Holy Bonds of Matrimony?

Tennessee is a VERY religious state. My boyfriend has family and friends who grew up there and as far as I know, all of them are in some sect of Christianity. It was awkward for me visiting them; upon parting at the airport, my boyfriend’s father said “I know you’re not a believer, but I pray for you to have a safe trip home.”
I know it’s meant well, but to a non-believer it comes off as very condescending.
Before I start ranting………
That’s my possible explanation and it seems logical enough.

I couldn’t tell you if it is different in any other state but as cynical as it sounds, are you really surprised?

Take a look at page 28 of this 30-page PDF about Tennessee marriage procedures:
http://www.mtas.utk.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/0/a06c2bb2516931ed8525761800681cb4/$FILE/2006Marriage.pdf

It shows a marriage license with that wording, and no alternative. It’s been like this at least since 2006 (date of that PDF), and probably longer.

I’m surprised nobody has complained about this online before. Now I have to wonder if any other states have similar BS going on and nobody’s bothered to complain about them yet either. Attention FFRF.org!

A government document with this wording shouldn’t be offered to anyone, even as a non-default option. Anyone who wants a marriage document with religious wording can get a supplemental one from their church.

(And ideally, not only should TN fix this from now on, but they should also mail letters to everyone in the state issued a marriage license in the past some-number-of years, offering to provide a replacement license with corrected wording to anyone who wants one. I’m sure there’s other people in this situation who just sighed and accepted it because they were given no choice and didn’t want to cause a stink.)

Ugg, that is awful. My Catholic BIL was aking me who my husband and I were promising our fidelity too in our wedding if God wasn’t invited…? Um each other. We are promising to love and honor each other to each other.
Anyway, I am pretty sure Maryland does NOT include any religious allusion in their paperwork.

In North Carolina, the Marriage Certificate is littered with religious references.

“This certifies that I, (judge’s name) in and for the State and County aforesaid, united in HOLY MATRIMONY (our names) according to the ordinance of God and under License No. xx-xxxx”

Also, up at the top of the document it has the phrase “Those Whom God Hath Joined Together Let No Man Put Asunder”.

We got married at the courthouse by a judge, just to avoid all the god/church junk that neither of us believed in. When we were met with this (and more, I had to sign something “under the eyes of God”) I was ticked, but it just wouldn’t have been proper for me to raise a stink about it on my wedding day.

This is why I think marriage should be tossed out as a legal concept and civil unions brought in to replace it. You want a “marriage”, go to a church and swing some incense around.

It explains perfectly well why there is such a battle over gay marriage.

It doesn’t look like a legal document. It looks like one of those certificates you get for attending, er, “passing” some seminar.

@Anonymous Atheist: Rosa Parks is becoming the new Godwin. Use sparingly

Chelsea

Congratulations (That certificate is dated yesterday people, lets all congratulate the newly wed couple).

Sounds like your state needs their head read on the whole separation of church and state idea. That being said go enjoy your Honeymoon, refresh yourself from the craziness of any wedding. After you get back you can start thinking about writing your senator Andy Dufresne style. Once a week until they send you the ‘please shut up letter’ then twice a week until they do something about it.

Congratulations again Chelsea (and Justin), enjoy this weekend and whatever plans you have.

My husband & I live in TN. When we got married (almost 8yrs ago) we received a similar certificate. It looks a little different now, but has the same wording. If I recall correctly, we had to sign another paper after the ceremony that the minister had to turn in to the clerk’s office. I think the “Holy Bonds” certificate is for you.

If you’re wondering, my husband was already an atheist when we married & I was on the way… My family’s really religious though. I regret the church wedding now. Eloping would have been the way to go. 🙂

I had to go get our marriage license out to check, as it never occurred to me before…yeah, like Pickle, I was VERY surprised that there are no overt religious sentiments on it. Says “bonded in the rites of marriage” or some such. Texas has a long way to go yet, but at least it’s something positive. ‘Course, the officiant’s signature is followed by “Minister of the Gospel,” but we were bamboozled by that guy. Secular ceremony my arse.

The Iowa marriage certificate has checkboxes for “groom”, “bride”, or just “spouse” (for gay marriages). No God references or flowery language, just proof of marriage.

Surprisingly enough, my Oklahoma marriage license doesn’t have any religious BS on it. All that was consumed by the BS needed to try and get it, but that’s a whole different story 😀

My New Mexico marriage license says the same thing: “Holy bonds of matrimony.”

Sorry Jim H,
Missed your post stating what Nevada has. Thank you very much for the info.

So is there a decent place to look up all the non-religous options?

I believe that in NC if you are not married right in the courthouse, you have to be married by a minister of some sort – even for civil ceremonies, which I’m against. And now from what was said above i’m not even sure I want to get married in my own state with all that gook on the license.

@Philbert- I have to reassert my position on Godwin’s law: It’s bullshit, because it doesn’t let you call a nazi a nazi. Guess what? Some people think the jews are out to get us and must be eliminated to keep the Aryan race pure. But I guess they’re just “national socialism enthusiasts” or something?

Yeah, rosaparks or nazi sparingly, but in this situation, I say it works well. Huzzah!

Crystal: Thanks for the additional TN data point! It sounds like the wording (and more?) may have changed relatively recently, some time between 2003 and 2006. The PDF I linked didn’t say anything about it varying by county, only displaying one version, with this ‘holy’ wording, as if it applied to the whole state. So although county-by-county differences are possible, it currently looks doubtful without more data to go on.

holy (?h??l?)
— adj , holier , holiest
1. of, relating to, or associated with God or a deity; sacred
2. endowed or invested with extreme purity or sublimity
3. devout, godly, or virtuous
4. holier-than-thou offensively sanctimonious or self-righteous: a holier-than-thou attitude
5. holy terror
a. a difficult or frightening person
b. informal ( Irish ) a person who is an active gambler, womanizer, etc
— n , holier , holiest , -lies
6. a. a sacred place
b. ( functioning as plural ) the holy persons or things invested with holiness

Watcha ya mean that’s not religious, Willis? (Or Karen or goingkookies?) Why charitably ascribed meaning #5 to the word rather than #1 its most common definition?

I’m with Anonymous Atheist down the line. Everyone has to choose their own battles but why pick at someone who fought one you blew off as not worth it? It’s quite often the quiet ones that benefit from those who had more courageous to fight.

Congratulations, Chelsea and Justin. Best wishes to you!

A little off topic….
A great piece on why gays should be allowed to marry, printed in our very conservative newspaper….
http://www.modbee.com/2010/08/12/1292242/bearden-let-anyone-marry-anyone.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=5378562#Comments_Container

Just got married in Las Vegas (we live here) and our license didn’t say anything like that. We did a civil marriage at the office of civil marriage, and it was completely secular and awesome.
http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/clerk/Pages/civil_marriage.aspx

Great American Satan beat me to it. I was going to point out that, from my understanding, it’s only Godwin if it is not particularly relevant. If someone, for example, is saying “let’s take everyone who belongs to Group X and put them in camps/kill them”, then a reference to the Nazis is not uncalled for, for example.

Whereas the more common use–“I don’t like Idea/Person/Group X so I’m going to painfully torture reason, logic, and the english language to force some kind of connection between them and the Nazis to make my position sound more valid and lend it emotional appeal”. Or even more common, the intensely lazy method of simply proclaiming the Idea/Person/Group you don’t like to be Nazi just becuz u sed so. (Example–Teabaggers referencing Obama and the Democrats as being Nazis. “I don’t like him, therefore Nazi” *groan*.) Same motivation as the former, though.

In this case, it could be easily argued that sitting at the back of the bus is a small and meaningless thing, and it was extreme for Rosa Parks to make a big deal of it. Why invite the hassle and the stress of standing up for yourself, when it takes so little to just sit at the back of the bus or give up your seat to that white guy? When set against the lynchings of the time, for example, what is a little thing like that? She should have just shut up and done what she was expected to do.

Well, I wouldn’t find that easy to argue. I would find that kind of argument to be the most mealy-mouthed bunch of crap I ever heard in my life and I’d be appalled to know that bleep-bleep came out of my mouth. Then I would invite someone to shoot me. /Tiny Tank

However, someone who has no concept of the nature and mechanics of discrimination would have no problem making such an argument and finding a way to blame the victim for being uppity outspoken.

This is often followed with the claim that any negative consequences–such as discrimination, ostracism, death threats, loss of job, etc–are entirely the fault of the victim and not the system that victimized them and then punished them for objecting to the mistreatment. If the victim didn’t want to be targeted like that, the victim would have kept his/her head down and done what s/he was told, and then the victim would still be living in a nominally comfortable status quo existence rather than the living nightmare that has since erupted. Remember kids, no matter how bad things are, we can always make them worse for you! Why do you fight, Lucy? It’s so much better if you don’t fight!

Hmm. Well, I had thought I was in a weird mood, but I believe I am now officially freaking out. I’ll sign off now.

@Skulleigh

I’m very curious now, what did you have to go through in Oklahoma?

I was married in 1996 in Lake County, IL; no god stuff on my license. My mom was married in 1980 in Hawaii and in 1987 in Reno, NV. No god stuff there either. For the tally.

Hey, I’m a ULC minister, too. Easiest seminary ever.

You know, if the Libertarians had their way, this would be a complete non-issue. Get the government out of the marriage institution altogether! No tax breaks, no recognition, no legislation: Let the government treat us as individuals instead of legally ordained couples and the varying opinions on what makes a couple a “real” couple no longer have any credence or sting.

I’m of two minds about this.

Mind the first:

It’s a word on a piece of paper. It’s not bullying. If you’re really so offended, take a sharpie and cross it out. Deal with the real problems that the mixing of religion and the state can cause; this simply isn’t one of them. You can choose whether or not you want to be bothered by the word ‘holy’ here. I’d just choose to ignore it as unimportant.

Mind the second:

You’re right, we should oppose religious exceptionalism wherever it tries to get its foot in the door. Our Constitution was intentionally written as a secular document, and is declared to be the supreme law of our nation – not a holy book, not a dogma, not anybody’s pet beliefs, but the Constitution. Everybody should be up in arms about this, not just the atheists; it’s a violation of the spirit of equality that is one of the great founding pillars of America.

In any case… if we start dragging out Rosa Parks comparisons and comparisons to racism when we’re dealing with something this petty, it’ll sound pretty tired by the time we get to something that matters much more, like removing the unconstitutional religious tests for office that are written into some state constitutions. I’m leery of comparing discrimination against atheists to discrimination against minorities precisely for the fact that minorities were officially considered to be ‘lesser.’ There were laws stating that minorities shouldn’t be equal to white people. I don’t see a lot of laws saying that atheists are second-class citizens. Sure, plenty of blowhard politicians have said such things, but their opinion isn’t law.

Thanks, Kamaka–you said it better than I ever could, and amen on that worthless Drug War! I could easily believe that the Holy Drug War has eroded more rights than even the Patriot act, but I won’t get into that here.

That “matter of degree” thing is exactly what I keep going on about. I’ve heard that some black people who are quite religious come up with some tortured justifications for discriminating against atheists, and one of them was “well, we were lynched and you aren’t, so shut up and suck it up because you’re only allowed to complain if you’re being physically attacked.” Of course, discrimination doesn’t stop being wrong just because one form is less violent or less oppressive than another.

And I am serious that the issue of sitting at the back of the bus could be easily dismissed by many people–or any kind of small discrimination, really, as if such a thing really exists. There are people who would easily say “just sit at the back of the bus, does it really hurt you that much? It’s not like you’re being flogged or something” and then blame you because you made a stand. You could easily say that it’s a “little” thing, and utterly meaningless when you consider that they could be lynching you or something. And this could be said about lots of things that are discriminatory but aren’t seen as being very “serious”. For example, “Does it really hurt you to have official prayer at government meetings? It’s such a little thing, why make a stink? Can’t you just suck it up, or come late, or do something else while the others pray?” is something I’ve also heard, and it irritates me just as much.

First Amendment, though. Bottom line. A godless person should not be forced to have a wedding certificate that is defaced either by an endorsement of religion or by a big smear of black sharpie, especially since there are already laws in place that prohibit this kind of faith endorsement. This is the law, these are our rights, and there is nothing out of line about defending them. The benefit we have, that Rosa Parks didn’t, is that we already have these rights and are only standing up to have them enacted. When you have no rights and are forced to fight to obtain them in the first place, you are bound to have rather more brutal battles involved.

Not to invoke slippery slope either but when you’ve got people who are actively trying to undermine the Bill of Rights and other people who see no problem in the “small” discriminatory practices, you’ve got a recipe for disaster for civil rights. The former group pushes the boundaries, the latter group accepts it as being too “simple” to bother with and tries to shame those who stand up as being “too extreme”. Of course, then the discrimination gets normalized and you know the former group isn’t going to stop there–they’ve made it plain already. You need to nip the smaller discrimination in the bud because it will become bigger if you don’t.

That’s why you can’t give them an inch. They will trample you, they have made it clear that they will–besides they do not have the right to any discrimination or government endorsement of faith and I see no reason to concede any ground to them on this matter.

“I see a world of difference between choosing to be bothered by a word on a piece of paper you might see three or four times in your life and being inconvenienced every single day of your life by people who think you are a subhuman, animal race.

If it really bothers you, make a little noise about it to people who might actually be able to change it, like your congresspeople. But don’t go comparing yourself to people who put their lives at risk for doing something so “simple” as standing up for themselves.”

That you may “see a world of difference” is immaterial, and, as it happens, is precisely why the freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. While you are not troubled by a religious reference on a civil document, others are equally untroubled by the thought of the government favoring Christianity over all other religions – or even over the rejection of religion. What if this document contained a phrase indicating a preference for marriage between two white people? Would it be acceptable for some civil document to contain the word “nigger” simply on the basis that an African-American would only see three or four times in his or her life? Moreover, don’t kid yourself into thinking (most) Christians don’t see atheists as subhuman; former president George H.W. Bush, whose job it was to enforce the Constitution that he took an oath to protect, said that atheists were not truly citizens if The United States. If a U.S. President can utter such an obviously absurd and unconstitutional statement without an uproar of condemnation, it is (sadly) improbable that a letter to any congressional representative would carry any weight whatsoever.
The sad fact is that the very people who likely are responsible for including a religious reference on a government document, or at least have no objection to it, almost certainly have great reverence for certain constitutional rights (e.g., The 2nd Amendment) and remarkable flexibility for others.
It’s easy to dismiss something as “petty” when it’s someone else’s rights that are being infringed. I doubt you would find it petty if this document excluded your easily-acquired ULC ordination.

I could imagine some religious people getting upset especially if they have two ceremonies one civil and one religious (e.g., Mormons who may have a civil ceremony [so there non-Mormon friends and relatives can attend] and later have a temple sealing [which can only be attended by Mormons in good standing]).

@MikeTheInfidel: I’m having a hard time understanding the incongruity between the “About Me” profile on your blog and the ease with which you seem to dismiss the question at hand here as “petty.”
On your profile you identify yourself as an atheist (and former fundamentalist Christian) and you describe yourself as someone who is committed to the use of reason and evidence. After taking just a cursory look, I would argue that both of these claims are indeed borne out on your blog. In fact, there are a number of excellent posts on the first page of your blog alone, including some astute criticisms of religious irrationality (and a very brave and admirable look at some of your own past apologetics), and, most notably, several posts illustrating the types of insidious demands that religious adherents make of others.
However, despite all of this, you seem strangely dismissive of this particular instance – and by extension other similar issues – of religious intrusion into the public sphere.
You are correct that discrimination against atheists is not (generally) explicitly legally codified, but that doesn’t erase the de facto prejudice against atheists. But this is not merely a case of “whether [the] wording is constitutional.” The inclusion of the word “holy” on a government document is plainly unconstitutional; while it may not favor a specific religion, it does represent, if nothing else, favoring a religious idea – and by extension religion – over other religious ideas and/or no religion. The Constitution (or at the very least, case law interpretation) does not allow the government an exemption to favor a general expression of religion over no religion any more than it allows the government to favor Christianity over all other religions. To wit: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Moreover, including the word “holy” on a document like this does, in fact, violate the rights of those who do not practice any religion or hold any religious views, as Justice Souter pointed out writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet: “[G]overnment should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.” More to the point, why would you, as an atheist, even tolerate the inclusion of a religious reference on a government document?
And, while it may be true in a very narrow legal sense, it is not accurate to say that “[n]obody is doing anything to keep you from being nonreligious.” The fact of the matter is that plenty of people are hard at work doing just that, both in the broad sense of unceasing proselytizing and by making exactly the same kinds of demands that others conform to their religious views that you discuss in your blog posts. Both of these are illustrated every time someone tries to display the Ten Commandments in courthouses or on some other government property, or calls for organized prayer in public schools.
I can certainly understand (and share) your affinity for the civil rights movement and the risks and sacrifices made by so many people, but requiring the government to uphold our constitutional religious freedoms in no way demeans the civil rights movement. In fact, I would argue that fighting to prevent the erosion of religious freedom (even by contesting something that, on its face, might seem trivial) is a continuation of the civil rights struggle. After all, I’m sure that certain of the segregation laws were once seen as trivial by millions of Americans. Whenever the government, be it local, state, or federal, allows a reference to religion to be imposed upon someone, it warrants objection – if for no other reason than to preserve the importance of the Constitution – no matter how “petty” it might be to some. No doubt there are millions of Americans who find objections to the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse to be equally petty.

This is the kind of verbiage that the religious control freaks like to see, proving their point that marriage is religious.

While it’s not really a place to buck the trend of making a statement on their wedding day, I can see Chelsea and her husband having an issue about it, especially when marriage is a civil secular activity.

I bet that verbiage just snuck in there without anyone caring or noticing (until now).

Both of the times I’ve gotten married, which were in Calif, have no God or Holy or any religious reference on them.

Really?

We have religionists telling us that we shouldn’t be GIVEN equal rights as citizens because we’re atheists, and you want to pick a battle that has no effects on your rights at all?

That scrap of paper is a symbol. Nothing more. It does nothing to restrict your rights. Meanwhile, we’ve got nutjob groups like Sarah Palin and her fellow Dominionists who want to overthrow the republic and install a theocracy in its place.

Perspective. Get some.

(sarcastically speaking) The Oppression must be killing you…  I mean,
stripping away your liberty like that… how awful… Now I suppose you
know how the Negros felt during the civil rights movement. The Gays most
certainly think they are in a Civil Rights movement where they can’t
use the same bathrooms, drink at the same water faucet, sit in the front
of the bus or go to straight establishments… Just like the Negros,
the Gays can be picked out of a crowd (even the white gays) right?…

People, there are bigger fish to fry. While you are pondering your own
self Liberties, America is being RAPED by present and past Presidents
and their poor leadership and poor decisions. Law is or will be passed
that makes it okay to persecuted and likely prosecuted the things I just posted…

Know Freedom, No Freedom.

Liberty is Lost and our children are Doomed!

Liberty (Noun): The state of being free within society from
oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.”

The reasons are clear:

  Form a more
perfect union  Establish
justice  Insure domestic
tranquility  Provide for the
common defense  Promote the
general welfare  Secure the
blessings of liberty to all

All Hope is lost and gone. Say ‘NO’ to OBAMA!

One Big A$$ Mistake America