Is a religious ceremony always a legal marriage?

[IDeciam 3]

Elizabeth+Fred

Thank you so much, it was a good answer and a lot of detail.

It makes me think about other issues....how marriage laws vary from country to country and how that affects immigration laws.

For instance, in US we have no-fault divorce. I guess there are still countries that don't allow no-fault divorce....maybe a person can't get divorced in his or her home country. Even though they could get a divorce in USA, they can't immigrate here on a fiance visa based on that, because they are legally married in their own country.

In some countries, a bride can be married without her verbal or written consent...isn't that what happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Such a marriage would be considered invalid here but legally binding in some other country.

So, you are married or not married according to the legal definition in the country you are immigrating from.

But because of the power of the decision of the individual immigration officer, it is better to be on the safe safe safe safe side.

I understand!

[IDeciam 3]

Here is the info from the US Embassy in the Phillipines. Many Filipinos have been surprised their Catholic wedding without a civil registration is still a valid marriage disqualifying the K-1.

http://manila.usembassy.gov/marriage.html

Note: A Catholic religious ceremony may be performed even without a civil ceremony and the marriage will still be considered legal in the Philippines.

Okay, that is no surprise to me. It is because of the particular relationship between religion and state in that country.

But I feel very sure that it varies from country to country, between religions, etc,

Even here in the USA, if I make up my own religion with five other friends and the next week I decide to get married in my new religion, the marriage is not going to have any legal definition. But, if I get married by a Southern Baptist minister, it is a different story.

Correct or not?

[IDeciam 3]

I appreciate the answers. I am not really asking about a specific situation, by the way. Rather, I have encountered conversations about this for several years now

and never really understood the issue. I've met several people over the years who said they'd like to get married but can't because of immigration. These were people who were already living together. I never understood what immigration has to do with whether or not a person can get married.

I am trying to understand the underlying principles.

[MacUK 983]

I appreciate the answers. I am not really asking about a specific situation, by the way. Rather, I have encountered conversations about this for several years now

and never really understood the issue. I've met several people over the years who said they'd like to get married but can't because of immigration. These were people who were already living together. I never understood what immigration has to do with whether or not a person can get married.

I am trying to understand the underlying principles.

Put it this way, if you were to have a religious ceremony would you consider yourself married or not?

If no, then why have it in the first place.

If yes, then would it be unreasonable for the US government to also consider you married?

One line I've read many times here on VJ concerning people getting religious ceremonies before their K1 is that for immigration purposes a religious ceremony can be considered 'not married enough to apply for a spousal visa but too married to get a fiance one'

[IDeciam 3]

Put it this way, if you were to have a religious ceremony would you consider yourself married or not?

If no, then why have it in the first place.

If yes, then would it be unreasonable for the US government to also consider you married?

One line I've read many times here on VJ concerning people getting religious ceremonies before their K1 is that for immigration purposes a religious ceremony can be considered 'not married enough to apply for a spousal visa but too married to get a fiance one'

Okay. For example. I have a family in my neighborhood. The man and the woman are living together and have kids together. They consider themselves married. Their kids and all their extended family apparently consider themselves married. But they are not legally married. They have told me they can't get married because of immigration.

They'd like to get married in the church because they are considered to be living in sin. But the church can't marry them because then they are also married legally.

If yes, then would it be unreasonable for the US government to also consider you married?

The US government (or any government) does not grant marital status to people based on them considering themselves married. I think this is a pretty hot debate in USA right now and it should be clear to everyone that considering yourself married and being legally married are not the same thing. So, in answer, yes, I think that would not be consistent.

[Mike&Lin 39]

Okay, that is no surprise to me. It is because of the particular relationship between religion and state in that country.

But I feel very sure that it varies from country to country, between religions, etc,

Even here in the USA, if I make up my own religion with five other friends and the next week I decide to get married in my new religion, the marriage is not going to have any legal definition. But, if I get married by a Southern Baptist minister, it is a different story.

Correct or not?

I believe this is incorrect. Most if not all states require a Marriage License as proof of your marriage(we're not even considering Common Law Marriages here). They also regulate who can actually solemnize that marriage license(certificate). But states cannot require, absence of a license, registration of a ceremony performed by any minister. The "church" may recognize the wedding without a license, but it doesn't mean the state does. Maybe there are ministers that will not perform a ceremony without a license, in that case their only real requirement is to sign the marriage license that they solemnized the license.

In my case my Filipina fiancée lives and works in Singapore. I will bring her to the US on the K1 and we will marry here. Later, once we can afford another trip, we will travel to the Philippines to have a ceremony there for her family.

[IDeciam 3]

I believe this is incorrect. Most if not all states require a Marriage License as proof of your marriage(we're not even considering Common Law Marriages here). They also regulate who can actually solemnize that marriage license(certificate). But states cannot require, absence of a license, registration of a ceremony performed by any minister. The "church" may recognize the wedding without a license, but it doesn't mean the state does. Maybe there are ministers that will not perform a ceremony without a license, in that case their only real requirement is to sign the marriage license that they solemnized the license.

In my case my Filipina fiancée lives and works in Singapore. I will bring her to the US on the K1 and we will marry here. Later, once we can afford another trip, we will travel to the Philippines to have a ceremony there for her family.

On the other hand, an ordained recognized minister, such as a Catholic priest, is not allowed to perform a marriage ceremony without it also being registered legally. Or, in these cases, they could 'marry' these people, but they are not allowed by the state. I've been told this numerous times.

They can be prosecuted.

[Mike&Lin 39]

On the other hand, an ordained recognized minister, such as a Catholic priest, is not allowed to perform a marriage ceremony without it also being registered legally. Or, in these cases, they could 'marry' these people, but they are not allowed by the state. I've been told this numerous times.

They can be prosecuted.

No, depending on the state, THEY are not allowed to perform the ceremony to solemnize the license unless THEY are registered with the state. This has nothing to do with legal requirements to register a ceremony performed outside the bounds of a marriage license issued by the state. They cannot be prosecuted for performing a ceremony that has no accompanying license. In that case it is a purely religious ceremony between God and the parties involved. They are married in their eyes and the eyes of the church. Does the state recognize it as a legal marriage? Maybe, maybe not but nobody is going to be prosecuted for performing a religious ceremony. Next time someone tells you this have them show you the actual statute that says it is illegal to perform a wedding ceremony without a marriage license.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Mike&Lin

[bob.sansmal 14]

Okay, that is no surprise to me. It is because of the particular relationship between religion and state in that country.

But I feel very sure that it varies from country to country, between religions, etc,

Even here in the USA, if I make up my own religion with five other friends and the next week I decide to get married in my new religion, the marriage is not going to have any legal definition. But, if I get married by a Southern Baptist minister, it is a different story.

Correct or not?

I believe that is incorrect. From my understanding you can be married by an ordained minister of any faith, who is empowered to do legal weddings, but if you do it without a government issued marriage license, it does not count legally.

Happens a lot in Utah.....there was even a recent U.S. Federal Court case that...kinda-sorta deals with the issue of whether a marriage without a marriage license counts as a marriage. Brown v. Buhman

From the ruling:

if a couple does not have a marriage license, no amount of “appearing to be married” (such as through the factors listed by the Holm majority the trappings of a legally recognized marriage, as discussed in supra note 52) will enable a couple to claim that they actually enjoy a legal union by operation of law as a result of such outward evidences of marriage.

[IDeciam 3]

No, depending on the state, THEY are not allowed to perform the ceremony to solemnize the license unless THEY are registered with the state. This has nothing to do with legal requirements to register a ceremony performed outside the bounds of a marriage license issued by the state. They cannot be prosecuted for performing a ceremony that has no accompanying license. In that case it is a purely religious ceremony between God and the parties involved. They are married in their eyes and the eyes of the church. Does the state recognize it as a legal marriage? Maybe, maybe not but nobody is going to be prosecuted for performing a religious ceremony. Next time someone tells you this have them show you the actual statute that says it is illegal to perform a wedding ceremony without a marriage license.

The reason I think you are wrong about this is because I have heard it from ordained ministers multiple times, and I believe they know what their rights and obligations are. I did a whole research project on this issue.

There are people who would like to get married in the church but they can't because the minister can't just marry them "religiously"....and they can't afford to get married civilly because their visa processes are still pending (sometimes for many years.)

I believe that is incorrect. From my understanding you can be married by an ordained minister of any faith, who is empowered to do legal weddings, but if you do it without a government issued marriage license, it does not count legally.

Happens a lot in Utah.....there was even a recent U.S. Federal Court case that...kinda-sorta deals with the issue of whether a marriage without a marriage license counts as a marriage. Brown v. Buhman

From the ruling:

What was the ruling?

Was it a polygamy case?

[Gosia & Tito 199]

Better to say, "The USCIS would consider it fraud." I had no intention of hiding anything; if I were, I would have just done it, and not asked the question. So, I don't know how you can say "fraud is fraud" when I had no intention to hide it.

Frankly, I don't see why the USCIS would care about this, anyway. It is a personal issue as far as I can see. Some people are not married legally or religiously, but they live together like husband and wife before marriage. Does the USCIS see if they did this and then deny them a fiancee visa later? It doesn't add up to me. Seems really illogical.

Besides the fact that the USCIS knows that they are horribly backlogged and that the long delays are based on administrative overload rather than any law.

Using the words 'logic' and 'USCIS' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Trying to find logic will drive you to drink or jump out the window. Is best to recognize that they hold the rules of the game and one needs to follow them for a good outcome (or at least for a chance of a good outcome). Arguing about the logic will get us nowhere; however, there is a level a control we have in that petitions can be frontloaded, timing of the different stages can be leveraged, actual entry in to the country can be planned, etc.

My two cardinal rules when dealing with USCIS, DOS, etc are:

1. I/We never lie- this is pretty obvious

2. I/we do not take unnecesary risks-meaning, if there is any activity, event, scenario that could be interpreted incorrectly or as fraud, then I/we don't risk it.

Remember that the opinions, comments and judgements of anyone here count absolutely zero, zilch; Notice I'm not saying they are good or bad; only that the only opinion that counts is the one USCIS has.

[twofors 30]

This conversation is very interesting. It is important for anyone going through the K1 Visa Process to understand the legal definition of Marriage in their own Country as well as the United States. I agree with the VJ member that stated, (paraphased of course) it is not a simple understanding of the legal definition, outlined by the governments, but the intention of the petitioner and beneficiary that is most important. I have repeatedly read posts from VJ members questioned at embassies, where fraud is prevalent, asking questions that for most of us seem a bit outrageous. The Embassy immigration officers are looking for anything that may indicate an abuse of the system, whether the applicant is lying or perpetuating fraud. I think that if any member wants to be 100% sure that the embassy will not deny the Visa based on the "marriage" question then you should simply wait.

Hi everyone.

I have a question that I have been asking people for about a year now (including my lawyer) and never have really gotten all the information that I need.

I have figured out that, if you apply for a Fiancee visa, you can't get married until you receive the visa; otherwise you are considered as committing fraud.

Okay, so, then I've noticed that a lot of people have religious ceremonies in their home countries and then come here and do the legal. Is that okay?

Finally, what about in countries where the religious ceremony is not recognized by the state? In some countries, the religious minister does not have power from the state to register a marriage. So, if the religious minister does the wedding, it still isn't a legal marriage. How does the USCIS view those situations?

Edited July 15, 2014 by twofors

[Ryan H 3,834]

~~~Closed for review.~~~

***Thread back open; four posts that were unnecessarily bickering in nature have been removed. With the exception of those posts, this thread has been civil in tone, please keep it that way to avoid any additional Moderator action.***

Edited July 15, 2014 by Ryan H

[IDeciam 3]

Using the words 'logic' and 'USCIS' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Trying to find logic will drive you to drink or jump out the window. Is best to recognize that they hold the rules of the game and one needs to follow them for a good outcome (or at least for a chance of a good outcome). Arguing about the logic will get us nowhere; however, there is a level a control we have in that petitions can be frontloaded, timing of the different stages can be leveraged, actual entry in to the country can be planned, etc.

My two cardinal rules when dealing with USCIS, DOS, etc are:

1. I/We never lie- this is pretty obvious

2. I/we do not take unnecesary risks-meaning, if there is any activity, event, scenario that could be interpreted incorrectly or as fraud, then I/we don't risk it.

Remember that the opinions, comments and judgements of anyone here count absolutely zero, zilch; Notice I'm not saying they are good or bad; only that the only opinion that counts is the one USCIS has.

LOL.

I think what you are saying is that dealing with the USCIS is more of an art than a science. ;-)

[bob.sansmal 14]

The reason I think you are wrong about this is because I have heard it from ordained ministers multiple times, and I believe they know what their rights and obligations are. I did a whole research project on this issue.

There are people who would like to get married in the church but they can't because the minister can't just marry them "religiously"....and they can't afford to get married civilly because their visa processes are still pending (sometimes for many years.)

What was the ruling?

Was it a polygamy case?

To an extent this depends on the celebrant and his/her moral conscience, but I am unaware of anywhere in the US that prohibits non-legally-recognized wedding ceremonies.

Some countries (Mauritius is one) do prohibit it though.

As for the ruling, the case was about a law in Utah that was aimed at suppressing polygamists by essentially saying that if you were legally married to one person, and then lived with 1 or more other person as husband and wife, then you were committing bigamy. Or something like that. This was enacted because a number of fundamentalist Mormons were insisting on continuing the practice of polygamy and were skirting the law by only getting legally married once, and doing just a religious ceremony for each subsequent wife. The law was struck down in the federal courts.