Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marriage Law Internet Ordination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates and approves bill to limit internet ordinations used to solemnize marriages
Summary
Lawmakers debated Senate Bill 211, which would invalidate certificates of religious ordination obtained via the internet if used to claim authority to solemnize marriages; supporters called it a fix to a growing problem, while opponents said existing law already addresses improper solemnizations and raised constitutional concerns; the measure passed in the chamber as transcribed.
The Utah House spent a prolonged period debating Senate Bill 211, a measure the sponsor described as intended to invalidate certificates of religious ordination obtained over the internet that some providers use to claim authority to solemnize marriages.
Representative Litback, the sponsor, said the bill responds to organizations that sell or provide certificates over the internet or by mail that then are used to purport to give an individual religious authority to perform marriage ceremonies. "Senate Bill 211 invalidates the certificates that are received via the Internet," he said, and the bill’s text was intended to prevent those certificates from conferring legal authority.
Several members questioned whether the problem was already addressed in current law and pressed whether the bill would restrict legitimate ordinations, including ordination via teleconference or other remote means. Representative Farrin asked whether ministers, rabbis or priests in regular communion had been ordained over the internet; the sponsor said he was not aware that that was routine. Representative Harper asked why an ordination over the Internet would be treated differently than an ordination conducted by remote video or teleconference, and some members warned that restricting the medium could raise constitutional issues.
Representative Bennion and others proposed technical amendments and sought clarification of the bill’s language; an amendment to substitute wording failed on the floor. After a call of the House and follow-up procedure to secure voting members, the transcript records a final vote in the House as 42 yes and 32 no in favor of the measure as transcribed. The sponsor urged support, calling the issue "a problem ... that is growing," and the House proceeded to transmit the measure as recorded.
Because the transcript records the exchange as floor debate, the article limits its account to arguments and floor actions shown there; the bill’s ultimate legal effect will depend on enrolment, signatures and any subsequent gubernatorial action or judicial review.
