Source: http://www.jailhouseweddings.com/legal-pathfinder.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:54:32+00:00

Document:
I will follow the path of marriage discrimination from as far back as the 1800’s. As a marriage officiate that performs Inmate/Detainee marriages I run into a great deal of opposition. As I started the research for Inmate marriages I found that the discrimination is way deeper than just the lack of understanding that people have for what they do not understand or agree with. One of the greatest hardships is with the County Recorders rules regarding the need for the physical appearance of the bride and groom when applying for the marriage license. Affidavit of inability to appear form is required by some counties; in most California Counties they require at least one, either bride or groom to be present to pull the license. This can not always be the case, as in the marriage I am working on now with both are in custody.
(a) General Rule-No person shall be joined in marriage in this Commonwealth until a marriage license has been obtained.
(b) Place of marriage ceremony-A license issued under this part shall authorize a marriage ceremony to be performed in any county of this Commonwealth.
(c) Identity of Applicants-Prior to issuance of the license, the person issuing the license must be satisfied as to the identity of both of the applicants.
(a)The person solemnizing the marriage physically presents an affidavit to the county clerk explaining the reason for the inability to appear.
(b)The affidavit is signed under penalty of perjury by the person solemnizing the marriage and by both parties.
(c)The signature of any party to be married who is unable to appear in person before the county clerk is authenticated by a notary public or a court prior to the county clerk issuing the confidential marriage license.
(d)Sufficient reason includes proof of hospitalization, incarceration, or any other reason proved to the satisfaction of the county clerk.
(c)The signature of any party to be married who is unable to appear in person before the county clerk is authenticated by a notary public or a court prior to the county clerk issuing the marriage license.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Ask A Lawyer Online.
This is a case where a correction officer and an inmate fell in love and she was told if she continued in a relationship she would lose her job.
The court affirmed the district court's application of a strict scrutiny level of review to prison rules prohibiting inmates from exchanging mail with other inmates and from marrying and the district court's finding that the rules were unconstitutional.
Appellant prisoner challenged the order of appellee Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Orphans' Court (Pennsylvania), which denied his writ of mandamus and dismissed his appeal from the orphans' court's refusal to issue him a marriage license. The prisoner's fiancée had gone to the office of the clerk of the orphans' court to obtain the license. The clerk refused the application, because the prisoner was unable to personally appear.
Appellants, a husband and his wife, sought review of a judgment from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia which held that Va. Code Ann. §§ 20-58 and 20-59, which were adopted by to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications, did not violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Plaintiff in error appealed an order of the Alabama Supreme Court which upheld his conviction for living in a state of adultery with a white woman, in violation of Ala. Code § 4189. Plaintiff in error claimed that § 4189 violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it denied him equal protection of the law.
Plaintiff prisoner and his fiancée sought to marry but were unable to obtain a marriage license because the prisoner was incarcerated. Plaintiffs alleged a violation of their constitutional right to marry and sought injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorney's fees. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.
§ 551.10 Purpose and scope.
§ 551.11 Authority to approve a marriage.
§ 551.12 Eligibility to marry.
§ 551.13 Application to marry.
§ 551.16 Marriage ceremony in the institution.
My personal web site regarding inmate marriages.
National Geographic exploring Prison love.
In the monthly AELE Monthly Law journal the article covers prison marriages.
No shortages of women who dream of snaring a husband on Death Row / Experts ponder why deadliest criminals get so many proposals.
Family guide to visiting California State Prisons, see chapter 6 pages 49 & 50 regarding marriage.

References: § 4189
 § 4189

§ 551

§ 551

§ 551

§ 551

§ 551