Question
You asked whether the self-uniting Quaker marriage between P~ and P2~ was valid and,
if so, whether it should be recorded as a common law marriage or a ceremonial marriage.
We conclude that the marriage was a valid ceremonial marriage under Tennessee law,
where it was celebrated, and that Ohio would recognize the validity of such a marriage.
Background
P2~ (SSN XXX-XX-XXXX) applied for Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB) on October XX,
2018. S~ Application. In her application, she stated that she married P~ (SSN XXX-XX-XXXX)
on April X, 1996, and was still married to him. S~ Application. Her application indicated
that she was a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio. S~ Application. On October XX, 2018,
SSA awarded RIB to S~ beginning in October 2018. S~ RSI Award.
On December XX, 2019, B~ applied for spousal benefits on S~ account. ICLM Summary
at 1. In support of his application, B~ submitted a Certificate of Marriage from Hamilton
County, Tennessee (Certificate). The Certificate stated that B~ and S~ were married
by “L~, Officiant,” on April X, 1996, and that the county clerk officially recorded
the marriage on April X, 1996. Certificate. The Certificate was stamped with the county
seal and signed by the county clerk and deputy clerk. Certificate. In addition, S~
submitted an SSA Marriage Certification form, on which she attested that P~ was her
spouse, and that their marriage was performed in a Quaker meeting, signed by the clerk
of the meeting. Form SSA-3.
Discussion
I. Entitlement to Spousal Benefits.
The Social Security Act generally requires that the applicant be the “husband” of
the insured individual to be entitled to husband’s benefits. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(a)(1),
(f)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.330(a). To determine whether a man is validly married to an
insured individual, SSA looks to the law of the State where the insured individual
is domiciled (has her permanent home) at the time the man applied for husband’s benefits.
42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Nonetheless, because states usually
recognize the validity of a marriage that was valid in the state where it was celebrated,
the law of the place where the marriage occurred ordinarily determines the validity
of a marriage in other states, as well. POMS GN 00305.005(B)(1). However, if a marriage violates the law or public policy of the state of the
insured’s current state of domicile, the marriage may be void in that state. POMS
GN 00305.005(B)(1); Loughran v. Loughran , 292 U.S. 216, 223 (1934) (“Marriages not polygamous
or incestuous, or otherwise declared void by statute, will, if valid by the law of
the state where entered into, be recognized as valid in every other jurisdiction”)
(citing Meister v. Moore , 96 U.S. 76 (1877)); Travers v. Reinhardt , 205 U.S. 423, 440 (1907)). A certified copy of a public record of marriage is among
SSA’s preferred proofs of ceremonial marriage. POMS GN 00305.020(A)(1).
II. Neither Tennessee nor Ohio Recognize Common Law
Marriage.
Tennessee has never recognized common law marriage. Smith v. North Memphis Savings Bank, 89 S.W. 392, 396 (Tenn. 1905); Andrews v. Signal Auto Parts, Inc. 492 S.W. 2d 222, 223 (Tenn. 1972). Ohio has not recognized common law marriage since
1991, after B~ and S~ married and before they moved to Ohio. Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.12(B)(1).
Consequently, B~ marriage would not be considered valid in either Ohio or Tennessee
unless if it is considered a ceremonial marriage at the time the marriage took place
in Tennessee.
III. Tennessee Recognizes Quaker Marriage Rites as Equal
to Ceremonial Marriage.
In Tennessee, a marriage is valid if a couple has obtained a marriage license from
a county clerk and solemnized the marriage through a ceremony conducted by someone
qualified to perform the ceremony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-103(a); Basha v.
State, 9 Tenn. 177, 186 (Tenn. 1829). Tennessee explicitly recognizes the validity of solemnization
through Quaker marriage rites: “The traditional marriage rite of the Religious Society
of Friends (Quakers), whereby the parties simply pledge their vows to one another
in the presence of the congregation, constitutes an equally effective solemnization
[to one performed by an ordained minister, priest, or rabbi].” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-301(b).
In most cases, the person who performs the marriage must note the fact and time of
the marriage, and return the license to the county clerk within three days of the
marriage. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-303(a). In the case of a Quaker marriage, those duties
fall to the clerk of the congregation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-303(b). The county clerk
must subsequently record and certify any license used to solemnize a marriage, and
forward the record to the state Office of Vital Records. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-103(c)(1).
B~ and S~ have a Marriage Certificate, signed by the County Clerk and Deputy Clerk
of Hamilton County, Tennessee, certifying that their marriage was solemnized on April
X, 1996, and presented to the County Clerk on April X, 1996. The Marriage Certificate
states that L~ was the officiant who performed the marriage. S~ Form SSA 3 (Marriage
Certification), and other materials provided to SSA by B~ and S~, clarify that they
engaged in a traditional self-uniting Society of Friends ceremony before their Quaker
meeting, and that I~ signed the Marriage Certificate as clerk of the meeting. Consequently,
B~ marriage was a valid ceremonial marriage under Tennessee law.
IV. Ohio Recognizes Marriages Validly Performed In Other
States.
Under Ohio law “[i]t is well established in this state that a marriage valid where
made is valid here unless expressly prohibited by law.” Peefer v. State, 183 N.E. 117, 121 (Ohio 1931) (recognizing marriage between minors validly performed
in Kentucky that would have been invalid under Ohio law); Mazzolini v. Mazzolini, 155 N.E. 2d 206, 208 (Ohio 1958) (recognizing marriage between first cousins validly
performed in Massachusetts, even though Ohio barred first cousin marriages); Police
& Firemen’s Disability & Pension Fund v. Redding, No. 01AP-1302, 2002 WL 1767362 (Ohio App. Ct. Aug. X, 2002) (where putative marriage
was established in Wyoming, Wyoming law would determine whether valid common law existed).
Thus, Ohio generally follows the “place of celebration rule,” under which the validity
of a marriage is determined by its compliance with the law of the jurisdiction where
it was celebrated. We found no Ohio law suggesting that this marriage would be prohibited
by law. In fact, Ohio also would recognize a Quaker marriage as long as the couple
obtained a license before they married, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3101.05,3101.09, and subsequently
recorded their marriage with the state. Ohio Rev. Code 3101.13. Ohio permits “any
religious society in conformity with the rules of its church . . . [to] join together
as husband and wife any persons who are not prohibited by law from being joined in
marriage.” Ohio Rev. Code 3101.08. Ohio has recognized the Society of Friends (Quakers)
as a valid religion “with a form of government . . . remarkable for its lack of centralized
power” for more than a century. Harrison v.
Hoyle, 24 Ohio 254, 263 (Ohio 1873). Harrison similarly recognized the meeting as the primary
form of ecclesiastical governance, id. at 265, and that “the rules of the society
for the management of its internal affairs . . . constitute the law by which they
should be governed.” Id. at 287. Consequently, nothing in Ohio law would bar recognition
of a Quaker marriage that was validly entered into in another state. B~ has such a
marriage.
Conclusion
As indicated above, we conclude that P~ and P2~ have a valid ceremonial marriage under
Tennessee law, and that Ohio would recognize the marriage as valid.