In Montana, an ordained minister can perform a wedding ceremony for any couple in possession of a state issued marriage license.
The clerk of courts issues the license according to laws set by the state. If an American woman and a man from Kenya have their paperwork done, the clerk will approve the marriage, give them some paperwork and an ordained minister will marry them. If a woman in prison doing life for murder wants to marry someone from a far reaching town and the clerk okays the paperwork, this couple can be married. If a young woman over the age of consent is determined to marry a 57 year old man, there is nothing to stop her. There is no intervention forbidding a heterosexual to homosexual marriage from taking place.
However, as I understand the law in Montana, it may have changed and that is why I have a comment section, if a young lady is interested in marriage to someone who used to be her stepparent and this stepparent once took on roles of discipline and guidance, she cannot marry this man. I have no clue about how the clerk of courts discovers this previous blended family relationship. Another case where marriage in Montana cannot take place is a gender issue.
Montana took a vote and let people who were registered to vote, define marriage as being between one man and one woman. These registered voters are mostly people who already had the right to be married, divorced, remarried and were not going to be effected by either choice. Another segment of the voting population enjoys a ‘friends with benefits’ package and still others are engaged and living with their partners with no wedding date on the calendar.
Montana is a no-fault divorce state. There is nothing but a blood test for rubella, a birth certificate, divorce papers and a little bit of money stopping the mass murderer from enjoying the bonds of Holy Matrimony. Age disparity is not an issue either. Race is no problem and country of origin doesn’t raise much of an eye-brow either.
The States are letting everyone registered to vote make laws prohibiting whole classes of people from making the same good and bad choices the murderer and the May – December couple.
I can only imagine how confusing it is to live in a state that gives rights and takes them back. My job is easy here, if the couple has a license issued by the state, I can marry them, if not, I can do a commitment ceremony but the couple will not have all of the rights, protections and privileges that come with the license. As an ordained minister, my hands are not tied by a Higher Power, my hands are tied by the voters.
I know this is a hot topic. All I ask is that any comments on this subject be written with care. Comments will be moderated on this subject.
Comments
2 responses to “You Can Get Married – Wait – No, You Can’t – But Wait”
thanks for your blog, sally. it is, indeed confusing to suddenly have our rights stripped away after our supreme court told us we could have them. i suppose i can count myself lucky that i’m the go-getter type and proposed to my wife right after the initial pro-marriage ruling. thing is, it doesn’t feel good– not one bit, to have the benefits of marriage when my brothers and sisters do not. yes, my family is protected, for now, but others are not. it hurts me to my very core…
Social change never comes easily. Even if CA does accept your marriage I worry that you will be stuck there because I am not so sure Montana would recognize or uphold your basic human and civil rights. As an outsider looking in from another oppressed community, I can only imagine your pain. I am sure I am not the only person looking in who wonders how he or she can help.
B*B