TR Forums

I've spent almost half my life as a member of these boards. This past weekend my fiancé and I took to a special place for both of us, and exchanged vows in a self-uniting ceremony. PA is cool like that, shout out to those Quakers n'at. I don't post nearly as often as I did years ago, but I still lurk and depend on the TR writers and Gerbils at large to entertain and educate. It seems like TR is going through some more changes as of late, and I hope things stabilize to see this place stick around a lot longer. Anyhow, just wanted to share a little piece of happiness with you all. I couldn't have lucked into a more perfect partner. Life's beautiful from time to time. I hope you're all at peace or working at it.

-Pete

Congrats!

Is self-uniting rare over there?

Congratulations!

I hope you and your spouse have many happy years together to come.

Congratulations! I’m super-happy for you. We tied the knot 11.5 years ago while I was hyper-active on these forums. Wow time flies.

CONGRATULATIONS!! That's awesome. Thanks for sharing!

Dancing rodents!

Congrats, and welcome to the club!

\o/

Congrats!

Congratulations!

meerkt wrote:

Congrats!

Is self-uniting rare over there?

Rare-er, yes. Only a handful of states recognize it and technically PA only does so because some guy tried in like 2007 and was denied. The ACLU then sued the state on his behalf for religious discrimination since Quakers could do so, and won. Since then it's available to most counties in PA from what I know.

Wishing you a long and happy union!

steelcity_ballin wrote:

technically PA only does so because some guy tried in like 2007 and was denied.

But do many non-Quaker/Amish in PA do it?

steelcity_ballin wrote:

Rare-er, yes. Only a handful of states recognize it and technically PA only does so because some guy tried in like 2007 and was denied. The ACLU then sued the state on his behalf for religious discrimination since Quakers could do so, and won. Since then it's available to most counties in PA from what I know.

That can't be *completely* right. I went to one before then. ~2000? To my recollection neither were actually Quakers. This was in Philadelphia.

It's indeed because of the quakers (who, confessionally, do not believe in "ministers"), but for that very same reason it's centuries old.

You just need two witnesses, no officiant.

It might be because of the "license", but I've seen marriage licenses from Allegheny county and they're laughable. It's just one of those weird things where the clerks have to notarize it, and if they won't for invalid reasons, well, you're sort of stuck for a moment.

Basically, if you do something unusual sometimes they just say no because if their internal procedures don't expressly allow for it (even if contrary to actual law) they bureaucratically don't do anything.

meerkt wrote:

But do many non-Quaker/Amish in PA do it?

While Quakers are often lumped in with anabaptists, that's essentially because of reductionist schematism almost solely on the basis of "protestant pacifism & 'plain-dress' modesty"

They really do not derive or relate to Amish at all. The Amish, as is directly relevant to this case, absolutely have ministers (and very prestigious ones within the community at that).

Anyway, because of that, this does not interfere with the Amish in any way. Their customs demand an officiant. Whether or not they bother to get a civil marriage license, I do not know. Might be up to the couple, or the particular community; generally speaking they abide by all civil authority that does not conflict with their confession (which this wouldn't), but also, generally speaking, they avoid entanglement with civil authority whenever it's legally/ethically possible (which this is). So, I don't know.


As to people in general, no, I mean come on. Obviously most people don't do it. Heck, quakerism being so flexible in the first place, I know "quakers" who were married with an officiant. "Quaker" is, like, extremely "nominal": The flip-side of being confessionally against ministers and the like means that, confessionally, you are sort against confessionalism itself. Almost anything goes*

*Seriously, we've had a quaker president. His name was Richard Nixon. Maybe you've heard of him?

Also, wow, just what am I doing?!?!


CONGRATS FROM FELLOW PA (and Pittsburgh) CITIZEN, STEELCITY_BALLIN

Congrats!

Glorious wrote:

steelcity_ballin wrote:

Rare-er, yes. Only a handful of states recognize it and technically PA only does so because some guy tried in like 2007 and was denied. The ACLU then sued the state on his behalf for religious discrimination since Quakers could do so, and won. Since then it's available to most counties in PA from what I know.

That can't be *completely* right. I went to one before then. ~2000? To my recollection neither were actually Quakers. This was in Philadelphia.

It's indeed because of the quakers (who, confessionally, do not believe in "ministers"), but for that very same reason it's centuries old.

You just need two witnesses, no officiant.

It might be because of the "license", but I've seen marriage licenses from Allegheny county and they're laughable. It's just one of those weird things where the clerks have to notarize it, and if they won't for invalid reasons, well, you're sort of stuck for a moment.

Basically, if you do something unusual sometimes they just say no because if their internal procedures don't expressly allow for it (even if contrary to actual law) they bureaucratically don't do anything.

I think perhaps I worded that awkwardly about states recognizing them - I should have said that most state's don't offer self-uniting marriages. In PA (Allegheny county) is where that ACLU case took place that allows me to self-unite. I still needed 2 adult witnesses, it's just that they can literally be anyone. So I had my best friend and his wife sign the document, and here I sit this morning. For the certificate itself, I had to go down to the courthouse, pay a fee, and they mailed me the document a few days later with the seal and what not. I just had to sign, detach, and return the other part of it. I scanned it too so I could upload it into my employer's HR system to get my wife some sweet sweet benefits. The only thing the system cared about and emphasized was having the raised seal visible in the image I uploaded, but otherwise yeah, the documents are rather simple and generic looking.

Congrats dude. I got married a year ago so its still new for me too.

Glorious wrote:

The Amish, as is directly relevant to this case, absolutely have ministers (and very prestigious ones within the community at that).

Wikipedia says also the Amish are into that, though the linked reference only mentions Quakers and Bahai.

As to people in general, no, I mean come on. Obviously most people don't do it.

Non-religious people in general might find some appeal (if there are are no bureaucratic downsides). Like steelcity_ballin, I assume.

Congratulations, Pete!

What a weird direction this thread has taken.

Congrats

derFunkenstein wrote:

What a weird direction this thread has taken.

It's a tech forum, and steelcity_ballin mentioned it in the OP. Benchmarking different marriage techniques is to be expected.

meerkt wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

What a weird direction this thread has taken.

It's a tech forum, and steelcity_ballin mentioned it in the OP. Benchmarking different marriage techniques is to be expected.

The method chosen by the OP definitely wins on price/performance; for people who don't mind the plain OEM packaging, it looks like a real winner!

Congarts Pete!

Congratulations Pete!

Congrats! You finally have someone else to fondle the Grapes of Roth!

BerserkBen wrote:

Congrats! You finally have someone else to fondle the Grapes of Roth!

Bwahahah. Thanks again everyone, and we definitely are in the far top-left of the price/performance scatter plot for what we spent and how happy we are with it. I wish more people would forego the stress and cost of a 'traditional' approach unless they both really want it. So many societal pressures to have it all.

steelcity_ballin wrote:

I wish more people would forego the stress and cost of a 'traditional' approach unless they both really want it. So many societal pressures to have it all.

Agree completely. You can have a flashy wedding or a nice wedding + a car or a nice wedding + a down-payment.

steelcity_ballin wrote:

BerserkBen wrote:

Congrats! You finally have someone else to fondle the Grapes of Roth!

Bwahahah. Thanks again everyone, and we definitely are in the far top-left of the price/performance scatter plot for what we spent and how happy we are with it. I wish more people would forego the stress and cost of a 'traditional' approach unless they both really want it. So many societal pressures to have it all.

Cracked on Weddings. Also, congrats