May 22, 2007

Justice Scalia presided over a wedding here in Madison this weekend.

Except not officially. He had to hand the man-and-wife pronouncement over to Shirley Abrahamson -- Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court -- because he's not authorized to perform weddings in Wisconsin.

9 comments:

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Who's the high-power Wisconsin law couple?

Ann Althouse said...

Sorry, I left the link out. Seems like it was his son's professor.

Revenant said...

I'm guessing a former clerk of his.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

I hope Abrahamson didn't pronounce them man and wife. Husband and wife might be better. Of course that does fuel all the "a man is a man before and after he marries, but a woman becomes a wife. See? Men don't have to change at all to be married!" nonsense.

Richard Fagin said...

The Justices of the Supreme Court aren't authorized to conduct weddings in Texas, either, although judges of the Federal courts in the state are.

MadisonMan said...

It's interesting that the name of the married couple isn't included in the story. I'm guessing by their choice, but wouldn't that be newsworthy?

The Drill SGT said...

MadisonMan said...
It's interesting that the name of the married couple isn't included in the story. I'm guessing by their choice, but wouldn't that be newsworthy?


MM, you of all people should know better. Why would a Professor want the Academy or the local wacko's to know that he was even seen with Scalia?

hdhouse said...

now if we can just get him not to decide stuff in washington he will be completely out of a job...ohhh woe unto us. can he perform civil unions?

Nataraj said...

Of course Scalia can 'preside' over the wedding. According to WI law the couple can be married by:
765.16(3)
(3) The 2 parties themselves, by mutual declarations that they take each other as husband and wife, in accordance with the customs, rules and regulations of any religious society, denomination or sect to which either of the parties may belong.

and further...

765.22 Immaterial irregularities as to authority of person officiating. No marriage hereafter contracted shall be void by reason of want of authority or jurisdiction in the officiating person solemnizing such marriage, if the marriage is in other respects lawful, and is consummated with the full belief on the part of the persons so married, or either of them, that they have been lawfully joined in marriage.

All the State cares about is the marriage license and 2 witnesses.

Natajudge