my own state, the alternative is either a professional officiant who isn't affiliated with any church, or a friend or relative who has received an online ordination.

For those who aren't looking for a spiritual blessing on their union, but just want to have a nice ceremony, why should the  credentials of the officiant be an issue that the state takes note of? In most cases the couple isn't looking for counselling, in fact they're probably looking to avoid counselling! What can a minister who was ordained in an established denomination offer a couple that a professional, experienced officiant can't? There's the possibility that a seminary graduate has had some training in how to conduct a wedding, but possibly not. And considering that the government should constitutionally have no role in religion, why are some state governments and state courts making judgments as to which ordinations are valid and which are not?

I would propose that all references to religious affiliation be removed from marriage statutes and that a marriage be registered and considered valid if the paperwork was filled out correctly. Professional wedding officiants could still operate as they do now, but without the necessity of getting the online ordination. It might even reduce the number of inexperienced friends and relatives performing wedding services - now, anyone who gets an online ordination thinks that they are now qualified to officiate a wedding, when in fact they are only legally authorized to officiate a wedding, the ordination doesn't give one a magical ability to write coherent and smooth-flowing services, or become an effective public speaker.

It's probably not going to happen any time soon, but government should get out of the wedding business, other than issuing the licenses.

Anti-Discrimination Ordinances

The other day a video was posted on Facebook showing a City Council meeting where testimony for an anti-discrimination measure was being discussed and public testimony received. The video was seven years old, but the issue is still relevant. A local landlord and business owner was testifying against a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance - his arguments boiled down to two things: religious freedom and the ability of businesses to run their operations without fear of lawsuits.

Before I discuss his points, I'll review the concept of "protected class" as it applies to anti-discrimination laws. Many people believe that some people are in a protected class, and that by being part of that protected class one has extra legal protections. For example, one of the protected classes is "race". Ask the average person what this means and they'll say that a person who is a part of a minority race (i.e. Black, Native American, etc) can't be fired, at least not without a lot of extra paperwork. The incorrect assumption in this example is that "protected class" refers only to the minority. What it does mean is that no one can be discriminated against because of race. Everyone can be categorized by race, even the majority. The same goes for gender - the protected class isn't "women", the protected class is "gender", which everyone has (at least according to traditional definitions). It is true that some businesses will walk on eggshells to avoid lawsuits by minority members, this is their choice and does not reflect the way the laws are written. No one "belongs to a protected class", it is a protected classification or category that cannot be used against you.

One of the arguments that opponents of broadening anti-discrimination laws bring forth is that requiring them to treat people that they disapprove of equally tramples their own religious freedom. Few would argue that it would be acceptable to discriminate in hiring or housing against someone because they were black (although it surely happens), yet religious justifications were among the many rationalizations used by segregationists over the years, even going back to condoning slavery on biblical grounds. More often than not the religious argument is merely a cover for basic, unvarnished bigotry when simply declaring oneself to be a bigot is unacceptable. The premise of the argument that "preventing me from discriminating is discriminatory" or "condemning my bigotry is bigoted" stands on an extremely shaky foundation.

One of the things that has become obvious to me in over 40 years working for various businesses in different industries, is that the fear of a lawsuit is often the only thing that motivates a business owner to "do the right thing". The business owner testifying in the video that I referred to brought up how he thought that discrimination lawsuits were often frivolous and retaliatory and that he never discriminates. He may very well be unique. Every business that I have ever worked for said all the right things, ran the sexual harassment seminars and punished discrimination and harassment when they had no other choice. One of the companies with whom I associated was a local grocery chain. They had clear guidelines about sexual harassment and discrimination. However it became clear that their policies were for the sole purpose of preventing lawsuits when the company continued to do business with several outside contractors and consultants who engaged in sexual harassment of the company's employees. They were in no danger of a lawsuit if a complaint was lodged against someone outside the company, so they took no action because they didn't have to. As much as we'd like to believe that everyone will always do the right thing, most businesses don't operate that way.

There really is no good reason not to support laws and ordinances that outlaw discriminatory behavior by businesses. The arguments against them, despite being couched in terms of leadership, religious freedom, capitalism and mom's apple pie, and just excuses to engage in bigotry.

Forgiveness

I've been thinking a lot about the concept of forgiveness lately. When do we forgive? How do we forgive? How often do we forgive? Can we forget once we forgive? Does forgiveness imply being free from consequences? The major religions have spent time talking about forgiveness; one holy man suggests that people "sin no more", but also to forgive "seventy times seven". Not being an adherent of any of the major religions I have had to formulate my own take on forgiveness.

To me, forgiveness is the process whereby we "set at naught" a harmful action that someone has taken against us or against someone that we care about in order to provide a "second chance" to repair the relationship. That means acting as if the harmful action had not taken place when interacting with that other person. That is the external manifestation of forgiveness, a benefit to the person who is in need of forgiveness. That's the easy part. The difficult part is to mentally treat the offender as if the offense had not happened, getting rid of any anger and resentment that the offense had caused. This is a benefit to the forgiver as well; carrying around a lot of resentment and anger cannot be healthy.

In my opinion forgiveness cannot be truly offered if remorse is not present. I'm defining remorse as an honest recognition of the wrongness of the offending action and a pledge to discontinue those actions. If you "forgive" someone who has no remorse for their harmful actions, you are not forgiving them, i.e. offering them an opportunity to heal the rift in your relationship, you are merely enabling them, giving them cover to continue their hurtful actions. A saying that I have heard several times recently is "I forgive, but I don't forget". This gets right to the heart of the matter. I can forgive you if I believe that you are remorseful, but by remembering the offense I protect myself by not allowing a continual cycle of offense/forgive/re-offend. By not forgetting I allow myself to see a pattern if one occurs.

I am proposing no "etched in stone" rule, or suggesting that only one "second chance" should be offered. Every situation is different. In my own life I do not require an apology from those who have wronged me, only that the harmful actions, those things that have caused a need for forgiveness, cease.

We all make mistakes. We all do and say things that cannot be undone or unsaid. If a person is truly remorseful and has truly embarked on a new path, then we should recognize a genuine change. Forgiveness is a way to heal past hurts, but it shouldn't be a way to allow those who would harm us to continue their harm.