My old hiking buddy got married two years ago and asked me to officiate the ceremony. It was great fun and reunited some people who hadn’t seen each other in many years. Of all my many sins, hitchin’ people is pretty far down the list of rascal things I’ve done.

Civil marriage can have religious significance in the church. For example, it is a prerequisite to baptism for many converts. When I was a Mormon missionary, I counted helping a couple to get married as one of my religious successes.

Mormons officiate in civil marriages and maintain their standing in the church.

It is less obvious to me that a Mormon who officiated in a same-sex marriage, who did not hold a civil office that required this as a responsibility of the office, would not find that his or her actions were questioned by local church officials.

I don’t know whether or not there are members of the church who have had the experience of performing same-sex marriages and have written about their experience, but I would be curious to see what they have to say.

I doubt you would marry enough people to make any money off of this, but I always liked the idea of having a close friend of the couple officiate at their wedding. Makes the entire thing a little more personal and less one-size-fits-all.

In my office I deal with children who are under stress because their parents are flaky and haven’t decided to marry.

Badgering flaky people to enter into a “legal instrument” sounds like a surefire way to escalate the severity of their problems, i.e., “You’re having trouble following through as it is? Well, just sign here on the dotted line and we’ll make sure the consequences are legal!” Besides, if it really is “human nature to desire commitment and stability” then nobody needs the equivalent of a rubber stamp from a self-appointed middle(wo)man.

Peter and Annegb – I left out a lot of details in my retelling of the story, you are both absolutely right. Badgering flaky people into marriage isn’t a good idea UNLESS you are able to resolve the problems that are keeping them stuck. Luckily, in my profession I am good at what I do and I helped each couple heal enough so they could freely commit.

Just you know have the balance, I have also told people it would be disastrous to marry. And I begged them to not have children together. It really is all about the children.

Meanwhile, what do you think about a female in-good-standing-with-the-church getting certified to perform weddings? Am I wading into choppy waters with this idea?

Bookslinger I disagree a little with your position. In most states, in order to officiate at a wedding (presuming he is a religious minister of some sort), a person must have authority from his religious institution to do so. He or she then registers with the state or county clerk, and is approved to officiate a wedding ceremonies. Most states have fairly minimal requirments to get married (age, lack of consguinity, etc). And, the obligations of marriage are also minimal – fidelity, support and assistance. When a Bishop performs a marriage, he is still wearing two hats — that of Bishop in the Melch. PH, and also as a registered “official” of the state. If you read the ceremony in the church handbook, there are specific things a Bishop asks, and participants commit to, in the ceremony. They are over and above the basic requirements of the state. Therefore, I would say the Bishop is not doing it SOLELY under civil authority. He, similar to a temple sealer, is wearing two hats – one secular and one ecclesiastical. After all the state doesn’t care if partipants make committments before God and witnesses — only witnesses. Nor does the State care if the parties love one another, or cherish one another, etc. As for the larger question posed by the OP, I would be careful about qualifying to perform weddings. As a technical matter, certainly you can. But, marriage — any marriage — is not to be taken lightly. And, I believe the church’s position is that they are all “ordained of God.” In a lot of ways, it’s sad that just about anyone can pay a fee, get authority from the State to do marriage ceremonies. Kind of cheapens the overall status of marriage if any John or Jane Doe can perform it. You have to wonder why an officiant is needed at all. The parties might as well show up at a governmental agency, sign their names on the dotted line, and walk out the door.

Am I wading into choppy waters with this idea?

I don’t have problem with it, but I live in a jurisdiction in which a civil marriage is the only marriage (religious ceremonies can be performed, of course, but they don’t count as marriages) and mine was performed by a woman. I don’t feel any less married because of those circumstances, but I can see where local expectations would vary.

I don’t see what being female has to do with it. Male vs. female makes no difference in this context.

I recently attended a self-uniting wedding where the couple married each other without an officiant. Legal here in PA thanks to our state’s Quaker heritage. And it was a lovely occasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-uniting_marriage

I find it strange that you would even wonder if performing civil marriages could somehow be putting you “in choppy waters”. It’s a civil marriage. It has nothing to do with priesthood authority or lack thereof. It has nothing to do with gender. I’m sure there are thousands of LDS women who have performed marriages as civil authorities. Why would you ask “permission” from a church leader? Unless you’re wanting to use an LDS church, I don’t understand what involvement you think they should have.

#17 -Phouchg – Huh. I have never heard of self-united weddings. Thanks for the link. I will pass that on to several friends who live in Colorado. They might use that instead of planning a wedding. I don’t care what they do, just get legal.

#11&12- I dwell in a tent – thanks for your comments. I really like it when actual professionals add to the conversation. It adds an extra layer of knowledge.

Bookslinger – we’ll agree to disagree. I know a PH marriage is not a “saving ordinance.” Of course, neither is receiving a patriarchal blessing or being named/blessed as a child. The old handbook used to say the couples were making promises before “God, angels and witnesses.” The new handbook just says “God and these witnesses.” But, the reason I say the Bishop is wearing two hats is because not just any PH holder can perform marriages — essentially Bishops, Stake Presidents and Mission Presidents. Is it a PH ordinance? Sort of. Elder Holland says covenants are between people and God. Read the church ceremony – the man and woman covenant with God to cleave unto and love one another. They don’t make those promises to each other. Handbook also says “… in harmony with the sacredness of the marriage covenants.” With the Bishop administering the questions, that leans me on the side of saying this is more than just a civil ceremony. Plus, he closes by saying “…by the legal authority vested in me as an elder of the Church…..” When I do a wedding for the state, I don’t technically have to do anything other than ascertain whether the parties consent to be married. The state law expressly says what legal obligations the parties owe one another, as well as what rights they have. I think the verbage used in a PH ceremony goes much further and beyond what state law requires. Therefore, when a Bishop marries a couple, they not only make basic state expressed promises, they are also covenanting with God. Sorry for the digression and threadjack. If Living In Zion wants to perform wedding ceremonies, more power to her. I would just encourage her to spend some time getting to know the laws in her state that address marriage, and understand fully the obligations imposed on parties that get married. I have 200 pages of thoughts on plural sealings, a topic for another day. I’ll reiterate. I think all heterosexual marriages are “ordained of God” as set forth in the Proclamation. I know church leaders would disagree, but in light of the conflict over SSM, I would almost rather see state sanctioned marriage go away completely and leave it to the religious institutions to handle the marital affairs.

Atheists are people, too! Why should atheists have to get married in a church?

jks wrote, “However, being married by your bishop has the added benefit of being part of your church, your congregation, being free, etc. and there is an appropriate reference to God in the ceremony that most Mormons would feel comfortable with. ”

Unless you’re sealed in the temple, most wards/congregations wouldn’t consider your marriage to make you any more part of the congregation, with the exception that you get the sin part out of the way.

If you’re not getting married in the temple, then you might as well be married by someone you’re comfortable and familiar with, and give them whatever text makes you comfortable (even complete with scripture).

In my perfect world, though, you would have to be married by the State and then the church can do with you what they wish when it comes to getting sealed. I see no benefit to the Church to allowing bishops or stake presidents or GAs to actually “marry”.

Agreed, annegb. But unless you’re marrying in the temple, most LDS wards won’t consider you conforming to the norms and mores.

Nice article, I say go for it and do what you want to do. Marrying people can’t be bad in anyway and I think its great that you are so open minded to marrying people even of the same sex. Congratulations to you and your open mindedness I hope it takes you far.