Repent at Leisure?

(CC) Larry D. Moore

UPDATE: The legislature is also voting on whether to repeal a tax on botox and other elective surgeries today, reports NJ Spotlight.  Coincidence?

If a new law  is voted in today, marrying in haste will be easier than ever.  A-4266/s-3122 , proposed by Assembly Majority Leader-Select Louis Greenwald (D-Camden) and Senator Nicholas Scutari (D-Union) on 29 November,   would abolish the need to  wait the mandatory 72 hours and file in the municipality where one of the partners lives.

Their goal for the law is to “invigorate the state’s wedding market.”  The waiting period was established in 1934, and makes it cumbersome for those who wish to wed at an out of state location (or come here to get hitched from out of state).  New Jerseyans can now file for a civil or marriage license in the municipality where the wedding ceremony will be held.  Greenwald says the bill will “create jobs and jump-start the small businesses that make up New Jersey’s wedding and tourism industry.”

New Jersey would join Connecticut and Rhode Island as one of the three Northeastern state with no waiting period.

Jeff Edelstein in “The Trentonian” writes “expect to see a chapel-building boom in Atlantic City, and with it, a rise in Elvis impersonators who double as ordained ministers.”

What do you think?  Would A-4266/s-3122  help New Jersey unemployment?  Would quickie weddings be good for the state?

 

 

Click here to sign up for Baristanet's free daily emails and news alerts.

11 COMMENTS

  1. Personally I don’t really understand the state’s involvement or claim to authority to regulate marriage in the first place. It’s a contract among individuals and aside from the public filing of that contract I don’t think the state should have a role.

    All that being said, I’m quite sure that the reason we have marriage licenses is NOT to “invigorate the state’s wedding market.”

  2. I agree with ROC,and I think the state and church should have nothing to do with individual contracts and agreements.

  3. I agree with ROC as well.

    It sounds odd saying that, but there you are.

    My guess is that the state is involved because marriage is a legal contract which, if it dissolves, ends up in court. The court determines allocation of assets, visitation, etc., and I suppose the theory is that these determinations would have no teeth were it not for the state’s involvement.

    But I don’t know that for sure, and I too would like to see the state stay out of the matter entirely.

  4. “Personally I don’t really understand the state’s involvement or claim to authority to regulate marriage in the first place.”

    —thanks for sharing. I suggest that you spend an afternoon in family court, listening to the roll call of deadbeat dads…

    “It’s a contract among individuals and aside from the public filing of that contract I don’t think the state should have a role.”

    —which kinda sums up the state’s current role, no?

    so what exactly are you whinging on about then?

  5. Great idea…going after that huge ‘wedding market’ that’s been balancing states books all over the country.

  6. “—thanks for sharing. I suggest that you spend an afternoon in family court, listening to the roll call of deadbeat dads…”

    Who will somehow be brought into line by the obtaining of a marriage license?

Comments are closed.