Asking the intertubes!

[theweaselking]

A question has arisen about "what conditions prevent marriage".

Specifically, under what circumstances is a marriage PROHIBITED?

The ones I've got off the top of my head are:
* One or both partners is not of legal age
* The partners are too closely related
* One or both partners are already married
* One or both partners is not legally capable of consent

In undercivilised places, we also have:
* one partner is the wrong race/religion/gender/party

Under what other circumstances is marriage *prohibited*? (and where?)

Comments

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Too many or too few partners.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"* One or both partners are already married"

I can't think of any cases of "marrying yourself" - have I missed something?

[sucrelefey.livejournal.com]

Not a citizen of the jurisdiction. There are places(can't remember which one that was in the news recently) that don't allow "tourist" marriages given the issues those can cause. Partner is not the same species but that probably falls under unable to give consent.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I am not aware of any species other than human that is capable of legal consent.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

This was very common in the era of anti-miscegenation laws. One of Mitt Romney's many accomplishments as governor was to revive it in Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913_law).

[duskwuff.livejournal.com]

I wasn't able to find many surprises in California marriage law. Only oddity I found is that you can't be given a marriage license if you're "under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug". (Family Code, §352)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

That falls under "incapable of consent", in my mind.

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

Parties have so far failed to undergo local legal requirements (residency, providing ID, undergoing counseling, genetic or disease testing, mandatory waiting period etc.)

This varies from area to area, of course, and I'm not saying any of those should or should not be required. I think there was a short waiting period when I applied for my marriage license.

I may also be misremembering, but isn't it problematic for someone in the military to marry someone of lesser rank under their direct control? Or am I thinking of something else?

Finally, marriage has traditionally been forbidden between royalty and commoners without special dispensation and/or a pre-nup declaring the marriage to be morganatic.

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

There, looked it up---post 2000, officers cannot marry the enlisted if it appears to threaten the integrity of the chain of command or causes a morale breach.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

*notes* Oooooh, and a new word. *goes to look up "morganatic"*

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

An excellent list! Thanks.

[terheyt.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, there's one that SHOULD be a universal prohibition, but there are places where that's waived.

*One of the parties withholds consent.

[everbloom.livejournal.com]

Not saying the right words can be a problem. There's a bit of the Marriage Act you have to read here, and there was a scandal a while back where some 'rogue' marriage celebrants were skipping it, and the people getting married didn't know it had to be there, and yeah. People were worried they might not be married, potentially very messy. But it was declared that the celebrants would just have to be re-trained.

Not giving enough notice to the OBDM before hand. Minimum is two months.

You need two witnesses, plus the celebrant. If there's only two people left on earth TOUGH, no marriage for you.

When one party is not of age a parent or guardian may be required to give consent (17-18 years here). Guardian says no? Then no. If you're 16-17 here, you can get court + guardian permission. Also in some (not here!) places I believe a marriage requires the permissions of the "families" (generally fathers) of the couple.

[snobahr.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised nobody's chimed in with "interspecies marriage" - human + non-human.

[terheyt.livejournal.com]

They did, but for all current known non-human life, the non-human cannot give legal consent. This may change if/when we find/acknowledge other sentients.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

Even though castes are technically illegal in India, caste prohibitions on marriage are still widely observed. This sort of falls into your "undercivilized places" category, though it's really just a similar prohibition to those seen on inter-category marriage in "overcivilized places". I'm entirely positive I've got friends who'd be disowned for marrying a black girl/guy, for example.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"My family would disown me" is not "I will be legally prevented from marrying".

I mean, it's a very FUNCTIONAL disincentive, but it's not part of the spec.

[opaqueplanet.livejournal.com]

I'd argue that your first circumstance (* One or both partners is not of legal age) falls under the jurisdiction of your fourth one (* One or both partners is not legally capable of consent). You know, if you wanted to pare it down.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Children can often get married legally, though, with parental consent. They couldn't sign a mortgage and sometimes they legally can't consent to sex, but they can still technically be married.

[skington.livejournal.com]

I believe that until comparatively recently, the law in either England or Scotland or both prohibited marriage after 5pm or something. Said law was written before pervasive artificial lighting, and intended to prevent occasions where, because of bad lighting and a switcheroo, you married the wrong person.

[rdmasters.livejournal.com]

That's actually rather cool. I'll have to pass that on to my GM for her game...

[strawberryfrog.livejournal.com]

As a rider to the "In undercivilised places..." clause, I might add that there were restrictions on the right to marry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_England_and_Wales#Royal_marriages) if one is a member of the British royal family. I don't think these are still in force, but I'm not an expert. There is, I suppose, still strong social pressure - a Royal marrying a Catholic is Just Not Done.

There might be a clash of custom and archiac law versus modern EU human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998) should some prince(ss) decide to marry a catholic divorcee. I suppose we should feel sorry for them, having thier rights taken away by the caste system like that.

[jerril]

I'm trying to guess if "catholic divorcee" would go over better or worse than some of the more minority options, like "neopagan" or "LeVayan Satanist"... or "Jedi".

[fridgepunk.livejournal.com]

Inability of the bride/groom/'s family to pay the dowry/ransom.

Groom lacks land/profession.

Lack of parental consent.

Lack of relevent officials to perform the procedure, lack of witnesses to oversee the procedure.

Direct governmental interference.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The first three: Where are those currently laws?

The fourth: That seems more "inability" than "prohibition" - lacking an officiant is an impediment, but that means you can't get married for practical reasons, rather than your marriage being legally prohibited.

the fifth: Example?

[miz-geek.livejournal.com]

A woman in Seattle married a corporation last week, but it was voided the next day. King County said it was because the Corporate Person couldn't give consent, so I guess that's not really a new reason.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

That's kind of a ridiculous rationale. The entire *purpose* of corporations is to give consent to things: they exist to be parties to contracts in a way that insulates the human beings who are actually signing the contracts from liability for violating them.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm not sure I care if they're already married as long as the person they're marrying is aware of that. IMO, marriage, from a legal standpoint, ought to be a lot like incorporating. The rest seems legit, though.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Regardless of the morality of the position, it's currently a legal impediment.

(and, also, plural marriage is a paperwork nightmare)

[frith]

I would suspect that if one of the persons is dead, marriage would be prohibited.

[everbloom.livejournal.com]

Dead people can't give consent.