<p>srystress: Jewish marriage/divorce law is actually a very fraught topic in some circles. </p>
<p>The basic requirements for a traditional Jewish marriage are extremely simple: The groom says something to a willing bride along the lines of “You are betrothed to me according to the laws of Moses and Israel” in the presence of two observant, adult males in good standing in the community. There have supposedly been cases now and then of young teens in modern orthodox communities who thought it was very romantic to do this, and were then horrified to learn that they were actually required to go through a religious divorce if they wanted to marry someone else.</p>
<p>In practice, Jewish marriages are somewhat more complicated, and involve a number of additional affirmations and rituals (ring-giving, the signing of the ketuba, or marriage contract, sharing a cup of wine). The presence of a rabbi is not technically required at all, so the denomination of the rabbi officiating doesn’t really matter. HOWEVER, many non-Orthodox marriages would not be considered valid by Orthodox authorities for a number of reasons. One would be if alterations to the traditional statements (even if the main, essential one is included) or clauses in the ketuba violate Orthodox interpretations of traditional law, suggesting that the couple is not actually being married “according to the laws of Moses and Israel.” The most common example of this would be the inclusion of a clause in the ketuba that states that the couple will not go through the traditional, quite sexist divorce process in the event of divorce. Another common reason why a non-Orthodox marriage would not be considered valid would be the use of women or non-Jews as witnesses. Technically, the use of non-observant Jews as witnesses would also be grounds for invalidating a marriage, but this would only be invoked in very rare circumstances, and I think it is fairly likely that even some modern Orthodox weddings could probably be challenged on this issue. </p>
<p>In Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, both partners must be Jewish. In Reform Judaism, only one needs to be. Whether or not both partners are considered Jewish also depends on the denomination - if one of the partners was converted by a conservative rabbi, that person will (usually) not be considered Jewish by Orthodox standards, and someone converted by a Reform Rabbi (or considered Jewish by patrilineal descent) will not be accepted as halachically Jewish (halacha is Jewish law) by either or the other two denominations. </p>
<p>All that being said, in practice, that status of one’s marriage, assuming the partners themselves don’t care, has little effect unless a person is getting divorced or getting remarried after a divorce. This is because children born out of wedlock are not considered illegitimate, but children who are indisputably born of adulterous unions (i.e, the mother is still married to another man and was not been living with her husband at the time of conception) are, and face severe restrictions on their participation in the community.</p>
<p>Mamzerim (the children born of adultery) are extremely rare, and the laws relating to them were probably intended more as a caution against adultery than as an actual attempt to punish the children. Indeed, there was a rule in ancient Jewish society that it was forbidden to inquire into the status of a suspected mamzer - a kind of early “don’t ask, don’t tell,” if you will. I’m not going to go into it unless someone cares to know more, but there are a number of reasons, both then and now, that it would take a set of very specific circumstances to produce a mamzer. </p>
<p>What is problematic is divorce. A Jewish divorce requires that a man grant his wife something called a “get,” which essentially releases them from their marital obligations. By ancient standards, Jewish divorce law was actually considered extremely progressive. For one thing, divorce was not reserved for cases of infidelity or other serious breaches; the equivalent of 'irreconcilable differences" would suffice. Additionally, while the husband ultimately had to grant the divorce, women could initiate the proceedings and use communal pressure to force her husband to give it to her. Although the burden of proof for a women seeking a get was (I think) somewhat higher than for a man, it was reasonably liberal - serious abuse, withholding sex, which was considered a marital right of women, failure to provide and even, according to one passage in the Talmud (oral law), the husband engaging in a particularly disgusting profession that makes him undesirable to the wife. If a husband wouldn’t consent, he could be shunned by the entire community; in some extreme cases, physical force was applied, although this was technically forbidden. If the husband remained recalcitrant, sympathetic rabbis would sometimes try to find reasons to declare the marriage invalid - if the man had misrepresented himself before the marriage, for instance, he might decide that her consent was given under false pretenses.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the system is often far less progressive today, and not just because the system itself is no longer liberal by modern standards. Rabbis in many ultra-orthodox communities are frequently far less willing to apply pressure on husbands, as they tend to put the burden of making the marriage work on wives and don’t look kindly on ones who want to leave. There are many stories of women who spend years and sometimes the rest of their lives in a terrible limbo, unable to move on with their lives because of a vindictive ex. In less severe cases, even men in less extreme communities who want a divorce are willing to extort a better settlement from their wives by holding the get over her head. Fortunately, there are advocacy groups dedicated to helping these women.</p>
<p>If a person has previously been married to a non-Jew and wants to remarry, no divorce is necessary. If someone had been married to a Jew in a non-halachically valid ceremony and, for whatever reason, didn’t get a Jewish divorce, the rabbi presiding over the second marriage will probably question witnesses to verify that the previous marriage was invalid and then declare the parties free to marry. The case of a woman whose previous husband has refused a get is where technicalities come in. Very few people would deny that my parents, who were married in an otherwise halachic ceremony but whose witnesses were not Sabbath observant (this is usually the litmus test for valid witnesses), have a valid marriage. Indeed, had they been married by their current Orthodox rabbi rather than their previous conservative one, they would still probably have been able to use the same witnesses. If, however, my father abandoned my mother and wouldn’t give her a divorce, their rabbi might use the fact that their witnesses were not observant to free her from the marriage. For practical purposes, however, even people who have far more problematic marriages, from a traditional perspective, then my parents are accepted by the community as married under Jewish law. This is why, as far as I know, even couples who become Orthodox after their marriage rarely have a second ceremony as long as they had some semblance of a Jewish wedding originally.</p>
<p>Whew!</p>
<p>Ah - cross posted with JHS and paying3tuitions! That will teach me to leave a post for an hour…</p>
He’s suddenly saying things like, “Hmm… Maybe I should join the Knights of Columbus…” and “Hmm… Maybe I should become a deacon someday…!”</p>