Ohio Couple Tie the Knot at McDonald's

Another smudge on the distinguishing line between sacred and profane.

Well, if that's where they met, it's special to them I suppose.

Funny you should post this Reyn....my husband and I married each other again just this morning.

Of course there was no minister there....but a minister wasn't marrying us....we were marrying each other.


Now that I think about it, why do so many people say that some priest, judge or minister "married us"...they just officiate a the 2 people's marrying each other.

Tsk, tsk, just not a romantic, eh?

Sort of like an ongoing re-committment to each other?

No, actually it was the first time we'd ever done that.

We didn't even know it was going to happen 30 seconds before.

We just suddenly found ourselves taking our vows with each other, and declaring ourselves married.

A marriage needs to be certified by someone who has the necessary credentials to do so, otherwise it is not recognized by the state (government, whatever). Without such an acknowledgement, a legal marriage has not taken place. In a way, that priest or judge is giving marriage to the couple, enabling that union to take place. And the foundation of that union is the process of marrying. That is to say, marriage is the result of that process. So if you look at marriage as the formation of the union by legally or religiously recognized means, you need at least three people to participate actively in the ceremony: the couple and the officiant. All three need to be involved in the formative process of marrying to create that marriage.

That's why I said officiating smog....the judge, minister officiates at the wedding...

the 2 people wed each other
they marry each other.

the priest/judge isn't "giving" them anything. They are, for lack of a better term "witnessing" that the marriage is taking place between the two people, thereby being able to give evidence to the world that these 2 people wed.

In texas, we acknowledge common law marriage. No one even offiated in that case...yet, a common law marriage is legally binding.

I was just meaning to give the etymological roots of the term. "Marrying" was traditionally seen as the act by which a marriage was created, and of course traditionally a judge or priest was essential to create a marriage. And that way of saying it still carries on, to some degree, today. I'm not saying that that's necessarily the most correct way to express it (I don't think it is, in fact), but I'm a sucker for the dictionary.

oh no, it was interesting smog.

it just make sense to me that a person who stands in front of you for 5 minutes could really have anything to do with the rest of your life....they're just a rubber stamper.

Did they consummate the marriage by the fry cooker? That would explain the substance found in my bag of fries the other day.

Did it look like vanilla shake?

Reyn observed:



I'm an agnostic, but it seems to me that a MacDonald's Ceremony is more important for a Civil Union than an rite so holy it may not be profaned by loving gay and lesbian couples.

oh googd point noddy, I hadn't thought of it that way.

California does not recognize common law marriage. But we do recognize common law marriage of people from other states. Go figure. We just call it shacking up..