Zooming Zion: Israeli S. Ct. Holds That Remote Utah Marriages Are Valid in Israel

From Times of Israel (Jeremy Sharon):

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Interior Ministry is obligated to register as married couples who wed in online civil ceremonies through the American state of Utah ….

The decision means that couples who cannot marry in Israel through the Chief Rabbinate, or do not wish to do so, are now legally able to get married without physically leaving the country. Israel has no civil marriage mechanism due to the objection of religious political parties, but recognizes civil unions formed abroad….

In its decision issued on Tuesday, the High Court ruled that the clerks of the Population and Immigration Authority were not legally authorized to challenge the validity of the Utah marriages and refuse to register them….

And from Jerusalem Post (Zvika Klein), more on the motivation for foreign marriages (which Israeli law has long recognized):

In Israel, marriage is only allowed in accordance with religious law. According to estimates, about 700,000 people cannot marry in Israel, among them about half a million immigrants who are considered to have no religion, same-sex couples, Reform and Conservative converts, and couples who are invalid according to Halacha.

The online option of course makes such foreign marriages much easier and much less expensive than traveling abroad.

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

 

Comments

[Rossami]

Out of curiosity, what connection did this couple have to Utah that allowed them to get married there?

[JJJSSS]

What connection do they need? They’re appearing before a government official entrusted with the ability to officiate marriages. Most states don’t restrict getting married at a courthouse to residents; this is just a virtual courthouse

[ducksalad]

Google up "utah marriage online", it's a whole industry. The marriage application is online and there is apparently not even a temporary residency requirement. The official conducting the ceremony needs to be a Utah resident, but the official is the only person who needs to be physically present.

[Dr. Ed 2]

$145 paid to the county.

[Eugene Volokh]

Historically, while connection to the jurisdiction (for instance, actual residency of at least some length) has been required for divorces, it hasn't been required for marriages. That's why people can have "destination weddings" in lovely tourist spots, just by traveling there. To be sure, physical presence has usually been required, but Utah County has relaxed that condition.

[Rossami]

Wow. Thanks, all. I knew that residency was not necessarily a requirement but I thought there was a requirement for at least a temporary presence in its place.

[Bob from Ohio]

Before 2001 in Ohio, the application for the marriage license had to be submitted at least 5 days before the license could be issued. Though the local probate judge could waive the time limitation.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe watching "Sister Wives"
According to National Pubic Radio, Utah is the only state that does online weddings
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/30/1126083806/a-court-in-israel-recognizes-online-civil-marriages-as-valid#:~:text=Now%20an%20Israeli%20court%20has,weddings%20that%20are%20not%20orthodox.

Frank "And now The Deluge", (of Online Divorces)

[CountmontyC]

And this is why Netanyahu and his people are looking to reform the Israeli Supreme Court.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, its weird that the court is helping Bibi here.

[JJJSSS]

Oddly, it’s not actually clear that the Knesset would try to overturn this even if judicial changes pass. There are a lot of members of knesset who would be perfectly happy to have this go on, even among the coalition members

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's actually a compromise -- the Rabbis get to keep their Jewish marriage laws and everyone else can get something similar to but not quite an Israeli wedding.

It's the compromise that was initially proposed in Massachusetts -- create a gay partnership that was identical to marriage in all ways but name so that both sides could win -- and the gays weren't willing to accept that. And Mitt Romney didn't have the guts to say "OK then, no more marriages in Massachusetts" -- with the exception of the Cape & Islands, no part of Massachusetts is more than 30 minutes away from another state...

[EscherEnigma]

Yeah, it's almost like queer folk proved, again and again, in courthouses from coast-to-coast, that the promise of "civil unions" (or "domestic partnerships" or anything else), that they were "marriage in all but name", was never actually met.

And for that matter, over 20 states wrote into their constitution that there could be no compromise: no civil unions, no domestic partnerships, nothing. Hell, Texas was so eager to make sure queer folk knew we were unwanted that their ban actually bans straight marriage too.

And it's not like civil unions or domestic partnerships were federally relevant anyway, even after Windsor you needed a marriage license, not a civil union whatever.

So yeah. Civil unions were tried. And like previous attempts at "separate but equal", the "but equal" part was never true.

[bernard11]

Tell me again why it's perfectly OK to have an established religion.

[Ed Grinberg]

?
Are you confused about Israel being founded as a Jewish state? (You know, as in Judaism?)

[Mr. Bumble]

Bernard11 is "confused" about most things.

[JasonT20]

I think that is actually his point. You are seeing that even an otherwise liberal democracy with an established religion restricting the rights of religious minorities and those without any religion.

[Bob from Ohio]

"rights of religious minorities"

Christians and Muslims can get married in Israel so long as both are the same religion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Protestant & Catholic?

[Bob from Ohio]

"There are ten officially recognised churches for the purposes of marriage. These are the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic (Latin rite), Armenian Apostolic, Armenian Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Chaldean (Uniate), Melkite Greek Catholic, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Anglican churches,"
"For Protestant denominations other than the above-mentioned recognized Anglican, and Lutheran churches with special arrangements, marriages are considered on a case-by-case basis: the religious minister conducting the marriage ceremony writes a letter to the Ministry of Religious Services to request permission to perform the marriage and be granted a marriage certificate, stating the names, nationalities, and religious affiliation of the couple." wikipedia

[bernard11]

And if they are?

[JasonT20]

Christians and Muslims can get married in Israel so long as both are the same religion.

Oh, so generous of the Israeli government to allow Christians to marry other Christians and Muslims to marry other Muslims. No problems at all, then!

[David Nieporent]

Trying to fit this into the framework of the American debate about religious establishment is wrong. This isn't about "established religion." It's not about Jews having special rights that members of other religions don't have. (Indeed, these rules in practice restrict Jews more than they do members of other religions.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

What are the marriage laws in Saudi Arabia?

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure about the marriage laws but for divorce its..
"You just walk up to the girl and say, ‘I break with thee, I break with thee, I break with thee’ …and then you throw dog poop on her shoes.”

Frank

[JasonT20]

(Indeed, these rules in practice restrict Jews more than they do members of other religions.)

I think the relevance is that a government restricting anyone’s freedom on the basis of religion is a problem. Whether Jews in Israel feel the pain more than non-Jews isn’t the point. No one should be feeling that pain.

I should say that like bernard11, I am not claiming any moral authority to argue that Israel should change. I might believe that religious freedom is a fundamental human right and that no government anywhere should have an established religion such that secular government authorities impose religious doctrine upon their populations, but I am not singling Israel out on this, nor am I saying that the people of Israel should rise up and demand a fully secular government. It's their country, not mine.

Like bernard11, I am only pointing this out as an example of why it is a good thing that the U.S. has the Establishment Clause in our Constitution and that it should be given more respect than conservatives tend to do.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I find myself agreeing with Mr. Neiporent.

[Eugene Volokh]

bernard11: Just to be clear, the situation with Israeli marriages isn't that an established religion (e.g., Judaism) is allowed to perform marriages but other religions aren't. You can get a Christian or a Muslim marriage in Israel, if you're Christian or Muslim. Rather, it's that Israeli law requires a religious wedding that is solemnized by one of the recognized religions; that's a problem, to be sure, but not one stemming from a particular religion being the established one. (Conversely, in England there is one established religion, but to my knowledge no requirement that marriages proceed through some religious institution.)

[Voize]

You can get a Christian marriage in Israel but not your Christian marriage unless yours is an approved denomination. Others (e.g. Baptist, Presbyterian, Calvinist, Russian Orthodox) need special permission from the Ministry of Religious Services.

[SRG]

In the days when I was attempting to learn family law, in England & Wales, Christian marriages had to be performed within certain times of day and indoors, while Jewish marriages could be performed at other times and outdoors. (And, for amusement, the door to the room - inc. church - in which a marriage was being performed was not permitted to be closed during the ceremony.)

[bernard11]

Eugene,

Yes. I'm familiar with Israeli marriage law.

But I think it does bear on the American debate. First, no allowances for atheists or interfaith marriages. And Protestants have to jump through considerable hoops.

More important is the requirement that all marriages be religious. Yes, it's nice that a number of religions are allowed to perform weddings, but "religion" is still established.

Just think how much worse it would be in a US state with only one established religion.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not going to argue that it's a great policy, or the one I'd chose. Just that it's up to them, not us, and the history of Israel combined with it still neighboring on countries with genocidal ambitions makes its continued existence as a religiously based nation understandable. Again, if Jews ever lose control of Israel's government, there's probably going to be another Holocaust.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but there's an ongoing, low level genocide of every religious save Islam in the Middle east, outside of Israel. Not just Jews, but also Christians. In fact, at this point it's primarily of Christians, because they've largely finished with the Jews.

The other nations of the Middle east are at least as religiously based, with hugely less tolerance for religious minorities. Why preferentially direct your attention towards Israel? They're actually the nice guys in that neighborhood!

[bernard11]

Brett,

Guess what. I agree with much of what you say. Nor am I suggesting that we should try to get them to change.

Why preferentially direct your attention towards Israel?

Precisely because of what you say about it. I am trying to point out that, even in a tolerant, Western-style democracy letting religion enjoy secular authority leads to problems. And that's true even if you let several different religions use that authority.

The reason I don't bring up Iran or Saudi Arabia is precisely because I don't see their government as remotely similar to ours.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Why all the focus on Israel?

In 2022, the UN condemned Israel more than all other countries combined in 2022.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/

But if you look at the facts of what the rest of the world did...that makes little sense.

[Frank Drackman]

You weren't chosen so butt out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically because Israel is the only country out there founded by the survivors of a genocide, to give them someplace where they'd be the majority, and wouldn't have to rely on the people they live along side not going homicidal again. It's a VERY special case indeed.

Now, if they didn't to this day have neighbors that literally still preach genocide in their elementary schools, if they didn't have rockets still landing in residential neighborhoods, if we'd gone a couple generations without that looming threat of their being exterminated if they ever didn't control Israel, you might reasonably ask why the special status had to continue.

But the threat still looms, and wanting to remove their protection under the present circumstances is tantamount to wanting them exterminated, because extermination IS the predictable consequence of them ever losing control of that territory.

[bernard11]

Which has nothing to do with marriage laws. And also has nothing top do with the various privileges granted the ultra-orthodox.

[Brett Bellmore]

As the genocide was on the basis of religion, yeah, it explains why they get to decide this, and not you.

[bernard11]

Brett,

First, don't you fucking dare bring up the Holocaust to me in some shitty superior tone. That is seriously out of line. Let me tell you that I know orders of magnitude more about it than you.

Second, I'm not saying they have to change, or should change, or that its my business.

I am trying to point out that established religions can cause problems.

Fucking learn to read.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems you have an ax to grind against religion.

On the other hand, the atheist government of China is doing this...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53220713

[ReaderY]

I think certain aspects of what Israel is doing can be justified to an American audience. For example, I think it is understandable that when the state was founded, they gave scholarships to a few hundred religious scholars to re-establish a scholarship tradition that had been decimated by the Holocaust, at least on a temporary basis. But adding several zeros to the original number, so that the number of people the state is supporting is a significant fraction of the entire country, and havng lots of people with no real interest in or aptitude for this kind of scholarship just going through motions of doing it because it’s the only way they know how and their community finds it acceptable to make a living, is a different matter that I don’t think can be easily justified to an American audience.

Closing on Saturdays and such is understandable. There are parts of America that still have Sunday closing laws. But continuing the marriage laws of the Ottoman Empire, which respected minority community rights by giving each community and its leaders considerable autonomy and real power, is harder to square with American understandings of religion being an individual rather than a communal matter.

I understand Israel is its own country, has a right to go its own way, and doesn’t have to do things as an America would. But I also think that “because Holocaust” goes a certain distance, but only so far. Beyond that point Israel is not really so constrained in deciding what to do as “because Holocause” would suggest, and has to take responsibility for its choices, and the criticism that may come with them.

[David Nieporent]

But continuing the marriage laws of the Ottoman Empire, which respected minority community rights by giving each community and its leaders considerable autonomy and real power, is harder to square with American understandings of religion being an individual rather than a communal matter.

I understand Israel is its own country, has a right to go its own way, and doesn’t have to do things as an America would. But I also think that “because Holocaust” goes a certain distance, but only so far.

The millet system is not "because Holocaust." It was a liberal approach to religious plurality. For centuries, Muslims oversaw family law for Muslim communities, Christians oversaw family law for Christian communities, etc. Can you imagine Jews setting up a country and telling all the Muslim community leaders present, "Okay, we're stripping you of your authority over your community and revoking all the laws that govern your families and we'll establish our own courts and laws to tell you how to govern yourselves in that regard"? Does anyone think that would've gone over well?

[JasonT20]

This is often a big difference in perspective on the function of government among different world cultures, then. Many societies place high value on community decision-making and autonomy, while some others put a higher value on individual decision-making and autonomy. The U.S., in particular, places the most value on individual rights and freedoms, and that is reflected in the secular government. There is no right for leaders of a Christian community in the U.S. to use government authority, even over their own community. That is a concept that would be unthinkable in many parts of the world.

Yes, imposing that kind of secularism on the population of Israel when it formed would not have gone over well at all. And it might continue to be highly undesirable to most of the population today. But as an American, I would only accept a fully secular government.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t see any mention of on-line marriage — https://www.utcourts.gov/en/self-help/case-categories/family/marriage.html#marriage

Maybe one of the counties is doing this, but there is mention of an "in-person application with both applicants present at the time of application."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Apparently one county -- Utah County -- has gone to on-line marriages. See: https://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/clerkaud/PassMarr/Marriage.asp

The interesting question is what *Utah* courts and legislature will do about this, because if the state has an "in person" requirement, will Zoom count?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/clerkaud/PassMarr/OnlineMarriage.asp

You could do this while drunk or high -- I can see all kinds of problems here.

[ducksalad]

Sorry for duplicating your link, you found it while I was typing.

[ducksalad]

You could do the application while drunk or high. However, at the Zoom wedding itself, the officiant is at theoretically required to make sure that the participants are legitimately consenting to get married. The online service I checked warned participants to answer the "Do you take...." question in a straightforward way with no indication of anything other than serious intent to get married.

But regardless of whether that's all BS.....plenty of in person weddings where one of the principals is drunk or (more likely) very badly hung over to the point of being impaired. Don't tell me you've never heard of such a thing.

[ducksalad]

Check out Utah County:

https://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/ClerkAud/PassMarr/Marriage.asp

[Dr. Ed 2]

THIS is interesting:
"ZEELON: It's kind of an emotional rollercoaster for us because my wife is pregnant. And the due date is in two months.
ESTRIN: And she needs to be registered as married so she can get Israel's parental leave benefits."

Israel doesn't pander to single mothers???
I'm starting to like that country even more than I already did....

[Frank Drackman]

They do actually,
they get to carry the carbine version of the M16
https://toktok9ja.com/how-common-is-it-for-jewish-women-in-israel-to-carry-military-grade-rifles-as-fashion-accessories/

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

What isn't commonly known about the Goodridge gay marriage is that they then got divorced.

But what about Israel -- I can't believe that the Rabbis who wrote its marriage laws didn't also write it's divorce laws, nor that they really want to assist anyone in getting divorced. And if Reno (Nevada) goes to on-line divorces, will Israel accept that?

So how that plays out should be interesting....

[David Nieporent]

Stop imposing your worldviews on us. Judaism obviously doesn't encourage divorce, but it doesn't have the weird anti-divorce fetish that Christianity does.

Also, contrary to what you seem to think perhaps from watching old movies, there are no quickie divorces in Nevada. But Israel recognizes foreign divorces to the extent that the relevant jurisdictions recognize Israeli divorces.

[Frank Drackman]

I saw it on Perry Mason, not an old movie, but there was some residency requirement to get the Nevada divorce, that was part of the plot of that episode.
Help me out Conspirators, don't make me IMDB it.

Frank

[ReaderY]

Not quite. Remarriage is under religious jurisdiction. So if you want to get remarried in Israel, you need a religiously acceptable divorce. Foreign secular divorces, even foreign religious divorces not considered religiously acceptable, don’t necessarily count.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"anti-divorce fetish"?

Care to elaborate?

[John F. Carr]

For purposes of validity of marriages, does Israel recognize some sort of Pope of Judaism who can opine on whether a particular couple's proposed marriage is valid under Jewish law? And likewise under Islamic law and (non-Catholic) Christian law?

[bernard11]

No pope.

Rabbis can and do disagree. A lot.

[John F. Carr]

I know rabbis disagree. So I would think one could find rabbis willing to accomodate quite a few non-orthodox beliefs. The statement about 700,000 people being unable to marry tells me there is some limit on who can give a rabbinical blessing.

[Commenter_XY]

Yitzak Yosef, and David Lau. That is who you're looking for, John Carr. They are not popes, but they are the chief rabbis for sephardi and ashkenazi in Israel.

[John F. Carr]

Thank you.

[ReaderY]

The Israeli rabbinate, the official Chief Rabbis and official regional rabbis, are the de jure Pope of Judaism in Israeli law not just for the purposes of the validity of foreign marriages and divorces in Israel, but also for who is considered Jewish for purposes of marriage or divorce (and other matters under their jurisdiction) in Israel.

Evidentiary standards have become stringent. The fact that American Jews have no government ID stating their religion is a particular problem. There have been numerous cases of people raised as Jewish registering to marry and being unable to prove they are Jewish and told they are not.

[ReaderY]

Israel has literally hundreds of thousands of people not able to marry at all in Israel, who must get a foreign marriage if they want to marry, because they are not considered members of any of the recognized religious communities by the authorities of that community. Most of them are people who identify as Jewish but are not considered Jews by the standards of the Israeli rabbinate.

[ducksalad]

“hundreds of thousands of people not able to marry at all in Israel”

Well, only if they have some unreasonable insistence on maintaining true to their beliefs. Some denominations will take converts regardless of pedigree, if they’re willing to say the right words with a straight face.

I know American guys who married Iranian women, and did it in Iran. They just had, beforehand, to say about a dozen very specific words in the presence of a cleric willing to sign off. Maybe also a small honorarium to thank the cleric for his time…

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The more I read about this, the happier I am that my country is going to stop propping up Israel.

[JJJSSS]

For everyone commenting here-

Israel has long since recognized foreign civil marriages, and they’re well know in Israeli society- famously with Cyprus as a destination wedding location because it is both nearby and full of resorts. The question here is not at all about whether foreign civil marriages are in fact legal in Israel but about whether these marriages count as foreign if the participants are physically in Israel. In this regard it’s exactly what the Israeli courts should be doing regardless of the changes now proposed- they’re not coming up with new constitutional principles.

Also worth noting that politically there are many Israeli politicians who don’t want to upset current power structures and alliances by supporting domestic civil marriages but who also are unlikely to really object to or overturn this ruling, even if the judicial changes go through.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Those politicians sound like deplorable assholes. Why would any competent (or competent-adjacent) adult refrain from supporting domestic civil marriages? What is wrong with these dumbasses?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm, does it count if the couple are physically in Israel, and the officiant, though licensed to do it in Utah, is actually on vacation in Israel, and just used an internet proxy in Utah county?

[ducksalad]

According to websites offering to do the ceremony, one of the three parties to the ceremony (two marriage partners and the officiant) has to be physically in Utah.

It could be they're just saying that to justify charging a fee but it does seem like the Zoom marriages always have the clergyman in Utah.

[SRG]

From Mishnah Nashim (updated):

When can a gentile be married in the land [of Israel]?
R Shammai: He may not ever be married, as it is said, I shall visit your iniquities upon you, hence not upon gentiles
R Hillel: if they are living together, it is as if they are married
R. Gamaliel: they may not be married in the land [of Israel] but if they have internet they can [be married elsewhere] online, provided it is a holiday neither [in one place nor the other].
And the Sages say, this one will run and run.

[Commenter_XY]

You almost had me....until Gamaliel. 🙂

[SRG]

Indeed! I find the Mishnaic style to be fun and easy to parody.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Anybody want to try to defend Israeli laws with respect to marriage?

One more reason the days are and should be numbered with respect to modern America’s provision, at great cost, of the military, political, and economic skirts behind which Israel has conducted its superstition-laced, right-wing belligerence.