The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Was This Couple Married 0, 1, or 2 Times?
Florida Law + New York Law + Jewish Law = ....
From today's decision of the New York appellate court in Bernstein v. Benchemoun (Judges Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Joseph A. Zayas, William G. Ford & Helen Voutsinas):
On February 7, 2013, the parties were married in a Jewish religious ceremony in Florida. At the ceremony the parties executed a religious marriage contract, known as a ketubah, but they did not obtain a marriage license from the State of Florida. The parties then came to New York, where they executed a second ketubah in the presence of a rabbi.
In 2018, the wife sought a divorce, and the husband responded that the parties were never married. Husband wins, says the court:
"The general rule is that the legality of a marriage 'is to be determined by the law of the place where it is celebrated.'" Since 1967, Florida has required a marriage license for a marriage to be valid, and a person solemnizing a marriage must require that the parties to the marriage produce a marriage license. Accordingly, the parties' religious marriage in Florida was not valid under Florida law and was not cognizable in New York.
Under New York law, a marriage is not void for the failure to obtain a marriage license if the marriage is solemnized. The plaintiff contends that a marriage was solemnized in New York when the parties executed a second ketubah in New York, in the presence of a rabbi. However, at the hearing, the rabbi who supervised the execution of the second ketubah testified that he never solemnized a marriage, and could not have solemnized a marriage since the parties were already married under Jewish law. A finding that there was a solemnized marriage would require an analysis of religious doctrine, which could offend the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Thus, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court could not determine that there was a cognizable marriage in New York.
Congratulations to Martin E. Friedlander, who represents the husband.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That’s what I call a mitzvah!!
No, they were not.
The reality-based world has consequences.
Kirkland is right – public policy needs more than a declaration of love between two people to recognize those people as married.
Like Kirkland, I believe that we can’t simply redefine marriage to suit our own convenience and preferences.
Artie is NEVER right. It's practically a law of nature.
Of course the couple was married. Under Jewish law, though not New York State or Florida law. It's not a law of nature that only civil authorities get to determine whether or not a ceremony is valid, though they DO get to determine whether or not THEY recognize it as such. It's not as though all the couples who got married in the course of history before the invention of civil marriage licences weren't "really" married.
Side question: Do NY and FL not have common law marriage?
After a quick web search, it looks like only eight states still recognize common law marriage; NY and FL are not among them.
Jewish law is not law.
Whether consequent to adult-onset superstition or partisan angling, a mistake about that point is mistaken.
As noted, you are ALWAYS wrong.
I would have thought that my satirical intent would have been harder to miss than the broad side of a barn, but apparently some people managed to miss it anyway.
AIDS, once again, demonstrates his parochialism and imbecility.
Do you know ANYTHING about what the real-world socio-economic consequences are for divorced Muslim women in Western countries, irrespective of what the Western/secular courts state about the legal validity of their Islamic marriages and their rights? The social stigmatisation? The inability to remarry within the community?
What about the socio-economic reality for sharia wives 2-4 who live in the West (but whose husbands don’t)?
Wake up, evolutionary dud. You don’t speak for science and reality; you only reflect your delusions of being equal and your groundless assumption that a religion-free society would necessarily deem you to be so.
I bet the ex-wife(?) is really pissed now...
She wanted to not be married, the court said she was never married, doesn't that count as a win-win?
Not if she wanted a cut of his property.
Judge writes: "A finding that there was a solemnized marriage would require an analysis of religious doctrine, which could offend the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." But the judge does it anyways by saying the second wedding is legally invalid because of the authority of the Rabbi's testimony.
Then New York has already erred in making a "solemnized" marriage valid without a marriage license; the testimony of the officiant would be the only basis for determining that. It's contradicting a rabbi that would violate the First Amendment.
At the end of the day, what the Rabbi believes should matter only to him, God and other Jews. Religious things should remain in the private sphere.
To avail yourselves of the government's court system, in dividing up your property post-relationship, your relationship needs to be a *government* recognized marriage/domestic-partnership/whatever. With appropriate paperwork, unless it is in one of the 8-or-so states that have common-law marriage.
Or you need to have a cohabitation contract (which can then be adjudicated under contract law)....
It seems to me that accepting the rabbi’s claim that he couldn’t have solemnized the marriage under Jewish law (because under Jewish law they were already married) requires just as much analysis of religious doctrine as accepting the wife’s claim to the contrary. The court is saying it believes the rabbi.
Basically the rabbi is saying that, if they weren’t already married, the ceremony would be a solemnization, and the only reason it isn’t in this case is because of his interpretation of Jewish religious law.
Yes, and that's why the judge does not avoid getting into issues of doctrine.
The court is saying it believes the rabbi.
By New York law. The judge can only accept the facts given by the person that solemnized the ceremony.
In New York the power to create a marriage is delegated to the one that can do the ceremony.
Believing the rabbi isn't a judgment on the validity of his claim that the couple were already married, but is merely an acceptance of his explanation as to why he wouldn't have married the couple as a support for the credibility of his testimony that he hadn't done so.
I think that a court less paranoid about religion-state entanglement could easily find this couple was married under the religious-ceremony exception simply by finding that they intended to be married and had some sort of religious ceremony to that effect. It simply doesn’t matter, and there is absolutely no need for a civil court to inquire into, whether the ceremony did or did not meet technical religious requirements for a religiously valid marriage.
While I don’t always agree with Professor Volokh that religion inquries only involve individual beliefs and what a denomination as such thinks is completely irrelevant, this is one of those cases where I think Professor Volokh is sometimes right. Here, in a marriage situation, what matters, what controls, is what the individual parties believed. Did the parties believe they were religiously married? If so, it frankly doesn’t matter what the rabbi thought.
It seems to me the course the court here took was foolish. It brought in technical religious minutia inquiries it had no business involving itself in in the first place, and then decided the case based on its inability to resolve the minutiae.
This decision makes an end run around the New York legislature’s laudible decision to provide some relief to people who have had a religious marriage ceremony without proper civil registration, and who may have thought themselves married for years. There is absolutely no need for such a relief provision, properly interpreted, to result in entangling religion-state conflicts. Bringing such conflicts in serves no constructive purpose. Courts should be making every effort to avoid such conflicts, not muscle their way into them.
Dare I point out that under traditional common law concepts, a man tricking a woman into thinking she is married to him, living as husband and wife for years, and then using some technical defect to get out of his marital and support obligations was considered reprehensible conduct, conduct that was often a tort in its own right, and conduct that courts tried to use their equitable powers and strained to interpet the law to avoid abetting. It was considered unconscionable.
The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses absolutely do not make this view of public policy unconstitutional. They absolutely do not require the result the judge reached here. There is absolutely no need to permit a husband who wants to get out of his marital obligations and avoid paying alimony to open the ceremony’s hood and scour the details of its insides for possible defects.
His rabbi thinks he is married. There may be consequences if he wants to remarry.
Does a quasi-marriage or "palimony" cause of action survive in New York?
If the "wife" can claim a tort for being misled, let her do so. But the court is absolutely persuasive that the couple was never married in the eyes of any civil authority.
I think so too. In a case where one of the two used fraud or trickery to fool the other into believing there was a valid marriage, then I expect that a court would use estoppel (or something similar) to prevent the guilty person from contesting the validity of the marriage. But, absent affirmative wrongdoing . . . .
New York Domestic Relations Laws section 12:
If they declare themselves to belong to a form of Judaism that traditionally believes in technicalities, they are subject to the technicalities. If they are not of a religion with a traditional form of marriage, they need only take each other as husband and wife in front of a witness.
The NY rabbi credibly denies solemnizing the marriage, so the remaining question is whether a ceremony in FL meeting the requirements of NY law can result in their being married for the purposes of NY even if it did not result in a FL-recognized marriage.
they intended to be married and had some sort of religious ceremony to that effect
The Rabi, told the Judge, he did not perform a religious marriage.
Unless FLORIDA makes an exception for religious solomnization then they weren't married then. And the NY rabbi credibly denies doing so. So your proposed finding cannot be right.
I think she wanted alimony more than to 'not be married'.
This seems wrong. According to the case the court cites, "A marriage is solemnized where the parties "solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife"
So the opinion of the Rabbi about whether he solemnized the marriage is irrelevant. The court needs to find whether or not they made the required declarations, not whether or not the Rabbi thought he was solemnizing the marriage under Jewish law.
I think you're right. One might argue that the bit about "any particular mode" would make that relevant, but the previous wording suggests that it's taking about the actions taken to solemnize the marriage rather than about external conditions for validity.
And no matter what the rabbi thinks or thought, the couple presumably expected some effect from the second ceremony.
But from what John F. Carr quoted:
which means the Jewish practices *do* matter, I think.
Well, the provision is almost certainly facially unconstitutional. I mean, a Jewish person can get married in a Jewish ceremony, but a Quaker can't?
But even if it were valid, the provision applies to the manner in which the ceremony is performed, not the religious validity of the ceremony. So as long as the ceremony is performed in the traditional manner, it would be valid.
"...but a Quaker can’t?"
On the contrary, by the letter of the law a Quaker can certainly get married in a Jewish ceremony, even if the solemnization is performed by a Catholic priest. There is no deficit in his rights, instead he can ALSO be married in a ceremony performed in Quaker fashion without any representative of any church. And there's no obvious bar to anyone else using the Quaker method if he decides to be a "friend" on the day of the ceremony.
Wrong. Your quotation from the law is incomplete.
"No particular form or ceremony is required when a marriage is solemnized as herein provided by a clergyman or magistrate, but the parties must solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife."
The clergyman or magistrate must solemnize the marriage, not merely be present.
Agreed.
But it seems an extremely thin line between whether the NY Rabbi created (solemnized?) a marriage or simply recognized/blessed/celebrated what he understood to be an already existing marriage.
1) There was a ceremony.
2) There were witnesses.
3) Whether the NY Rabbi joined them in matrimony or simply recognized in a solemn ceremony in front of witnesses that they are married according to Jewish law seems little different.
4) Had the FL marriage not occurred, the NY marriage would be lawful. So in this case 1 + 1 = 0.
The law is truly an ass. Meaning it is simply a tool to settle controversies, and the minute but significant (in the eyes of the court) difference mentioned in #3 carried the day.
The moral of the story is this: if want to be sure your marriage is legally recognized, get a license.
I don't agree. The NY rabbi IN NO WAY "solemnized" the NY marriage ceremony merely because he thought the couple already married.
I think the only question is whether NY ought to recognize the FL ceremony as creating a NY-recognized marriage even if FL did not recognize it. It seems to meet the NY criteria, and the law seems to say nothing about where the ceremony must take place.
No; you're reading too much into a sentence out of context. That's not what the case is saying. It is not addressing the issue here. It is discussing whether a marriage that was purportedly solemnized actually is. We never get to NY DRL § 12, because DRL § 11 must first be satisfied:
"No marriage shall be valid unless solemnized by either: 1. A clergyman or minister of any religion, "
The rabbi says that he didn't solemnize the marriage. So we don't have to examine whether the solemnization was valid.
The link says "Argued - April 24, 2023". Are we really to believe that was the only day they argued? 😉
"Marry Me a Little" Stephen Sondheim
Looking at US law applicable to naturalization cases, leads to an interesting result for a common law marriage assertion.
"The applicant must establish validity of his or her marriage. In general, the legal validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated (“place-of-celebration rule”). Under this rule, a marriage is valid for immigration purposes in cases where the marriage is valid under the law of the jurisdiction in which it is performed."
Chapter 2 - Marriage and Marital Union for Naturalization
"Some states recognize common law marriages and consider the parties to be married. In order for a common law marriage to be valid for immigration purposes:
The parties must live in that jurisdiction; and
The parties must meet the qualifications for common law marriage for that jurisdiction.
Other states may recognize a common law marriage contracted in another state even if the recognizing state does not accept common law marriage as a means for its own residents to contract marriage."
Were US Naturalization law applied to these facts, the couple residing in NY or FL would not be married, but the same couple who chose to reside in Colorado, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas could have a common law recognized by their state of residence.
I can’t be happy that decisions like this make common folk hate the law. Nor should you. So what was the ketubah, a nothing? IF they applied for a license, it’s a marriage so we throw away a marriage for a lack of box-ticking? Disgraceful
Ostensible adults arguing about superstition -- whose childish fairy tale is the most bestest of all silly fairy tales -- is always charming.
Careful, your anti-semitism is showing again.
A rabbi will marry them without a marriage license? Good luck getting a Catholic priest to do it! You have to bring one. If you are both Catholic, you need to also bring Baptism certificates, confirmation and first communion certificates, blah, blah.... (For convenience, they send records of confirmation and first communion to the location of your baptism. So they may be held two places. But my sister had to go through some rigomorole because the church where she was baptized was destroyed in an earthquake.)
There are similar paper work requirements if one of the parties is not Catholic. But if the state requires a license, they would never marry you without a license.
The Catholic Church is extremely particular about marriage (I'm an evangelical, I married a Catholic. And yes, went through all of that)...
Other religious communities not so much....
Extremely particular about getting paid. The annulment-for-pay racket is ridiculous, and they have no shame in giving it out.
"What's this? You're twice divorce with kids? Yeah, sure, here's the bill for an annulment, congratulations on your first bride."
Really, what it should come down to is this:
The state should recognize licensed marriages/domestic-partnerships.
Religious groups should recognize or not whatever sort of marriage they believe in, regardless of civil status.
Your marriage being recognized by your religion should only matter inside that religious community – eg, for issues such as ‘Is it morally acceptable for us to have sex’.
Your marriage being recognized by the civil authorities (or not) should determine whether you have access to divorce court (or not).
It is very possible to have one without the other (eg, the Catholic Church will not recognize a civil marriage where either partner has been divorced without a church annulment)… So long as you are OK with the religious or civil consequences of doing so….
Civil authorities should not be required to take-a-religous-group’s-word-for-it that a couple is married. License or no marraige.
P.S. The concept of common law marriage - where it exists - is often an artifact of the frontier era... It was created to address the issue of relationships formed in areas where no legal officiant is present due to lack-of-population.
Not exactly true.
For most of European history, getting "official" marriages was a rich-people thing. If you weren't nobility, the government didn't give a damn. Hell, for a long time not even the church was involved in the marriage. Married couples would seek out a priest to get the church's blessing on the marriage, but not to officiate or grant it: they did that themselves.
The relatively recent (in historical terms) shift to being married not by what you promised to each other, but what you promised to the state, is actually the anomaly.
What an absurd decision.
The judge probably got the law right, but it demonstrates that the law itself is wrong.
Second thought: the couple was married for five years before the not-husband "discovered" that they had never been married at all.
Should he be expecting a call from the IRS about all those years of fraudulently-filed taxes?