Wiccan marriage

[Eric Treene]

Harold M Hallikainen wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:13:43 -0400 James Maule <maule at LAW.VILL.EDU>
> writes:
> >
> >But isn't the issue not whether the state is paying for burials (EC)
> >but whether the religious preferences (if known) ought to be left
> >unimpeded (FE)? For example, the fact that pastors, priests and rabbis
> >and others are licensed to perform marriages as representative
> >witnesses of the state is not an EC violation but an accommodation to
> >FE.
>
>         Which also gets us back to the Wicca member who was not allowed to
> perform a marriage.  Seems to me that a "religious test" should not be
> imposed on one who performs marriages.  Instead, there should be
> something like whatever is required for a Notary to perform a marriage.
>
> Harold

I recall seeing a small  piece in the Washington Post's Virginia Metro section
last week saying that the Wiccan practitioner was granted the necessary
approval to perform weddings, as she has been doing in Maryland already.  I
can't find it on the Washington Post's website, but I think it was from
Wednesday, October 14.  Can someone with free Lexis/Nexis access confirm?

I agree with Harold that a clergy member should be the equivalent of a notary
for the civil side of a marriage ceremony.  Indeed, in my opinion, having a
very low bar for who can officiate at weddings makes the religious commitment
of those who choose religious weddings all the more meaningful (it brings to
mind C.S. Lewis, who thought nothing of marrying a friend in a civil ceremony
to give her British residency, only to marry her later in a religious ceremony
after falling in love--for him the true wedding).

Eric Treene