SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - The Silent Moment During Marriage

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - The Silent Moment During Marriage (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=176247)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdeptCharge (Post 1518352)

"IF" there is no mention of strength or lack of to ones friendship, perhaps a family member etc I did not specify, I can only conclude in my opinion which may not be accurate, the logical explanation would be to not attend, but instinct tells me some may have a differing opinion on this subject, am I correct :hmmm:

You are correct, there are differing opinions on this subject, and in fact every subject ever! Even indesputable facts have their contradictors, such as 'subsim is the best forum, ever' by me, becomes 'that bloody website again!' by Frau Berbunch :nope:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdeptCharge (Post 1518157)

Am I (we) to take it, therefore that if I (we) know of an impediment which would nulify the solemnisation of the contract , let us say example : that the bride were the grooms brothers deceased sons widow, persuant to the marriage act, that I (we) would not be legally required to disclose said information to the registrar?? Surely then, the marriage even upon our silence would be a criminal act, to which we would be party. Furthermore, what if a presently unknown impediment presents itself to me (us) at some point in the future, this subject matter is not covered in the vicars statement. :yep:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdeptCharge (Post 1518174)

just a thought but may I suggest that a far less equivocal couching of the pertinent premises would be as follows, : any person who knows , or subsequently ascertains information which could lead to a disolution of the matrimonial contract is required by law to : a) inform the registrar directly, or b) inform the registrar and the police directly, or at the earliest opportunity, and in any event, within 24 hours of disclosure.. all said being effective without constraint of time or vitality of either partner. :hmmm:

This is a joke thread right ?

If your trying to use all the big words they taught you in grammer school today then, Fuuuunny. :har:

If not when are you going to get to the punch line.:o

btw. Hi SubSerpent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREWALL (Post 1518383)

I am not sure I understand completely :hmmm: A most unusual reaction I feel in what was indeed a most routine question thread, :nope: are you suggesting as I suspect that I am under a form of contractual obligation to certain words rendering myself in a state of verbal confine. I can assure you that in reading the listed posts and various threads I found nothing to suggest that this should be the case. Further investigation is warranted, I wish to know if it is true using ones own words I am under obligation to type any different :o I have read the forum rules. " SubSerpent" I know no-one of that nomenclature. :hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdeptCharge (Post 1518352)

The first part would be correct, as I did not specify my location and present co-ordinates. However I will merely outline the facts which have prompted my response to you. There exists a possibility of truth to being free to marry being (widow/widowed) in your current, correct locus and country, but I fail to comprehend why you did not state a legal minimum age :hmmm: In view of this fact, :yep: at this juncture I believe said above remark "free to marry whoever you please" to be incorrect :nope:

I left out minimum age for several reasons. First, each state has their own law regarding this with Kentucky being the youngest at 14 I believe. Second, age has not been mentioned as a factor until now, therefor there was no need to discuss it. And third, if someone is a widow that means they met any age requirements for where they were married, making age irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 1518544)

No, you are mistaken, valid point to each state, as to the widow she is no longer relevant at this juncture, it is quote "free to marry whoever you please" meaning another party, whom could have been or is under age, you failed to specify. please refer to post 11.

A niece by marriage to the grooms deceased nephew ?

She's legal and fair game. No blood relation to groom or family for that matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 1518544)

I was under the impression you could marry someone of any age if you had parental consent. :hmmm:

But apparently I'm wrong, some states have a minimum age, others do not. The lowest is New Hampshire with the age of 13. Although Arkansas apparently doesn't have a minimum age.
http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

In Arkansas, isn't everyone a cousin by marriage ? :p2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREWALL (Post 1518674)

In Arkansas, isn't everyone a cousin by marriage ? :p2:

The important question is, if they get divorced, are they still brother and sister? :O:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdeptCharge (Post 1518565)

I have no idea what you just said.:huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun (Post 1518702)

The important question is, if they get divorced, are they still brother and sister? :O:

They become half-siblings.

Quote:

Most wedding officiators, at the request of engaged couples, cut this phrase out of the wedding ceremony, while it still remains a "catch-your-breath moment" on television.

We can only speculate as to the origin of the statement. Centuries ago, arranged marriages were common, and the bride's father had to provide a dowry. If the father had not fulfilled his part of the bargain, that proclamation was an opportune moment for the groom's family to speak up before it was too late. The statement may also be a reference to a bride's virginity, dating to a time when virginity was a prerequisite for marriage.

In the Jewish faith, couples sign a ketubah, or marriage contract, in which they pledge to love and support one another. Originally, the ketubah was a contract between the father and the groom, specifying the terms of the dowry and implying that the parties were free and clear to be married. The ketubah negates the need for a "Speak now . . ." statement and has never been a part of a Jewish wedding ceremony.

To inform the congregation, the Catholic Church publishes the banns or proclamation of marriage (usually in the church newsletter) for three successive weeks prior to a wedding. The proclamation asks if anyone knows of a reason why the couple should not wed, but "Speak now . . . " does not appear as a part of the Catholic wedding ceremony. Many of today's couples choose their church based on the location of their reception. They have little connection with the church's congregation or the area, making "Speak now . . . " a meaningless declaration.

Today there are legal practices to ensure that the couple is free to be married (e.g., a marriage license). This statement may once have been used as a precursor to such legal procedures.

Modernity has made "Speak now, or forever hold your peace," extraneous in today's wedding ceremonies, but it quite probably will continue in the movies and on T.V. It's dramatic effect, as someone from the audience leaps forward to object, is a tough scene to replace!

All that being said, this could be another spark point for the Code Pink crowd at gay marriages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREWALL (Post 1518383)

If your trying to use all the big words they taught you in grammer school today then, Fuuuunny. :har:

Sorry FIREWALL, but it's grammar, not grammer.

We have one of the best grammar schools in the country around here and a local school uniform shop had blazers with 'grammer' embroidered on it :har:

Don't think they sold many!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREWALL (Post 1518674)

In Arkansas, isn't everyone a cousin by marriage ? :p2:

It could be worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeIsxXDyjlc