I have 2 non-theist friends who wish to become married. A discussion
came up where I mentioned I would be delighted to be the person who
marries them (preforms the ceremony). As an atheist myself, I was
hoping you could help me find some sort of organisation that would
grant some kind of official title which under Canadian law would allow
me to preform this type of ceremony, but does not subscribe to any
type of theism. I would be willing to start my own "religion" (I would
likely call it a house of learning) if need be. They do not wish to be
married by a judge, and I do not have time to go to extensive
education to gain this title. I've heard of Internet based faith
groups, but I haven't found anything non-theist. Please help!

quick google search turned this up

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/weddings.html

hope that helps
------------
The question arises, from time to time, about what non-theists can do
if they want something more elaborate than a courthouse wedding,
performed by some clerk, but they don't want to go through anything
which looks like its a "church wedding." Well, there is an
alternative, but it usually takes a great deal of work by the main
participants. In essence, you can design your own wedding ceremony.

The actual legal requirements for a wedding vary from place to place,
but they are usually pretty minimal. In general, they amount to:

    * Obtaining a governmental "marriage license" valid in the
jurisdiction where the ceremony will be performed;
    * Having an "authorized person" perform the ceremony; and
    * Returning the "necessary documentation" to the licensing government.

So, other than pure paperwork, the only requirement that must be met
is that an "authorized person" has to perform the wedding ceremony.
....

Why not go do the paper signing at the courthouse and have a party
later? That's really all a wedding is-- a contract ceremony and a
party.

Oy, your poor parents...

Considering that it was God himself who instituted the concept of
marriage by uniting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, does it not
seem strange that two people who apparently do not believe in God,
should want the benefits that non-registry marriage brings. This of
course includes the very pleasant celebrations of the wedding day,
feast, guests, friends and trappings. Surely no one can claim that a
registry office wedding, although legal, can offer the same benefits.
If these two do not want to be seen as hypocritical, they should stick
by their "belief" of not believing in God, and get married, purely
legally, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW OF THE LAND...in a registry office.

hmm I disagree with pugwashjw65-ga, the wedding ceremony in a church
is a very nice tradition. The fact that a couple does not share the
religious beliefs associated with that tradition should not preclude
these people from enjoying the ceremony. For instance December 25 is
not the day Jesus was born, Christmas is not a celebration of his
birth, that however did not prevent the Christians from enjoying the
festivities and in time modifying it so that the image portrayed by
the festivities would be that of celebrating the birth of Christ
althought he festivities in off themselves had originally nothing to
do with Christianity.

By the same token a church wedding makes gives the union a nice
festive/solem atmosphere that a civil retry office lacks. I can
envision a conversion of church weddings in the future so that they
retain all the good things about the festivity (much in the same way
that Xmas did with the the feast of the Son of Isis that was
celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and
drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast) and none of
the religious beliefs attached to it today.

Another good example of festivities that no longer have their meaning
but we enjoy would be Holloween. IMO Xmas will be celebrated in the
future in the same way we celebrate Holloween today, with the tree and
Santa and the toys but without the mythological references.

So I say rent yourself a Church and enjoy the wonderful ceremony
without a priest, sermon or other religious stuff attached.

I know I would do that!   

:-)

Elids. A couple of further comments. " A wedding in a church is a nice
tradition". Granted. A tradition of religion. Not of government or any
other organisation. I am well aware and firmly believe that December
25 is not Jesus' birthday. He asked us to ONLY celebrate his death.
The Christians of Jesus' day did NOT celebrate December 25 as his
birthday. His true followers stuck exactly with what he taught them.
To use a church for a wedding is to unconsciously ask for God's
approval of the marriage. And to make the photos look good.
If a church building has no special connotations, there should be no
difference whether they are married in a church or a pumping station.
Both keep the rain off.

Hi pugwashjw65, 

Yes, I would agree in principal with you. I put the xmas example
because traditions are not really made out of nothing, generally
speaking most of what we do is a variation/evolution of something our
parents or their ancestors did. Xmas grew into a Christian religious
celebration of the birth of Jesus, because the existing festivities
around the time of the winter solstice were adopted by Chrisians for
their own purpose about 4 centuries after that fact. The same will
happen with our descendants as they become less and less influenced by
mythological beliefs, the church weddings will remain the mythology
that we attach to that will not. Xmas, the spirit of xmas, Santa and
everything associated with it will persist, the mythology will be
forgotten much in the same way we do with Holloween today. For
instance although Easter finds it's roots in Christian mythology I
know people today that are 15 and have no idea of that, I would bet
that in three generations people will be surprised to find out that
the easter bunny is somehow tied to ancient mythology. You are right
there is no difference from a legal point of view, whether they are
married in a pumping station or in a church, however one has the nice
feeling/tradition and the other, well, not so much. Ideally there
would be Marrying places sprouting here and there, that would give
people the feeling we get out of the church wedding but without the
mythology attached. Until that happens though, people will have to
make do with renting a church for their purposes. You know, use what
is there already until there is enough people to make it worth
building new buildings.

Let's get back to 2006-ga's question.  I would suggest that the couple
have the minimal civil ceremony and then that you, 2006, perform a
ceremony of the couple's choice  - in a place of their choice.  A lot
of the text of Christian wedding liturgies is "good stuff"  - the
promises to each other, what most couples would want to avow, but
there are other texts, or what they agree to.  That preparation and
agreement could be the more meaningful exercise, only confirmed by
their saying their vows in the ceremony.
But I am assuming they want to say such, not just have you say "a few
appropriate words."
It seems (to me) best that the couple really go to an authorized
person to fulfill the legal requirement and the do what they want for
the more emotional ceremony.
IMHO, it cheapens  - lessens the commitment -  if you can somehow be
recognized as an authorized person to perform the marriage.
 
Regards, Myoarin

So, people who do not beleive in God want to be married but not not by a Judge.

Isn't the question then "Whose approval are they seeking?" 
Personally, I have to wonder why.

If they want the legal benefits of marriage, then I would think a
Judge would be appropriate and it is the government's approval they
seek.  I don't know if another office holder would qualify under
Canadian Law but the inconsistency of the question caught my
attention.  If they want government benefits, they need to get
government approval.  Why would a Church be preferable to a Judge ? 
It wouldn't mean anything.  There are lots of nice places that aren't
churches.

If they don't want to be married to obtain the government status, and
God is irrelevant, it doesn't matter does it ?  Their marriage is then
meaningless except to them anyway.  It has no significance outside of
its meaning to them and, perhaps, the hopes of others that their
narcisism is limited to their refusal to beleive that there is any
higher power or greater meaning to life, and others may only care
because of how a break-up would affect them personally.  Without God,
there is no reason for people to do anything for anyone but
themselves.  Whether their marriage means anything or not is then
entirely subjective.  If they get bored with each other, they can
abandon their marriage, children or not, the equities be how they may,
and it will mean nothing at all.  If anyone disapproves, so what ? 
It's just their contrary personal preference.  Without God, there is
no "right" or "wrong," no "good" or "bad."  It's all then just
subjective.  Do what you like.  There's no greater meaning to
anything.  Life itself is just an accident and has no meaning.  If you
want to wear a funny hat and pretend to have some authority and
pretend that it means anything, have fun.

I think they should either stop trying to give meaning to a
meaningless arbitrary act in their meaningless, accidental existence
(which seems a very foolish exercise) or they should just maybe stop
and think about why they feel a desire to imbue their act of marriage
with greater solemnity.  Is it just their wasted, foolish hope that
they might encourage each other to pretend that they are doing
anything but pursuing activities which further their own self
interest, or is it that they sense that there is a greater
significance to some things, some acts, than others.  However, if
there is any objective significance or value to anything, it must have
an objective source.  A denial of that is just willful illogic.

Is congratulations appropriate ?

You have just given the best possible example for my often stated
"religious people need God because they lack the moral standards to
live without the fear of a supernatural being, and are constantly
seeking it's approval". Because they live in that world they assume
that everybody else does as well, they fail to understand that other
people have the moral fortitude to stand on their own as human beings.
With that in mind we can begin to understand were they are coming
from.

There are many rituals we do in life that are meaningless in the eyes
of the law, of 'God', of society. We constantly engage in rituals
because we are social animals and the rituals help us bond, our social
rituals are the elaborate equivalent of chimp grooming, we can't very
well go around grooming each other all the time, so we create more
expedient, flamboyant and elaborate rituals that because of their very
nature are displays to all of society of our commitments. Some may not
mean a thing, but they allow us to grow into the new position. A
police officer would be a police officer without the graduation, but
he would have never had a transition.  A couple is just as married
with an elaborate wedding as without but the elaborate ceremony in
front of our peers is a way of telling the world this woman/man is
mine, we are now a couple for life. We need our rituals because we are
(for the most part) social animals, some of us (the more practical
ones) could do without those rituals just fine, but society as a whole
can not, at least not yet.

This nation would be just as much a nation if it never celebrated the
4th of July, but it wouldn't quite be the same now would it? we like,
even need our rituals.

To understand the other try to see the world through his eyes, he may
not be as weak, or self righteous, try to see what he sees, he is not
necessarily 'you'.
------

myoarin- although I agree with the rest of your post, I don't
understand "IMHO, it cheapens  - lessens the commitment -  if you can
somehow be recognized as an authorized person to perform the
marriage." why would it? don't follow that.

If marriage is just a substitute for public "chimp grooming," and the
participants wish only to facilitate harmonious group behavior to
fulfill their self interests, I think it portrays them in a very
primitive, simple light indeed.  I give them more credit... But how
sad it is for people to want to have a church wedding because they are
seeking the "feeling" of those who wed there with the heartfelt belief
that their marriage truly has a solemn component and a significance
beyond themselves when, all the while, those seekers believe that
their act, even their very lives, are meaningless except only to
themselves.

You say "religious people need God because they lack the moral standards to
live without the fear of a supernatural being..." as if it's a failing
but, aside from either misinterpreting the word "fear" from its
context or, realizing its contextual meaning, intentionally misusing
it in a way that could sound legitimate for the purpose of argument,
you don't seem to see that you cannot have "moral standards" without
God.  Without God, there is no absolute morality and, without an
absolute morality, your so called "standards" are arbitrary and self
imposed.  Your "moral standards" have no more weight than have you the
ability to compel others to abide by them.  They also have no "value"
except to you and anyone else who decides they like them.  You may
prefer behavior that encourages social harmony and assign it an
arbitrary value according to your own personal preferences but you
have no objective basis for your preferences.  Another may prefer to
take what you have and care nothing for social harmony.  By your
belief system, his "moral standards" are as valid as yours.  In
nature, some chimps eat others.  In my belief system, I am convinced
that people are more than Chimps.

Your soon to wed friends may sense something greater than themselves. 
However, I think it isn't that atheists don't.  I think it's more that
they don't want to.

I wish you a happy December 25th.

Excellent comments so far. 
I have taken alot from the many sides that have shown themselves.
Though no answers have yet been posted that truly addressed my
question, I believe the issue has evolved. To see comments about the
presence or absence of morality, and meaning with or without a higher
entity is well more than I expected.
Myself, and my two friends, IMHO are moral people. We believe what has
been philosiphied for longer than the bible has been written. Treat
those as you would want them to treat you. This is a simple reality,
though an infinitely imporant one. One does no need a higher power to
tell me that I should treat people with the same respect I ask for
myself.

To address the issue of what it is that they are "looking for" by
getting married. I believe they are seeking a way to show each other
the commitment they feel. They are also, of course, interested in
getting the sociatal (read: Governement) benefits of marriage.
Canadian Law grants special rights to those who are married under it.

As a final clarification, the IDEAL situation would be for there to be
a single person, to both preform, and officialise the marriage. This
person, ideally, being me. To re-iterate the conditions; I do not have
thousands of dollars to spent on setting up an organisation, AND I do
not have years to spent in study. I am more than willing to put an
enormous amount of effort into the task however.

Happy Holidays

Very good post Alex, spoken like a man of faith. Faith is by it's very
nature something that requieres a person to believe in something he
has no proof of, something there is no evidence for. Us and our
cousins the chimps and binobos, we can't believe in supernatural
beings be them Santa, Ra, Inti, Zeus or any of the other ones. "...to
fulfill their self interests, I think it portrays them in a very
primitive, simple light indeed." actually it is the other way around.
You see, when our ancestors first 'became human' they tried to explain
and understand themselves and their surroundings, they invented
religion. It was a great leap forward, the invention of religion was
such an incredible achievement that by comparison all technological
achievements of the past 200 years are insignificant. We need to keep
in mind that not too long before that they were animals, they were in
the process of developing language and yet they were able to concieve
an afterlife. This came about because being intelligent animals they
realized other animals like themselves died and, so, they too must
die. That was in direct conflict with their most basic instinct, that
of self preservation. So in order to reconcile these two diametrically
opposed concepts they created an afterlife for themselves, you see;
"we die but not really". With that basis the rest was simply a matter
of time, create a place for our soul to exist, and some companionship,
and when the question arose then were did we come from ahh in that
same place exists a creator that defies explanation... unimaginable
mental leap for our primitive ancestors to take, not long before they
were animals and here they were thinking in the abstract. Eons go by
and we learn a thing or two and realize that it was a nice story for
mankinds infancy but much like Santa was to us when we were kids and
had toleave him behind when we grew up, humanity must leave behind
it's treasured fantasies however nice they might've been. Some kids
choose to believe in Santa till they can no longer avoid it, and then
they still wish it was true for a lot longer, the same is true with
the invisible flying monster. What has any of that to do with "I think
it portrays them in a very primitive, simple light indeed.", that yes
you are right, it does portray us in a simple primitive light, because
we are simple and relatively primitive. Just think about it over 90%
of the world still chooses to believe in an afterlife, we must be
primitive still. Some of us not quite so much but we are very much a
minority. Because we are primitive we need those rituals, we need
those rituals now more than ever, because we are leaving behind one of
our most cherished fantasies.  The ritual is not meaningless, in fact
it is very powerfull, as a man of faith you must have prayed at some
point in your life. If you have you know the power of prayer, prayer
is a ritual, rituals are powerfull.

"you cannot have "moral standards" without God." exactly my point in
the previous post, that is how religious people see the world, however
wrong it may be that is 'the world they live in'.

"Without God, there is no absolute morality" morality is a human
quality, we all have the same 'morality' while it may have certain
local slants due to the nurture effects, at it's core it is simply
empathy. As humans (mammals really but I won't go there here) we have
the ability to feel for others it is how we interpret and what we do
with those feelings that creates our morality.

"your so called "standards" are arbitrary and self
imposed.  Your "moral standards" have no more weight than have you the
ability to compel others to abide by them.  They also have no "value"
except to you and anyone else who decides they like them.  You may
prefer behavior that encourages social harmony and assign it an
arbitrary value according to your own personal preferences but you
have no objective basis for your preferences.  Another may prefer to
take what you have and care nothing for social harmony.  By your
belief system, his "moral standards" are as valid as yours." You are
100% correct there.

"In nature, some chimps eat others.  In my belief system, I am
convinced that people are more than Chimps." True Chimps do on
occasion engage in cannibalism, but the same is true of humans, it
just goes to show that after all we are nothing more than intelligent
animals.  I should note that although it is often said that our
closest relatives are chimps that is not entirely acurate, although
genetically speaking it is about the same distance, Bonobos are
(culturally speaking) closer to us than Chimps are. Lastly I am
convinced we are more than Chimps as well, much more, however I don't
attribute that difference to divine intervention, rather to a very
complicated and completely undefined evolutionary process.

"Your soon to wed friends may sense something greater than themselves.
However, I think it isn't that atheists don't.  I think it's more that
they don't want to."  On the contrary, it would be very nice to
believe in such a thing, in fact it would be very nice to believe in
the tooth fairy as well, it is just that at some point one simply has
to face reality. Given, we may choose not to, but that is a choice we
make.

-----------------

2006-ga

You should be aware that religious ceremonies have absolutely no legal
value in most western societies. It would be just as valid if you
married them as if a priest did, the wedding that has any legal value
is a civil wedding. In order for you to be able to perform a civil
wedding well ... it will take many years  ;-)

I have a bad habit of following my thoughts and not re-reading my
posts before I hit send.... my first paragraph should've closed with ;

-----------------------

Now, since we have learned a thing or two, our perception of ourselves
and our place in the universe has in fact devolved from that of being
creatures in the very shape of 'God the Almighty' to that of an animal
that has evolved intelligence and is self aware and capable of
understanding it's surroundings. That being the case, being that we
are able to understand ourselves we have evolved past were our
ancestors were they needed to believe they were created in the image
of God, we don't. Clearly we are not as primitive as they were, unless
of course we still hold on to that crutch.

I didn't think I would be responding again so quickly, but I do have to say this.
Elids-You bring many good things to the table in your commentary,
however I do not wish to continue the debate over morality, and your
points are not well researched. A religious ceremony is very much
legally binding. Please take a look for the "Marriage Act" statute in
Canadian law. That information is publicly available on official
government websites.
Otherwise, thank you for your input.

>I didn't think I would be responding again so quickly, but I do have to say this.
Elids-You bring many good things to the table in your commentary,
however I do not wish to continue the debate over morality,

2006-ga, I was not 'debating' you or anyone else, my comments were
made in a conversational manner and they were first directed towards
Pugwash and then Alex. They were done for my edification only,
depending on what they might've replied, I have learned a great deal
from others in conversations of the sort.


> and your points are not well researched. 

:-)  my points were not researched at all. I am not a researcher you
can tell researchers from passerby folks that simply comment by their
nicknames, researchers have a link to that particular researcher's
ratings, and previously answered questions. No researcher has taken up
your question all you have so far here are comments of passerby?s like
myself.

>A religious ceremony is very much legally binding. Please take a look
for the "Marriage Act" statute in Canadian law. That information is
publicly available on official government websites.

Actually I said 'most' because of course there would be some countries
in which they are, in England for instance some denominations are
legally binding while others aren't. Again, like I said no research
was done by me in that regard. However, since I made a statement I
will do some research to back it up and post links below.

In some cases like the Czech Republic if you have already contracted a
religious marriage you may not do the same via the civil route. I
would interpret that to mean that is is not only as valid but one and
the same.
http://www.en.domavcr.cz/rady.shtml?x=183979

However in the States, religious weddings in off themselves are
meaningless in the eyes of the law. Now, a priest representing a faith
based denomination can (and almost always does) obtain a license and
become a 'wedding officiant', when he does this, added to the
religious ceremony he will will preside over a civil union that is the
legally recognized marriage contract.

"Civil ceremonies are legally recognized in the United States upon
appropriate filing after arrival. Religious ceremonies are not."
http://www.avalonvacations.com/wedding/we_faq.asp#8

MAINE
Ordained ministers of the Gospel may perform marriages.  Ministers
must be licensed by the Secretary of State before performing
marriages.  Application may be made to the Town Clerk or Treasurer.
There is a $5 application fee.  After the marriage, the minister must
file a copy of the record of marriage with the Town Clerk. For
questions see the Town Clerk.
http://www.countryweddings.com/planning/statelawsne.shtml


I could post a dozen links of the sort but I will simply point to a
page that has links to hundreds of them

http://www.businesschambers.com/sh.cfm?sq=Wedding%20Laws

All of this is within the US, I haven't touched Canada it was never my intent.


>Otherwise, thank you for your input.

You are quite welcome, I do all my postings for entertainment purposes
exclusively, I don't get paid.


I will steer clear of your posts in the future.

Elí

I'm sorry to say that I'm not being very helpful to 2006-ga either but
Elids, you have it oversimplified and your position is full of
assumptions.  You don't know why people did this or that and you
assume that morality is a natural human condition when, from Adam and
Eve on, there is plenty of evidence that it is not.

It isn't that there is no evidence of the existence of a higher
power/God.  There is tons of evidence.  It's really probably far too
involved to go into much here but I will say that I think science is
completely compatible with theology.  True, many people simplify God
into a kind of Santa figure, and many try as hard as they can to shove
Him into a box they can completely comprehend, but it doesn't stop
there.  Some things are simply logical and, through deduction and
induction, we can know quite a bit about our universe and its creator.
 I'm not big on unreasoned faith.  I like the scientific method and I
like to have rational reasons for my beliefs.  For further reading on
the subject of theology and the relationship between science and
theology (if you are interested), I will recommend to you the writings
of:
Gange, Robert. Origins and Destiny Origins and Destiny Word
Publishing, Dallas, TX. 1986. ISBN 0-8499-0447-1
...also Lee Strobel, Einstein, who once said that by his work he hoped
to glimpse the mind of God, and Hawking, who maintains that science
alone cannot explain creation, and a passing look at quantum mechanics
and statistical probability which will show you that the odds of life
occurring at all are incredibly, unimaginally minute in a universe
that literally should not exist.

It isn't a Santa story.  It's just easier for a lot of people on all
sides of the issues to think of it that way sometimes.

One suggestion of first having a legal marriage, then doing whatever
ceremony you wish, is exactly the norm in Mexico.  Due to abuses by
the Catholic Church, Benito Juarez changed the legal system so only a
government marriage has any legal standing whatsoever.  Most folks who
marry first have the marriage in the registry office, then have a big
church wedding in their faith.

And, contrary to the law, most of them seem to consider the church
wedding to be the important one.

That is a real good solution, marry at the registry office, then go
through a ceremony of whatever type you wish by whoever you wish, and
there will be no legal issues at all.

My son and his wife married legally, but did not disclose this to
family who lived in other states. at the appropriate time, they had a
large church wedding, and even the pastor did not seem to know they
were already married. I don't know if that means they applied for a
license in the second state or not.

In Iowa, a marriage ceremony performed by any person whatsoever is
legal, as long as the marriage license is signed and returned to the
court house. However, any person who performs such a   ceremony and is
not authorized by the law to perform it, if caught, is fined.  This
sounds weird, but I just read an old book in which a woman was tricked
into thinking she was married, but really was not, because the person
who did it was not a real judge or pastor.  None of those hi-jinks in
Iowa.  As long as the license is real, the marriage is good.

My soon-to-be wife and I are both Atheists, and have planned a very
nice wedding ceremony.  First, I have to say that I loved the debate
over morality and mythology in this post.  I found myself bound to the
computer here for half an hour reading and rereading several of the
posts.  Without joining the debate, I think Elids hit the nail on the
head, pretty much.

Anyway, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION....  What we did was this.  We rented
a very nice party room in a local golf club.  We were not members of
the club, but they allowed non-members to rent the room, provided that
it was not needed by members.  It was actually very reasonable, just
$200 + the price of the food for guests, which ended up costing about
$25-$30 per head.  We got an independednt wedding officiant, which we
found via a web search.  In the states, as Eli pointed out, you must
be a state-licensed wedding officiant to legally bind two people, even
if you are a preacher, minister, etc...  However, there are literally
hundreds of licensed officiants in any state.  In Florida, you can get
a license if you are a certified public notary, so many NP's will
stand by as official signatures at a ceremony done by someone else.

My fiance and I almost went this route, and were going to have my
brother do the ceremony while a NP stood by to witness the act.  But,
in the course of planning, we decided that we needed my brother to be
a groomsman, so we found a wonderful officiant, who is
non-denominational, and frequently presides over non-theistic
weddings.  I think he has a background as an ordained minister, but he
(as Eli rightly pointed out) finally saw the light and realized that
his religion was an "oppressive and angry mob" as he put it.  He is
still a man of faith, but his faith is private and never pushed on
others.  We talked with him several times and really liked him a lot. 
Our ceremony is going to be very much like you basic religious
wedding, except that the readings and comments and vows will all be
taken from multiple sources, including some works of Mark Twain,
several poets, and even some readings from.....yes....the bible.  This
does not, in my eyes, introduce any religion in the ceremony.  The
bible, while considered a religious work, is really a collection of
all kinds of interesting and beautiful writings, intermingled with
useless and appauling rhetoric.  The key is to extract the beautiful
and meaningful, and use it as it may have originally be intended by
the authors.

We are going to have a harpist performing during the ceremony.  She is
going to be doing a collection of classic and contemporary rock love
songs.  We were thinking of Enya's Sheppard Moon as the bride's
processional.  My suggestion of Sir Mixalot's "Baby Got Back" got
outvoted.  =)

Hope this helps..

-Rob