An Act to amend and reenact § 20-25 of the Code of Virginia, relating to persons other than ministers who may perform rites of marriage; clerk; issuance of order; bond requirement.
HB905 amends Virginia’s marriage-officiant statute, § 20-25, to change who may issue authorization for non-clergy persons to perform marriage rites and to adjust the related bond requirement. Under the bill, the authority to issue an order authorizing a person to celebrate the rites of marriage is shifted from a circuit court judge to the circuit court clerk, upon application and payment of applicable clerk’s fees. The bill also preserves the ability to require a $500 bond before the authorized person acts, but makes clear that the clerk may direct whether the bond requires surety and that the bond may be waived for applicants who would qualify for in forma pauperis status.
The bill also expands and clarifies the list of officials who may perform marriage rites anywhere in Virginia without needing a bond or court order. In addition to judges and justices, the statute now expressly includes retired judges and justices, active, senior, or retired federal judges or justices who are Virginia residents, and current or former members of the General Assembly, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, members of Congress from Virginia, and circuit court clerks who are Virginia residents. The bill further states that orders issued under this section may be rescinded at any time, that no oath is required of an authorized officiant, and that such a person is not considered a state officer solely because of the authorization.
HB905 changes the administration of marriage-officiant authorizations in Virginia by moving the issuance function to circuit court clerks and by codifying clerk immunity from civil liability for issuing or rescinding orders, absent gross negligence or willful misconduct. It also modifies the bond process by making the bond discretionary in practice and allowing waiver for indigent applicants, while leaving the $500 amount in place. The bill broadens the class of public officials who may solemnize marriages statewide without prior authorization, affecting circuit court clerks, judges, certain retired and federal judicial officers, and specified current and former state and federal elected officials.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote breakdown, so there is no detailed public debate to characterize. The enacted chapter text suggests the bill was ultimately accepted and signed into law, indicating at least sufficient legislative support for passage. Based on the substance of the measure, the likely general sentiment is administrative and technical rather than controversial, focused on simplifying the authorization process and clarifying who may officiate marriages.
The main points of potential contention are the shift in authority from judges to clerks and the liability protection given to clerks for issuing or rescinding orders. Some may view the clerk-based process and immunity provision as a practical modernization, while others could question whether clerks should have this role or whether the immunity standard is too broad. The bond requirement is another possible issue, since the bill retains the bond but makes it waivable for indigent applicants, which may raise concerns about access versus oversight. The expansion of who may officiate marriages without authorization could also draw scrutiny, though the bill text does not show any recorded opposition.