Duval, Clay, Baker counties to end courthouse weddings to avoid marrying gays

[spuwho]

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/141/entry

Since the earliest English settlers arrived in Carolina, government officials have, to some degree, regulated marriages.  In the colony, such regulation was necessary because the process of inheritance depended on the legitimacy of children.  In addition, the church and the state had an interest in preventing bigamous marriages or marriages that fell within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (kinship).  Under English law, which prevailed throughout the Lords Proprietors' domain, only Church of England ministers could legally perform marriage rites.  But few ministered in the rough hinterland.  Accordingly, the Assembly in Albemarle, in its 1669-1670 session, passed An Act Concerning Marriages, which provided that, in the absence of a minister, a couple could wed in the presence of  "three or fower of their Neighbors" before the governor or a councilor.  After "declareing that they do joyne together in the holy state of Wedlock And doe accept one the other for man and wife," they received a certificate and the marriage was registered in the Secretary's office.

In 1715, intending to "prevent Illegal and Unlawfull Marriages," the Lords Proprietors, with the advice and consent of the General Assembly, again acknowledged that only the established church, The Church of England, should perform marriages.  Nevertheless, the law empowered magistrates "to join persons together in Marriage in such parishes where no Minister shall be resident."  Before marrying, the future bride and groom had to purchase a license or have the county clerk publish banns (public announcements) in the county where the bride lived.  The parallel authority of the Church of England and the magistrate to solemnize marriages continued even after North Carolina became a Crown Colony in 1729.

In 1741 the state increased its control over marriages by enacting provisions for issuing marriage licenses or publishing banns.  To "prevent clandestine and Unlawful Marriages," the General Assembly at Edenton gave Justices of the Peace the authority to solemnize marriages in any parish that had no resident minister or in a county with a minister, with his consent.  To ensure that there was no impediment to the marriage, such as a previous spouse, too close of a kin relationship between the couple, or a lack of legal competency, ministers read banns in the future bride's congregation for three consecutive Sundays and later certified that no one had objected to the impending marriage.  If the future bridegroom preferred to obtain a license, the clerk of the bride's county of residence could issue the license, after securing from the bridegroom a bond for 500 pounds.  The same Act also prohibited interracial marriages.   

As the number of non-Anglicans increasingly migrated to North Carolina, they demanded to have their own ministers performing marriage ceremonies.  Although the governors and the Assembly did not mind denominational and "dissenting" ministers solemnizing marriages--as long as proper fees were paid and collected--the Church of England strongly defended its monopoly.  As late as 1771, Reverend Theodorus S. Drage reported from his parish in Salisbury that there were "Irish Dissenters" and other "motly mixtures" who predominated in local government and wanted to "publish [banns] and marry by their own clergy, an act directly leveled at the constitution, contrary to the original and subsequent charters."

Successive governors wanted to ensure that proper fees were paid, regardless who married the consenting couples.   In 1771, in his message to the lower house of the Assembly, Governor William Tryon complained bitterly that county clerks used their own marriage certificates, rather than the marriage license forms issued by the Governor's Office.  The Governor was thus "deprived of [his] equitable emoluments...," as the Clerks put the collected fees into county coffers, or in a few cases, pocketed the money.   Tryon told the Assembly to enact laws so that "the Clerks ... may be absolutely prohibited from issuing any Marriage Licenses, and any Magistrate [be prohibited] from marrying any parties" except with license forms issued by the Governor's Secretary (and proper fees collected). Indeed, the same year, Governor Tryon transmitted to London various Acts passed by the Assembly, including "An Act to regulate the issuing of Marriage Licenses."  The Governor called the proposed legislation "most salutary," because it might "better secure . . . the fees due to the Governor."

After the American Revolution, couples could choose a clergyman or a Justice of the Peace to solemnize their marriage.  The laws of 1778 provided that, in addition to the Anglican clergy, "all regular ministers of the Gospel of every Denomination," as well as Justices of the Peace were "empowered to celebrate Matrimony..." By the 1840s, it was settled law that it was "an essential requisite of a legal marriage that it should either be celebrated by some person in a sacred office, or be entered into before someone in a public station and judicial trust." In either event, until 1868 couples were required to publish banns in a church or post a bond to be filed with the county clerk before the marriage was solemnized.  North Carolina historian William S. Powell estimates that "two-thirds of all marriages prior to 1868 were by banns, [for] they were quicker and cheaper than licenses." Banns recorded in the churches were not public records.  On the other hand, posted bonds were public records and thus became part of a county's permanent records.  Unless lost due to fire or flood, such records, including Marriage Bonds, were transferred to the State Archives.

Despite all attempts by the state and by the clergy to regulate and register marriages, an untold and inestimable number reportedly ignored the letter of the law.  Ministers often solemnized marriages without licenses according to the customs of their denomination, but magistrates performed marriages on an oral assurance that banns had been read; and in rural areas, where neither minister nor magistrate was easily reached, people entered into marriages following their needs and traditions. 

Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the North Carolina General Assembly passed An Act Concerning Negroes and Persons of Color or of Mixed Blood (1866) to validate the marriages of former slaves.  Marriages that had taken place before emancipation could be registered by any couple who appeared before a Justice of the Peace or Clerk of the Court and made a statement indicating when they began cohabitating as husband and wife.  An 1868 court reform act did away with marriage bonds and transferred the authority to issue marriage licenses to the Registers of Deeds.
The license became the only official public record of marriage. The Registers of Deeds kept consistently good books, and the recording of marriages became widespread.  In addition to such records maintained in every county, since 1962, the state's Vital Records Section has kept a statewide register of marriages. Fifteen years later, a new act validated all interracial marriages "declared void by statute or a court of competent jurisdiction prior to March 24, 1977."

The state government has regulated the solemnization of marriages from North Carolina's earliest days, and although the law continues to prohibit any "minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage" from performing a ceremony without a license issued by the Register of Deeds, a marriage ceremony conducted without a license is nevertheless a valid marriage.  Failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding marriage licenses subjects the county officer or church minister to a misdemeanor penalty of $200.00, but the marriage remains valid and "good for every intent and purpose."  On the other hand, marriages simply by consent of the parties, or performed by unauthorized persons, or between kin within prohibited degrees of kinship, or between persons of the same gender, are void.

Sources:

Debbi Blake, ed., "Vital Records in the North Carolina State Archives, Part Two: Marriage Records" Wake Treasures: Wake County Genealogical Society Journal (Winter-Spring, 2005); Walter Clark, ed., The State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XXIII, Vol XXIV,, Vol. XXV  (Goldsboro, 1906; reprint 1994); General Statutes of North Carolina, Annotated, Volume 8 (Charlottesville, 2003); Guion Griffis Johnson, "Courtship and Marriage Customs in Ante-Bellum North Carolina," The North Carolina Historical Review XI (October 1931); Helen Leary, ed., "Marriage, Divorce, and Vital Records," North Carolina Research (Raleigh, 1996); William S. Powell, "Marriage," Encyclopedia of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, 2006); Public Laws of the State of North Carolina Passed by the General Assembly at the session of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866); William L. Saunders, ed., The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Vol. II – 1713 to 1738, Vol.VIII – 1769 to 1771  (Raleigh, 1890; reprint 1993); Baretta McGhee White, Somebody Knows My Name: Marriages of Freed People in North Carolina, County by County (Athens, 1995).

By Lazar "Larry" Odzak, State Archives, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

Excellent historical recap.

As far as budget impacts only the clerk can say. He may have been short staffed on office work because they were to tied up in performing civil ceremonies. By stopping them it frees up a headcount for more office work. The revenue lost would then be a wash.

[TheGeo35]

In this video I expressed my outrage and thoughts about what is happening http://youtu.be/ne2r0JhVN1A

[Jtetlak]

Add this to the long list of reasons why people should be more active and engaged voters. There are a number of candidates for the March elections who are looking to move Jacksonville forward and who need the support of people who are outraged by decisions like this one.

[Jumpinjack]

^ Agree. Engaged voters really count. However, I would like to point out a big flaw in our current voting situation - campaigns which promote populist views paid for by unprecedented floods of money and the lack of critical questioning to reveal the bias which causes an elected official to say that his personal religious views supersede the law and the appearance of fairness. 

[Jtetlak]

I think the flaw you are pointing out lies more with the voters than the campaigns. Politicians have learned to drum up big money and blanket people with sound bites because that is the extent to which people are willing to listen, and because it is a strategy that has been working. Personally I have decided not to run my campaign that way because I think it's time we start doing things differently, and that's why I'm taking no money at all. If we all started researching the candidates and voting for the one most qualified rather than the one whose name we hear most often, then politicians would start campaigning differently, we'd have better representation, and we wouldn't have situations where our city is embarrassed nationally on an almost monthly basis.

[Jumpinjack]

Admirable. However, what do you intend to say that will get you the most votes - will you provide those background bytes about yourself that may reveal you as a person of integrity knowing that to many voters it will be a reason to chose the other guy?
And don't be so quick to blame voters, must-win candidates who view themselves as noble saviors of the failing system plus a flaccid media unwilling to ask tough questions should share the blame. 

[Jtetlak]

I agree, most of the media is not in the business of asking tough questions any more, and it's true that many politicians are just in it to stay employed. They share the blame for sure, but as voters we let them get away with it, either because it's easier that way or because we simply don't care enough.

As for my own campaign, I don't plan to sit on the fence. I see the inability of our leaders to choose a side or stand up for an issue as getting in the way of progress. Too many politicians are scared to give their true opinion on an issue for fear of losing votes. For me, winning isn't as much about getting elected as it is about making Jacksonville a better place. While I think I can do much more for the city if I were in office, I'm not going to compromise who I am or what I think is right in order to get there.

[I-10east]

Jacksonville attorney marrying gay couples for free

In response to Duval County ending courthouse weddings to, in part, avoid a ruling that made gay marriage legal statewide, a local attorney is offering to provide marriage services to same-sex couples for free. Rick Block, a personal injury attorney in Jacksonville, will perform marriage services in his office and pay for license fees if couples can't afford it. "I feel complete and utter disgust with members of my profession in my hometown," Block said. "Rather than opening the courthouse, in which we built a chapel, to all citizens, we'll just close it down altogether."

Block said closing down the courthouse isn't just discriminatory towards gay couples, but towards heterosexual couples. "People go to the courthouse not because they choose to, but because they can't afford any other venue," Block said. More than discriminating against couples who can't afford the cost of a marriage ceremony, which averages more than $23,000 in Duval, Block said the action will discourage members of the gay community and businesses who are inclusive to move into the area. It will also likely motivate some members of the LGBT community to move out of Jacksonville, according to Block, who says he can't wait for his son, who is gay, to move out of the city. "It makes Jacksonville look like a bigoted place and it serves no purpose," Block said. Block will begin marrying couples at his office on Tuesday. The ban on gay marriage is set to expire Monday night.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/01/05/local-attorney-marrying-gay-couples-for-free.html

[Jumpinjack]

^Great!

[Redbaron616]

Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.

[coredumped]

We celebrate diversity.

Oh geez, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married,pretty simple.

Have you ever seen someone eat a food you don't like? Shall we ban that food?

The solution to all of this is to get the government OUT of marriage all together. A license is required for permission to do something, we shouldn't have to ask the government permission to get married.

But, I'm glad all citizens of this state are allowed to marry, anything else is discrimination.

[urbanlibertarian]

No one should have to get a government permission slip for marriage.  Laws should treat all adults the same regardless of their family arrangement.

[ChriswUfGator]

Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.

[Gunnar]

Why do we want to celebrate sodomy? Why is wrong now right and right now wrong? Biology alone will tell you that this is no marriage. Furthermore, if you call this nonsense a marriage, than the number two is also arbitrary and polygamy should also be legal or any version thereof, with any number of persons who wish to joint themselves together. Our country has lost its moral compass and so now God has let us show what fools we are when we decide what is moral all by ourselves.

A little quote - you should know the book it's from:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Just out of curiousity: What exactly is it that makes you believe marriage should (or can) only be between a man and a woman. There must be a particular reason for you to believe this, right ?

[Jdog]

Been waiting since Desmond Tutu's comments for a worldwide media outlet to cover Jacksonviile.  Yeah, we did it...and with a consistent message!




http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/us/same-sex-couples-in-florida-wed-in-late-night-ceremonies.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news