Talk:Elopement

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Should be changed to elopement, the noun form. soverman 02:51 (UTC) 25 March 06

fixed. Doops | talk 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the sudden and randon trivia section (Germans, Indian actress...) Should be removed or integrated better into article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.70.240 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the long term care community elopement has a different meaning. It refers to a confused resident who wanders away from the facility. Could this be discussed or added to this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.230.194 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Una Smith (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution does not require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if it is contracted one of the other United States. The Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to judgments, not to statutes. In every state, whether a marriage is valid is determined by statute. Even in a state like Massachusetts, where the highest court has determined that the statute's exclusion of same-sex couples violated the Constitution, marriage is still regulated by statute, with the unconstitutional portions excised. Whether one state recognizes another state's statutes, on the subject of marriage or any other subject, is determined by a body of law known as conflicts of laws. The United States has indicated, on numerous occasions, that a state's adherence to traditional conflicts of laws rules (i.e. the rules set forth in the First Restatement of Conflicts of Laws) does not violate the United States Constitution.

The traditional rule on the validity of a marriage is that a marriage valid at the place of celebration is valid everywhere, unless the marriage violates the strong public policy of the forum. The "public policy" exception historically has been applied to incestuous or polygamous marriages, but there is no reason why a state could not decide that a same-sex marriage violates its strong public policy, particularly in those jurisdictions where the state constitution or a state statute specifically prohibits same-sex marriages. On the other hand, a state could decide that a same-sex marriage does not violate its public policy, and recognize it, so long as it is valid at the place contracted, but the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as interpreted until now, does not require such recognition. See Whitten, "Full Faith and Credit for Dummies," 38 Creighton L. Rev. 465.

1. Poorly-sourced and cited
2. specific to USA
3. specific, lengthy discussion of "Full Faith and Credit" clause not appropriate for this article

This text could be whittled down to a sentence or three, with a reference to the Wikipedia article covering that part of US law. Better yet, it should briefly mention the issue and point at Same-sex marriage in the United States.

The statement of English law is far too superficial. The law before Lord Hardwicke's Act is far from clear, and even that Act gave legal status to marriages in Synagogues and Friends' Meeting Houses. Since then the law has been widened to permit marriages to take place in any premises, provided the premises are licensed for that purpose, and the only personal permission required by law is a licence issued by the local Registrar of Marriages. It is possible to obtain a licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury but very few people apply for one except in emergencies such as the imminent death of one of the intending spouses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.125.188 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the lede definition ("Elopement is a marriage ...") needs rewording. Elopement is the act of running away, generally in order to marry in some disapproved way ... but it's not the marriage itself. Or is this an MOS:ENGVAR thing? (I'm British.) GrindtXX (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue may be a changing meaning of the term, where now sometimes it does refer to certain small weddings? Seems strange to me, but for example, see this undated article from Merriam-Webster [1]. – notwally (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]