The New York Times story this morning quotes the prosecutor as saying that he recognized their right to perform a purely religious ceremony; the offense was that they had purported to exercise the authority vested in them by the State of New York to perform a legal ceremony. I don't know what evidence supports that -- whether they said something to that effect, or whether he is acting on a presumption about their intent.
I believe that at least here the officiant customarily makes the pronouncment "by the authority vested in me by the state of New York..."
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
