US: Despite order, office refuses to issue gay marriage license

[manarak]

OK, so the solution is to stop all legal marriages by churches. They can have their religious ceremony, but to actually get married in the eyes of the law, couples need to go to the county office.

Church ceremony: Married in the eyes of God.

Civil procedure: Married in the eyes of the law.

Simple.

yes, I think that is the best.

[hawker9000]

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

Because I'm explaining an erroneous definition of the Constitution. Geez. I don't believe I had to explain that.

My understanding of the Constitution is not based on popular belief, like some here believe. I read it, not get the information from someone who 'interprets' it for me.

Your idea of the Constitution is also erroneous, as the founding Fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, like they could have. Those are two separate, though not completely independent sections of the Constitution. One delineates power, the other restricts power.

So, to you. How does that Supreme Court ruling have anything to do with what I wrote in response to the other posters' description of the Constitution?

Your knowledge is not quite on the mark. The Bill of Rights, which is simply an historically accepted reference to the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, were not part of the Constitution because after the Constitution was ratified, some of the 13 states, mainly the smaller ones concerned about the possibility of being dominated by the larger, more populous ones, demanded additional limitations on federal powers. It was a federalist/anti-federalist thing. These states got their way. Those ten amendments have precisely the same force in law as the rest of the Constitution and are in fact as much a part of the Constitution as any of the original Articles AND all the subsequent Amendments. No difference whatsoever. In fact, if there were any conflict, it's the later amendment which would override the original article or earlier amendment. There is absolutely no difference in enforceability between the original Articles and any of the subsequent Amendments (excepting later amendments overriding or repealing earlier amendments, ex., the 18th Amendment - Prohibition - which required a whole new amendment, the 21st Amendment, to repeal it). All have the same standing, unless one comes along later to effectively repeal the earlier. You can call the original articles, and the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments different "sections" if you want to, but that's kind of an arbitrary reference with historical-, but no legal meaning. You could just as easily call all the 'odd' amendments one section and all the 'even' amendments a different one.

There were actually originally 17 of these original amendments (they were actually called "Articles") passed by the new House of Representatives during the First Congress (1789). The Senate only approved 12 of them. The states ratified 10 of those 12 - Articles 3-12 - which came to be known as the Bill of Rights.

Oh, and James Madison, influenced by George Mason, essentially drafted the Bill of Rights (in response to calls from some of the states as mentioned above). Both were delegates (from VA) to the 1787 Constitutional Convention (and James Madison was actually a signer). In addition James Madison was a member of the Continental Congress. George Mason famously drafted Virginia's "Declaration of Rights" which was imitated by many of the other states and used by Jefferson in the first part of the Declaration of Independence. Both would certainly have to be considered "founders".

You do have a point about the original articles serving to "delineate powers" and the Bill of Rights serving to "limit" them, and this kind of goes back to the original historic debate about the "need" for a Bill of Rights. But again, legally there's no real distinction unless something later conflicts with something earlier, in which case the later amendment governs..

Edited August 18, 2015 by hawker9000

[sdanielmcev]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it.

Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?

[jdinasia]

http://www.maine.gov/portal/residents/marriage.html

[Publicus]

If this Kentucky dingbat county clerk Davis had any morality she would in good conscience resign if she can't do the job. To do so would be consistent with her oath of office. As it is, Davis is violating her oath of office, the Kentucky constitution and the US Constitution, any one of which is pretty serious stuff nevermind her doing the present trifecta.

Her mother had for 27 years been the county clerk and this Davis is now clerk after having worked in the office for her mother. Davis in fact has her son working in the office as he himself has denied applications for a marriage license. This self-anointed and God-hugging family are beginning to sound like the Romanovs.

[Seastallion]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it.

Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?

Actually, I think your protractor is poorly calibrated. In fact I'd say your entire mathematics ability would be poor, since logic is an important requirement. Initially, church marriages were performed, end of story. When governments (plural) deemed that legalities have to be followed for a marriage to be legal, they allowed churches to become a sort of one-stop shop; religious fluff and legal fluff all in the one place. Non-religious people could still get legally married outside of a church. In fact, if people get married in a town council office, they can still go to a church to get married without duplicating any of the legal paperwork. That a minister performs both a legal and a religious functions does not make the legal part synonymous with the religious part. The legal part has nothing to do with religion, it's just there in the church for convenience and as a natural follow-on from the time before legalities had to be completed.

[sdanielmcev]

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

Because I'm explaining an erroneous definition of the Constitution. Geez. I don't believe I had to explain that.

My understanding of the Constitution is not based on popular belief, like some here believe. I read it, not get the information from someone who 'interprets' it for me.

Your idea of the Constitution is also erroneous, as the founding Fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, like they could have. Those are two separate, though not completely independent sections of the Constitution. One delineates power, the other restricts power.

So, to you. How does that Supreme Court ruling have anything to do with what I wrote in response to the other posters' description of the Constitution?

Your knowledge is not quite on the mark. The Bill of Rights, which is simply an historically accepted reference to the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, were not part of the Constitution because after the Constitution was ratified, some of the 13 states, mainly the smaller ones concerned about the possibility of being dominated by the larger, more populous ones, demanded additional limitations on federal powers. It was a federalist/anti-federalist thing. These states got their way. Those ten amendments have precisely the same force in law as the rest of the Constitution and are in fact as much a part of the Constitution as any of the original Articles AND all the subsequent Amendments. No difference whatsoever. In fact, if there were any conflict, it's the later amendment which would override the original article or earlier amendment. There is absolutely no difference in enforceability between the original Articles and any of the subsequent Amendments (excepting later amendments overriding or repealing earlier amendments, ex., the 18th Amendment - Prohibition - which required a whole new amendment, the 21st Amendment, to repeal it). All have the same standing, unless one comes along later to effectively repeal the earlier. You can call the original articles, and the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments different "sections" if you want to, but that's kind of an arbitrary reference with historical-, but no legal meaning. You could just as easily call all the 'odd' amendments one section and all the 'even' amendments a different one.

There were actually originally 17 of these original amendments (they were actually called "Articles") passed by the new House of Representatives during the First Congress (1789). The Senate only approved 12 of them. The states ratified 10 of those 12 - Articles 3-12 - which came to be known as the Bill of Rights.

Oh, and James Madison, influenced by George Mason, essentially drafted the Bill of Rights (in response to calls from some of the states as mentioned above). Both were delegates (from VA) to the 1787 Constitutional Convention (and James Madison was actually a signer). In addition James Madison was a member of the Continental Congress. George Mason famously drafted Virginia's "Declaration of Rights" which was imitated by many of the other states and used by Jefferson in the first part of the Declaration of Independence. Both would certainly have to be considered "founders".

You do have a point about the original articles serving to "delineate powers" and the Bill of Rights serving to "limit" them, and this kind of goes back to the original historic debate about the "need" for a Bill of Rights. But again, legally there's no real distinction unless something later conflicts with something earlier, in which case the later amendment governs..

The amendments were discussed before ratification of the Constitution. As I was not discussing the timeline, my statement stands correct. I could go farther, but it is off topic.

(BTW, maybe not disagree then agree. Unless you're John Kerry.)

[StefanBBK]

And Rowan probably needs a new job.

She is not being asked to perform a marriage, just issue a license?

Does this give a state official the right not to issue a hunting license, because they are a vegetarian.

This woman is a Christian version of ISIS.

I do like your comparison with the hunting license. However it should be the religious believe that prompts the clerk to be vegetarian...

If I would not perform my duties because of religious believes, I suppose I get sacked quickly. This lady needs a new job too.

[sdanielmcev]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it.

Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?

Actually, I think your protractor is poorly calibrated. In fact I'd say your entire mathematics ability would be poor, since logic is an important requirement. Initially, church marriages were performed, end of story. When governments (plural) deemed that legalities have to be followed for a marriage to be legal, they allowed churches to become a sort of one-stop shop; religious fluff and legal fluff all in the one place. Non-religious people could still get legally married outside of a church. In fact, if people get married in a town council office, they can still go to a church to get married without duplicating any of the legal paperwork. That a minister performs both a legal and a religious functions does not make the legal part synonymous with the religious part. The legal part has nothing to do with religion, it's just there in the church for convenience and as a natural follow-on from the time before legalities had to be completed.

You are arguing with yourself. Let's recap; I said marriage and matrimony are synonymous. I said after the religious ceremony a couple is legally married. You've gone off on the tangent describing how some legalities are involved in a religious ceremony. What does that have to do with what I wrote?

[harrry]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it.

Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?

Actually, I think your protractor is poorly calibrated. In fact I'd say your entire mathematics ability would be poor, since logic is an important requirement. Initially, church marriages were performed, end of story. When governments (plural) deemed that legalities have to be followed for a marriage to be legal, they allowed churches to become a sort of one-stop shop; religious fluff and legal fluff all in the one place. Non-religious people could still get legally married outside of a church. In fact, if people get married in a town council office, they can still go to a church to get married without duplicating any of the legal paperwork. That a minister performs both a legal and a religious functions does not make the legal part synonymous with the religious part. The legal part has nothing to do with religion, it's just there in the church for convenience and as a natural follow-on from the time before legalities had to be completed.

You are arguing with yourself. Let's recap; I said marriage and matrimony are synonymous. I said after the religious ceremony a couple is legally married. You've gone off on the tangent describing how some legalities are involved in a religious ceremony. What does that have to do with what I wrote?

I am not sure but in law I would think they were not married when the preacher pronounced them man and wife but they were when they signed the register which is a civil register after the ceromony. That is how it would be in Australia

[Seastallion]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it.

Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?

Actually, I think your protractor is poorly calibrated. In fact I'd say your entire mathematics ability would be poor, since logic is an important requirement. Initially, church marriages were performed, end of story. When governments (plural) deemed that legalities have to be followed for a marriage to be legal, they allowed churches to become a sort of one-stop shop; religious fluff and legal fluff all in the one place. Non-religious people could still get legally married outside of a church. In fact, if people get married in a town council office, they can still go to a church to get married without duplicating any of the legal paperwork. That a minister performs both a legal and a religious functions does not make the legal part synonymous with the religious part. The legal part has nothing to do with religion, it's just there in the church for convenience and as a natural follow-on from the time before legalities had to be completed.

You are arguing with yourself. Let's recap; I said marriage and matrimony are synonymous. I said after the religious ceremony a couple is legally married. You've gone off on the tangent describing how some legalities are involved in a religious ceremony. What does that have to do with what I wrote?

No, I'm arguing with you....(and you didn't say matrimony and marriage are synonymous....you said the religious rite and the legal right are synonymous). Yes, lets recap...look back. You said the religious matrimony/marriage and the legal marriage/matrimony are synonymous, and you went on to say that that is because a marriage in a church is a legal one. I pointed out that the religious ceremony has nothing to do with law, and the legal paperwork has nothing to do with religion. Just because the legal paperwork occurs in a church, does not make it a religious procedure.

Try again.

[Publicus]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

It's not a moral issue. It's a legal issue.

The Supreme Court rules on law. It ruled that the constitution says that the states can't discriminate.

Why do gays need another term? Marriage is a legal union. The supreme court has ruled that same sex couples can not be denied that legal union that any heterosexual couple can have. Marriage isn't owned by religion.

The Supreme Court (supposedly) rules on the constitutionality of cases brought before them. It is a referee, not judge. The 'same sex ruling' ruled the ban as unconstitutional. It did not make law. That is up to the individual states. Congress makes laws. And so far it hasn't.

The term - marriage- for a couple thousand years now, has been between 1 man and 1 woman. Coming up with a new term would have simplified the process, and, rightfully, would not have involved religion. And bypassed any moral issues. By co-opting, some say perverting, the term marriage, it removed the legal issue as the main object of discussion, and replaced it with a moral discussion. And before the cartoon mentalities congregate in coven of hate thought, I'm all for gays being able to have all the legal benefits, and disappointments of a viable mutual union.

The Supreme Court (supposedly) rules on the constitutionality of cases brought before them. It is a referee, not judge

So instead of calling them 'justice' we should call them 'referee.'

Chief Referee John Roberts, Associate Referee Clarence Thomas et al. For oral arguments before the Court we could also give 'em whistles and color coded cards, green, yellow, red. In American football referees throw a yellow flag for a foul or any violation of the rules, all of which would be most interesting to liven up the locker room Court chamber.

(Supposedly.)

The term - marriage- for a couple thousand years now, has been between 1 man and 1 woman

The exclusivity of it is done and over with, forever, as well it should be and must be, so the far out right and other Republicans are going to have to suck it up from here on out.

[sdanielmcev]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it.

Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?

Actually, I think your protractor is poorly calibrated. In fact I'd say your entire mathematics ability would be poor, since logic is an important requirement. Initially, church marriages were performed, end of story. When governments (plural) deemed that legalities have to be followed for a marriage to be legal, they allowed churches to become a sort of one-stop shop; religious fluff and legal fluff all in the one place. Non-religious people could still get legally married outside of a church. In fact, if people get married in a town council office, they can still go to a church to get married without duplicating any of the legal paperwork. That a minister performs both a legal and a religious functions does not make the legal part synonymous with the religious part. The legal part has nothing to do with religion, it's just there in the church for convenience and as a natural follow-on from the time before legalities had to be completed.

You are arguing with yourself. Let's recap; I said marriage and matrimony are synonymous. I said after the religious ceremony a couple is legally married. You've gone off on the tangent describing how some legalities are involved in a religious ceremony. What does that have to do with what I wrote?

No, I'm arguing with you....(and you didn't say matrimony and marriage are synonymous....you said the religious rite and the legal right are synonymous). Yes, lets recap...look back. You said the religious matrimony/marriage and the legal marriage/matrimony are synonymous, and you went on to say that that is because a marriage in a church is a legal one. I pointed out that the religious ceremony has nothing to do with law, and the legal paperwork has nothing to do with religion. Just because the legal paperwork occurs in a church, does not make it a religious procedure.

Try again.

It is there on your screen. I said nothing of the sort. You did.
I never said the legal paperwork, because it occurs in a church is a religious procedure. You did. I pointed out only that after a religious ceremony, also known as the vows, a couple is married. I at no point disagreed nor stated anything about paperwork. You did. It did not figure into my statements.
If you would like to respond to the poster that claimed there was a difference, fine. I pointed out only he was misusing words. You tried to change what I wrote. Not gonna happen.
And it is the vows that make a marriage legal, not the paperwork. Whether in a religious setting or not. It is part of English common law. As a matter of fact, just claiming to be husband and wife is enough to be legally married in the US.

[gk10002000]

If this Kentucky dingbat county clerk Davis had any morality she would in good conscience resign if she can't do the job. To do so would be consistent with her oath of office. As it is, Davis is violating her oath of office, the Kentucky constitution and the US Constitution, any one of which is pretty serious stuff nevermind her doing the present trifecta.

Her mother had for 27 years been the county clerk and this Davis is now clerk after having worked in the office for her mother. Davis in fact has her son working in the office as he himself has denied applications for a marriage license. This self-anointed and God-hugging family are beginning to sound like the Romanovs.

Might not be violating it yet if, and I do mean if the ruling is being appealed. Of course without an emergency injunction halting the ruling, I think the ruling stands and is law.

[Credo]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it.

Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?

Actually, I think your protractor is poorly calibrated. In fact I'd say your entire mathematics ability would be poor, since logic is an important requirement. Initially, church marriages were performed, end of story. When governments (plural) deemed that legalities have to be followed for a marriage to be legal, they allowed churches to become a sort of one-stop shop; religious fluff and legal fluff all in the one place. Non-religious people could still get legally married outside of a church. In fact, if people get married in a town council office, they can still go to a church to get married without duplicating any of the legal paperwork. That a minister performs both a legal and a religious functions does not make the legal part synonymous with the religious part. The legal part has nothing to do with religion, it's just there in the church for convenience and as a natural follow-on from the time before legalities had to be completed.

You are arguing with yourself. Let's recap; I said marriage and matrimony are synonymous. I said after the religious ceremony a couple is legally married. You've gone off on the tangent describing how some legalities are involved in a religious ceremony. What does that have to do with what I wrote?

No, I'm arguing with you....(and you didn't say matrimony and marriage are synonymous....you said the religious rite and the legal right are synonymous). Yes, lets recap...look back. You said the religious matrimony/marriage and the legal marriage/matrimony are synonymous, and you went on to say that that is because a marriage in a church is a legal one. I pointed out that the religious ceremony has nothing to do with law, and the legal paperwork has nothing to do with religion. Just because the legal paperwork occurs in a church, does not make it a religious procedure.

Try again.

It is there on your screen. I said nothing of the sort. You did.

I never said the legal paperwork, because it occurs in a church is a religious procedure. You did. I pointed out only that after a religious ceremony, also known as the vows, a couple is married. I at no point disagreed nor stated anything about paperwork. You did. It did not figure into my statements.

If you would like to respond to the poster that claimed there was a difference, fine. I pointed out only he was misusing words. You tried to change what I wrote. Not gonna happen.

And it is the vows that make a marriage legal, not the paperwork. Whether in a religious setting or not. It is part of English common law. As a matter of fact, just claiming to be husband and wife is enough to be legally married in the US.

Really? Well Bobbi Christina Brown said she was married to Nick Gordon, but that didn't seem to work out very well legally for him. He wasn't allowed to visit her nor was he allowed to attend her funeral.

[mikebike]

And it is the vows that make a marriage legal, not the paperwork. As a matter of fact, just claiming to be husband and wife is enough to be legally married in the US.

Wrong and wrong again.

[hawker9000]

It is there on your screen. I said nothing of the sort. You did.

I never said the legal paperwork, because it occurs in a church is a religious procedure. You did. I pointed out only that after a religious ceremony, also known as the vows, a couple is married. I at no point disagreed nor stated anything about paperwork. You did. It did not figure into my statements.

If you would like to respond to the poster that claimed there was a difference, fine. I pointed out only he was misusing words. You tried to change what I wrote. Not gonna happen.

And it is the vows that make a marriage legal, not the paperwork. Whether in a religious setting or not. It is part of English common law. As a matter of fact, just claiming to be husband and wife is enough to be legally married in the US.

"As a matter of fact, just claiming to be husband and wife is enough to be legally married in the US."

Hmmm. US Immigration might have a teeny tiny issue with that notion ...

[jdinasia]

And it is the vows that make a marriage legal, not the paperwork. As a matter of fact, just claiming to be husband and wife is enough to be legally married in the US.

Wrong and wrong again.

Nope - it is the paperwork not any religious nonsense