Marriage; penalty for failure to certify record, persons other than minister subject to penalties.
Summary
HB2689 amends Virginia Code § 20-24, which sets the penalty for failing to certify a marriage record. The bill expands the existing penalty language so that not only ministers authorized to perform marriages, but also other persons authorized under § 20-25, are expressly subject to the same $25 forfeiture if they fail to comply with the marriage-record certification requirement in § 32.1-267.
In practical terms, the bill clarifies and broadens who can be penalized for failing to properly certify a marriage record after officiating a marriage. It does not change the amount of the penalty, but it makes the statute explicit that non-minister officiants are covered, aligning the penalty provision with the broader category of people authorized to solemnize marriages in Virginia.
Impact
The bill makes a targeted amendment to Virginia’s marriage laws by revising the penalty provision in § 20-24. It affects ministers and other authorized officiants, including those authorized under § 20-25, by subjecting them to the same $25 penalty for noncompliance with the marriage-record certification requirement. The change is narrow and administrative, aimed at clarifying enforcement rather than altering marriage eligibility, solemnization authority, or recordkeeping procedures themselves.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received very favorably and without opposition. It passed every recorded stage unanimously in both chambers, including subcommittee, full committee, and floor votes in the House and Senate. The voting history suggests broad bipartisan agreement that the amendment was a straightforward technical clarification to existing marriage law.
Contention
There is no recorded substantive controversy in the available materials. The only notable issue addressed by the bill is whether the penalty language should explicitly include persons other than ministers who are authorized to perform marriages. The unanimous votes indicate that lawmakers generally agreed the statute should be updated to reflect that broader category of officiants.