![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
I just embarrassed myself...
I just embarrassed myself...
Let me be the first to complain about the price of wedding ministers.
I'm not religious so I hired an Iowa state judge to do my wedding. He filled out our marriage certificate, talked with me on the phone for 5 minutes, and spent 15 minutes at my wedding.
$200 + 20% = $240 :(
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
@BWoodle: My minister was free. We were prepared to pay the \"voluntary honorarium\" which is SO non-voluntary and when we went to give him the check, he said, \"The grace of God is free,\" and refused to accept it. So we made a much larger donation to his (and our) parish because of his awesomeness.
He was one of our parish priests, but my husband met him in traffic school. Seriously.
@BWoodle:
$240 for a wedding?
How many weddings does the judge perform a day? I suspect ONE. Maybe only one wedding per month or per year.
The judge must have scheduled the event, disrupting his/her free time as well as scheduled and unscheduled obligations to the bench
$240 was compensation for the actual wedding event as well as everything else.
Was $240 too much? I say yes, you say yes, but from the judge's perspective the $240 might have barely covered the \"cost\" of performing the wedding.
In addition, the fee structure may have been set by the judges association (a bit like price fixing, but that is a discussion for another day).
OH, and one other note. Some judges do not keep the fees provided to them for other services. One friend (a court baliff) says the judge donates the marriage fees he collects to a woman's shelter.
@BWoodle: I come from a small town, and getting married by a clerk at the county courthouse was free. Definitely a bonus of eloping.
I sometimes regret a total of 3 things - my dad not walking me down the isle (I consider it an outdated tradition, but I somehow at the same time don't care), the dress, and the celebration with my family and friends. However, after helping my brother get married and seeing how stressed out his bride was - and with good reason, she was busy as hell and people kept coming at her with question after question, most of them about problems - I'm quite content with my tiny wedding.
Maybe for an anniversary one year we'll have the party with our friends. We'd planned to on our 10th, but it didn't happen.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-581631-100x100.png\")
@BWoodle: We just hired our Officiant yesterday and he's charging us 75 dollars. Probably one of the cheapest parts of our wedding.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-267279-100x100.png\")
@korybing: I believe ours was $150. He met with us several times to make sure we had the ceremony the way we wanted it. If anyone needs a rabbi to perform interfaith weddings in the Boston area let me know. I highly recommend him.
@BWoodle: In most states you can be married by anyone who has a clergy identification. That includes ones you get off the internet as long as the institution has the right IRS status. So there are options other than a judge or a church.
ULC ministers can marry people. They quit letting judges do weddings in our area unless you go to the courthouse.
@BWoodle: call you local marriage license office for a list of retired judges. nyc law requires a minimum fee of $75. the judge we got charged exactly that.
@BWoodle: But you hired a judge, not just a minister.
With travel and prep time, the filling out of the certificate, conversation with you, AND the actual performance of the duties you hired him for, I really would not be surprised to be hit with $200. A lawyer's time is pricey, and probably exceptionally so for a judge who often takes an effective salary cut by accepting a judicial posting.
@bombhand: My complaint has more to do with why we need a licensed person to handle this. We filled out the Marriage license at the courthouse, all that was required was the signature of the \"licensed\" person who performed the ceremony.
As far as judge vs. minister, I'm not going to start following a religion for the wedding discount.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929652-100x100.png\")
@katstermonster: Bah, humbug, that didn't work. Check out the Universal Life Church: [www.ulc.net] .
Someone can register via that website and officiate as a \"minister\" in many states.
@katstermonster: North Carolina went back and invalidated a bunch of marriages by ULC types and won't allow them anymore. It was something.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-389492-100x100.png\")
@katstermonster: a weird moment happened at a hallowe'en party one year where i got a picture of my friend, raised an irish catholic, dressed as \"bondage fun jesus\" talking to my orthodox jewish friend, dressed as satan, about how the former catholic was now a minister of the universal life church and performing a wedding the next weekend. [the subject came up because he was considering wearing the jesus outfit to officiate, but decided against it]
@asplodzor: i'm leaving work now, it's on my laptop at home. i'll get back to you when it's on my flickr
@catastrophegirl: There are so many things about that paragraph that are wrong. Or awesome. Or both.
@BWoodle: P.S. I believe my approach would be termed \"making your own minister at home.\"
BINGO!!! What do I win?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17616-100x100.png\")
@katstermonster: You should get a gold star. @clickable: No...living up to his name would be...Mmmm...lawsuit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-771399-100x100.png\")
@BWoodle:
I'm with ya. We're getting married in 49 days, and hired an officiant out of Toledo, Ohio (thank god, not the same company as in the OP) and she's costing us $265 for what she says will be a 15-minute ceremony. It would have been an even $200 if she wasn't charging us $65 for going over a 50-mile travel limit... by 5 miles. :(
@BWoodle: Maybe it's different in other states, but CT just requires registration as some sort of minister, including the online \"Universal Life\" ministers and such. I know a family friend who has officiated at several people's weddings. That way, the couple actually knows the minister (and vice versa), you can get a more personalized script, and it's cheap or free!
@katstermonster: Illinois is the same way. We're going to have a friend get ordained in the Universal Life church and say our own vows. We only need an ordained person to sign the license. No visible officiant to screw things up and no money spent.
@katstermonster: I asked one of my oldest friends to get ordained via Universal Life Church to perform my wedding. He has stage presence (I met him when we were in a play together), and did a great job.
He also didn't realize there was a flower from a tree in his hair during the ceremony, so I giggled the whole time. :-)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-248059-100x100.png\")
@katstermonster: ULC is the way to go. I know a couple who had a rehearsal dinner/party the night before their wedding, and passed around a hat. Anyone who wanted to officiate their ceremony could put their name in. At the end of the night they drew a name, signed the person up on the ULC website, and they performed the ceremony the next day. I am so tempted to steal that idea as my own.
@yourbffjill: Haha, that's awesome. I may steal that for myself, dependent on how much of a practicing Catholic I am when I eventually get married...
@katstermonster: The Priests don't charge anything. You usually give them a little bit of cash as a token of appreciation - fifty bucks or so I am told.
In Florida notary publics can solemnize a marriage. I have done it a half dozen times. I always do it for free, but I may start charging a pepperoni and mushroom pizza.
@feckingmorons: Very true...but a lot of people (including BWoodle) are against having anyone with a religious affiliation marry them.
mMmmmmmm pizza...
@katstermonster: My cousin's wife was licensed to perform the ceremony but we thought it would be kind of tacky to write: \"BTW, Can you officiate the wedding?\" on their invitation. I guess they wouldn't have felt obligated to give a gift...
I had a drinking buddy in college who would have done a great job officiating the wedding. He missed his second calling in life all because of these weird laws...
@BWoodle:
I paid more than that to have my ice-maker repaired by a repairman and it didn't take him any longer than that.
While I understand the frustration for what seems like very little work, as a whole, ministers are paid very poorly, $150 - $250 is probably reasonable in most cases I think considering you're taking their personal time for usually a rehearsal dinner and a ceremony.
In an age where the average wedding is supposedly $20k, I don't think 1% of that is unreasonable for a minister to officiate.
@CaptainCynic: I understand, but we had a modest wedding nowhere near the $20k mark. No rehearsal was performed.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-279042-100x100.png\")
@BWoodle: We got married in New York City by a Deputy Borough Clerk at the Brooklyn Municipal Building for, I think, less than fifty bucks. Fairy-tale? Not exactly. Romantic? Well, it's a great story to tell the grandkids.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
It seems like perhaps the minister for hire has had too many close calls and bad experiences, and that's the reason for the zero tolerance policy.
What she did seems a little extreme, because one can see the one glass and see whether a person is intoxicated, but I wonder whether the minister had been in trouble with not being able to properly gauge a couple's intoxication, and thus adopted the policy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-143777-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: Can't blame her if she's just covering her butt due to prior bad experiences, but if she's really that gun-shy she needs to state up-front that she has a zero-tolerance policy. Apparently she didn't make this clear to her clients, and it caused some confusion.
@pecan 3.14159265: Moot point. The minister isn't administering the marriage license, only performing the ceremony. Therefore she technically does not need to be able to properly gauge the couple's intoxication.
the Minister must sign the document. Its a two part process, you get the license, and then you're married by whomever you choose, and that person signs that you are indeed married.
All the license does is allow you to be married, it doesn't marry you.
@DefineStatutory: WRONG!!! Once the license is signed, no ceremony is needed. The license DOES MARRY YOU. Speaking here as the son of a minister. My father actually has couples sign the license before the ceremony. He informs them that they are now officially married, and don't NEED to do the ceremony, but no one ever takes him up on the offer. The ceremony is just that. A ceremony. It is the piece of paper that cements your marital status.
@sinfonian94: Someone wore the all-caps snarky pants today. What you say is correct, however...a minister who cannot in good conscience sign a legal document should not then perform a ceremony, despite it having no legal ramifications. Ethics come into play here. If a minister is not willing to sign a document saying the couple is married, he/she should not perform the ceremony either.
@pecan 3.14159265: Right but in this circumstance backing out at the last minute leaving the couple high and dry comes with ramifications. At absolute minimum, if the minister calls off the paid service, they need to return the deposit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-328859-100x100.png\")
Another shining star in America's heartland... people are generally nice here but man do we have our share of bad apples.
Aww.. the new couples first lawsuit. The beauty and romance of the occasion brings a tear to my eye...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-570288-100x100.png\")
@Homerjay. Good and good for you.: I first read it as well that they were planning on it. I mean, it seems just natural that they would. Put in the scrapbook under \"Our First Lawsuit\". Cute.
@Homerjay. Good and good for you.: You're living up to your username, Homer. Did you even read the article? Says quite clearly, the couple is *not* planning a lawsuit.
Kresila would walk out on Jesus' wedding then, I guess. I mean, the guy allegedly turned water into wine in accordance with the 11th Commandment: \"Thou shalt drink and be merry for it is good.\" Guy must have been partying everyday.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-425645-100x100.png\")
@G.O.B.: Come on!: Well, she definitely must be unfamiliar with the story of the wedding at Cana. There was mad wine drinking going on at that shindig, and Jesus himself not only provided the booze but officiated the wedding! Actually, were I the OP, that's probably the very argument I'd have used when the minister said she wasn't going to perform the ceremony. Bible fail!
@G.O.B.: Come on!: Recall that the wine served in Catholic communion is Jesus' blood. So he had about a 12% BAC when he died. The legal limit foir driving is .08%.
Good thing they didn't have motor vehicles back then, because Jesus was 149 times over the limit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-131723-100x100.png\")
@G.O.B.: Come on!: I thought the 11th amendment was \"Thou shalt be ashamed of thy body's nakedness\" at least that's what Morel Orel's dad said.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
@theblackdog: I thought the 11th commandment was, \"Thou shalt not get caught\".
I always wanted someone to ask Morel Orel's dad how it is he knows all these extra commandments if they were \"lost\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-243547-100x100.png\")
It's nice to see there are still people are not sue crazy.
The ceremony took place in my hometown. Gotta love it.
Not a huge fan of zero tolerance, but it seems that this was all made clear when the deal was struck. The rule was broken, so it's reasonable that the minister leave and not return the deposit.
Do I agree with it, no. But it seems perfectly reasonable considering.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-15811-100x100.png\")
@kraftmayo: What deal was struck? They didn't meet the reverend until the day of the wedding. Sounds like the rehearsal coordinator was giving them advice about not getting sick, NOT informing them about the minister's \"rule\".
What kind of minister would walk out of a wedding minutes before it was supposed to start? That is completely unprofessional.
@mamalicious: I agree. Why would the couple assume that this was info coming from the minister at all?
There are usually contracts for these events, so if it's not in the contract, they shouldn't be held to such silliness. That said, the minister is soooo wrong.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257922-100x100.png\")
@kraftmayo: Uh, where does it say that it was made clear when the deal was struck?
\"Kuhns said that while Kresila never told them not to drink, the rehearsal coordinator who works with Kresila mentioned at the rehearsal dinner the day before the wedding not to drink alcohol and also to drink plenty of water and eat, so no one would get got sick. They didn't meet the reverend until the day of the wedding.\"
Doesn't sound like \"If you drink, the reverend won't marry you\" to me.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
@youbastid: Yeah, that sounds more like a warning that could be misinterpreted as just advice as opposed to an iron-clad rule that would be punished in this way. I'd say it depends on how they were warned, but I think the \"minister\" is in the wrong if the description given here is accurate and it was couched in those terms (about \"not getting sick\"). Getting sick off of alcohol or even intoxicated is a far cry from toasting a day with a glass of wine.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-843197-100x100.png\")
Call this Minister Moron and tell her that she should quit her job!
(440) 324 4047
@CoarseLive: Where'd you come from, 4chan? Encyclopedia Dramatica? We don't harass people by phone or mail here.
I didn't ask that anyone be harassed. I merely believe that people who offer their services publicly are responsible to the public. Key to responsibility is \"response.\" Call her and tell her what you want. If she stands by her decision, then she will tell you.
I'm sorry that you interpret any call to hold people responsible as harassment. That's unfortunate - especially for someone with a name so similar to \"Civil Disobedience.\"
@CoarseLive: I'm aware of the legal term I made a pun of for my username, thanks. The argument that we need to call this woman and tell her our opinion on how she conducts her business (no matter how stupid I personally consider her approach to be) is asinine. I don't intend to hire her for a wedding, and obviously neither do you. She doesn't care about your response and is under no obligation to \"the public,\" since she's privately hired. She's not a police officer and is allowed to discriminate within legal boundaries.
You and I both know why you posted her phone number on this site, so don't pretend it was some consumer empowerment thing.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-730546-100x100.png\")
@CoarseLive: I'll just do the easier thing and not recommend this person or this service to anyone looking to get married.
@CoarseLive: Yeah! Lets bring the wrath of the Internet on someone we don't know for no reason! And call them a moron while we're at it! Sounds good!
If it's not in the contract, and if the minister or her representative didn't make it clear that drinking would violate the contract, then the minister not only was a dick, but she needs to return the deposit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-291079-100x100.png\")
wouldnt something like that have to be in the agreement you sign with said minister? If it wasn't in the agreement wouldn't the minister be in breach of contract? If it was, wouldn't the OP be in breach?
If there was no written agreement, wouldn't that be poor decision making on EVERYONE'S part?
@SteveZim1017: I agree. This sounds like breach, especially since the pastor was hired for the purpose of performing the wedding. If the contract did not stipulate the no alcohol condition, the minimum the couple is entitled to is their $50 deposit. They might also receive whatever additional expenses they spent on obtaining the last minute minister's services. Weddings (and funerals) are one of the rare occasions that treble damages may be available.
At minimum, the minister has just assured that anyone who googles her name will see this story. Not the brightest move. I suspect that the minister is rabidly anti-alcohol.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223549-100x100.png\")
Just because it's not written doesn't mean there isn't a contract. If it went done the way the article says, the minister is in breach; oral contracts are exactly as enforcable as their written counterparts--ask Kim Basinger, she had to pay several million on a purely oral contract.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1236-100x100.png\")
I'm glad my minister didn't have this rule. I got married with probably 5 glasses of champagne in my bloodstream.
@missdona: No kidding. I'm still 9 weeks out from our wedding and already so stressed that I know I'll be starting that day with a mimosa...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1207055-100x100.png\")
In alaska, marrying anybody is free. Getting a commissioner's license is also free. No need to rip people off :) And you dont have to be part of a scam ... erm .. religion to marry someone :) A win win for everybody.
@The Porkchop Express: Nope. Most states require a judge or a religious official in good standing with their religion's governing body. I've only heard of one state that allows it (florida).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-316976-100x100.png\")
This minister definitely falls into the \"holier than thou\" category.
@razremytuxbuddy: Holier than Jesus himself, even. Wedding at Cana, anyone?
I agree with K-Bo, though, that this may have less to do with piety and more to do with a backstory of some kind. She must have had some kind of horrible experience where someone either claimed they hadn't been competent to agree to the marriage because they were drinking or passed out at the altar or something. At least, I hope that's the case- while it wouldn't really mitigate the insanity of just cruising out on someone's wedding when she could be reasonably certain that they were sober, it would explain it a bit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-93308-100x100.png\")
@razremytuxbuddy: I'm not so sure that that is what this was about. If she was anti-alcohol she would have walked out when seeing the first person drinking without asking if the bride had been drinking. Sounds like she's just exceedingly paranoid to me.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-799409-100x100.png\")
(A shout-out and thumbs up to my pastor!) My pastor doesn't charge a set fee for weddings or funerals, because all the money he earns from those things gets donated to our ministries in India. He lets people know where the money goes, and leaves it at that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-132529-100x100.png\")
I am not really sure where the ceremony was held, but I would wholly understand not showing up to a church with even an appearance of alcohol. If it was in someone's private residence and they want to drink up before the rite, go ahead. It's easy to bash anyone who still has values.
@Japheaux: Yeah, that really would be terrible if someone brought wine into a church. Y'know, like most churches use every Sunday for Communion.
@Japheaux:
a) It seems that in this case, this was motivated more by self-serving interests on the part of the minister than any sort of \"values\".
b) Only a minority subset of the population has ever had an absolutist moral problem with alcohol. A lot of people have a moral problem with alcohol USED TO EXCESS, but toasting a marriage does not even come close to qualifying as that. When we got married, the church was fine with alcohol afterwards, although they asked that we not drink before the ceremony only due to past \"incidents\" with people getting super nervous and drinking tons to try to take the edge off that. I've got no problem with a common-sense rule like that, but it's kind of silly to claim that \"values\" are a reason to not drink before a wedding.
@Japheaux: I doubt it was at a church. Most churches want you to use their minister, and have some meetings before hand with the minister. Since they had a rental minister they hadn't met, I'm guessing it was either not in a church, or in a very loosely affiliated church.
One can be ordained as a Dudeist Priest through the Church of the Latter-Day Dude. As it says, laws vary, but if you check with your county clerk you shouldn't have much trouble officiating ceremonies.
For example, Ohio: \"Any ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or congregation within this state may perform marriages.\"
I'm going to insist my best friend gets ordained so I can have a meaningful wedding ceremony officiated by someone I care about. :)
@zombies.like.lattés.too: DUDE. I was already ordained Dudeist, but I was not aware that in my state I could actually perform ceremonies. Or, does \"within this state\" mean I have to open my own house of the Latter Day Dude in order to qualify? I'm fuzzy on the regulations of internet ministries. Lotta ins, lotta outs.
Actually...
When I got married it was specified that no drinking was to occur 24 hours before I signed on the line as there was legal precedence in requiring no substance influencing the entry into the legal contract!
Not a religious ceremony, completely a civic one. But that said, I think if this was stated before hand, I think the Minister was right in walking out as per the zero tolerance policy.
That said, could the Minister have overlooked it? Sure? But it does create a legal black hole for her later on if the couple gets separated and decides to contest using the booze as a point of contention.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-426969-100x100.png\")
@Meeker: I still don't understand this logic. If you show up in a Vegas chapel at 4 in the morning, drunk off your ass, looking to get married, I can understand the rule.
On the otherhand, if you regulary meet with a minister to make arrangements to get married at some point in the future, you've already demonstrated your intention to get married. I presume this person wasn't drunk when they provided the minister a $50 deposit. At this point, big deal if they had something to drink on their big day.
@Scoobatz:
Here's the logic. Prior intent is basically meaningless. Under the law, a person has to sign a contract of a free will and with a sound mind at the time of the signing. What if one of them changed their mind, then \"re-changed\" while under the booze? Or, what if, in the past, some couple going through divorce used that as an excuse to give them an advantage in the settlement, claiming the marriage was never legal ( and put the minister or someone she knew or heard of in hot water for signing off on a marriage when one party was too intoxicated to legally sign ). Maybe it's a bit overboard over ONE drink; but, if something like that happened, I'd probably have a zero or extreemely limited alcohol policy too. But, I'd make it clear upfront. Since the minister apparenty didn't explain it very well upfront ( indirectly through the coordinator ), she should at least refund the deposit.
@Scoobatz: they didn't regularly meet the minister, it was a rent-a-minister they met the day of the wedding.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
Sorry, stories like this make me think of Maude Flanders from The Simpsons.
nice how she saw a bridesmaid drinking and immediately thought to ask the bride if she had... because obviously if one person has a glass of wine then EVERYONE does it?
Oh come on, 90% of marriages wouldn't even happen if not for the influence of alcohol somewhere along the way.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4459-100x100.png\")
zero tolerance = zero intelligence
Gillian Kresila should be required to give them back their money since she is incorrect about the law which she states as being the reason for her action!
It is a sad commentary that she would leave them high and dry for a glass of wine. Even more disingenuous is the fact that she never told them directly.
Obviously, since she had a glass of wine, there was never a 'meeting of the minds' on the meaning of 'said' contract and therefor it migt be nulinvoid?
This makes perfect sense. Marriage requires capacity. Alcohol keeps you from having the legal capacity to marry. If you are drinking you no longer have the capacity to sign the license with the officiant.
Ramifications could be the voiding of the marriage if it goes sour. \"Your honor, I was drunk when we got married. I did not have the requisite capacity to enter into a marriage contract. This makes my marriage void therefor I don't have to pay spousal maintenance and she can go rot somewhere. Toodles!\"
I applaud the officiant for her walking out!
@JohnAllison: The marriage license was taken out weeks before the ceremony; the wedding obviously was a planned event and not a spur-of-the-moment affair. You are saying that one glass of wine before an planned event robs the bride of her capacity to sign the document - as if she was going to change her mind?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-52395-100x100.png\")
@JohnAllison: Dude, it's not like the bride was drunk, and unless she decided to get married that day, it's highly unlikely she was drunk-and-lacking-capacity for her entire engagement.
Ohio's \"no license for the inebriated\" is meant to prevent crazy Vegas-style drunken instant weddings, not to keep people from having a glass of wine.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
@JohnAllison: If it takes years before you are sober then you are an alcoholic who really couldn't enter into a contract not under the influence, since you'd sign anything to get your next drink.
how come brides will pay tons of money for a dress they wear once, pick out usually ugly bridesmaid dresses, overpriced flowers, cakes, etc......yet bitch about spending $150 on the person who is performing the ceremony?
if you don't go to a church, why do you want a religious ceremony? just get a judge or go to city hall.
@nakedinlb: Nowhere in the article did it say how much the bride paid for her dress. For all you know, she got it second-hand and for free.
there needs to be more drunken brides and grooms.....the videos on youtube and america's funniest home videos are getting old. we want new ones of people making idiots of themselves!!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-155249-100x100.png\")
OK, so I would have gotten way curious about the fact that the officiant wasn't even at the rehearsal. How can the officiant know what's going on if they're not at the only run-through?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-775841-100x100.png\")
PAY $100 to get married? Heck, my minister paid for my wedding!
But, then again, he was my father and performed the ceremonies for all three of his daughters when we each got married. It was really special to have him walk me down then stand in front of us. And there was none of this 'giving the bride away' mess, he didn't own me, and wasn't giving me to anyone. We all felt that way.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53212-100x100.png\")
They should still sue her.
If not to set precedent, then to clarify the purpose of the law to avoid misuse by power-tripping clergy. (While IANAL, I'd assume the purpose would be to keep people from making a life-changing decision (getting married) while under the influence. Not to keep EVERYONE in the wedding party under the same strict moral code as the pastor/priest performing the ceremony.)
But I'd expect they would definitely have a case there.
The only one Kresila saw drinking (the only one who they admitted to her as having drank one glass of wine) was a BRIDESMAID.
So even her excuse that \"it's against the law in Ohio to marry people under the influence\" didn't hold as the bridesmaid wasn't being married.
And even if the law states \"Ohio law only refers to not providing a marriage license to someone under the influence.\", then AGAIN the BRIDESMAID wasn't the one being presented the license.
Take her to court.
Sounds like breach of contract to me, with emotional distress.
@Coop: Nah. Sounds like the bride and groom want to move forward with their new married life and don't really want to take the time and energy to sue over such a paltry amount ($50).
Besides, it all went well in the end (they did find someone to officiate), and as the bride said in the news video, now they have something to tell their children and grandchildren.
The negative publicity this minister is going to receive will be far more damaging than taking her to small claims court.
Universal Life Church. Marriages, bar mitzvahs, funerals, all for the price of a certificate.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-72887-100x100.png\")
For those of you who are planning to hire a non-denominational minister sight unseen for your destination wedding, let me remind you to check on one detail we overlooked.
The minister we hired helped us write our vows via email, was very prompt and nice, filed all the necessary paperwork for us, gave us all the important information that we needed, and charged us a fair price.
What we forgot to ask in advance was that she, you know, smarten up a bit for the wedding. It was an outdoor afternoon wedding, but still, she knew the rest of us were going to be wearing long dresses and tuxedos, and this was at a swanky resort. And it never occurred to me to request that she wear something nicer than a long, wrinkly button-down shirt, ill-fitting and faded stirrup pants, and scuffed plastic shoes when she officiated.
Seriously. Stirrup pants. In 2006. I would have paid her an extra $100 if I'd realized she hadn't bought new clothes in the last two decades.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-473526-100x100.png\")
Do you even need a minister? Once you have the license and sign the thing, you are done. The rings and all that is just for show.
Honestly, you know what the couple's big mistake was? Using a \"minister for hire.\"
If you're not devout enough to have your own ministor/priest/whatever make time to marry you, you're probably not devout enough to need a church wedding. Don't act surprised when a hollow exercise of religion backfires.
Don't get married by a minister you don't know. Most ministers for hire are yahoos. If they weren't, they wouldn't have the time to perform weddings for strangers -- Members of their congregation would be hiring them.
(My brother and his wife got were married by a Catholic priest they didn't know. In the middle of the ceremony, he starts rambling about drive-by shootings. I think he might have been the one who started drinking early that day.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-105533-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350350-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1226025-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-857746-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-219805-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
Minister-zilla?
@BWoodle: You didn't offer the judge a meal at the reception? I thought that was customary. Maybe it's just the polite thing to do
@Easton21:
I think being a Christian minister makes him a Godzilla.