Justice of the Peace Associations
Newsletter

   Spring 2004

In This Issue:

JP Survey Results

    Age & Years of Service
    Weddings
    Fees
    Multifaith Weddings
    Marriage Service
    Memorable Moments
    Gay Marriage

 

 

JP Survey Results
You do remember that our Winter issue included a survey? It was e-mailed to 587 Justices of the Peace, all listed on www.findaJP.com. Of these, 46% were from Connecticut, 49% from Massachusetts, 3% from Vermont and 2% from New Hampshire.  In the weeks following, 47 responses were received, approximately an 8% return rate. Market researchers consider this a fair response for an unqualified, unsolicited, direct mail questionnaire.

In every survey project, the analyst is faced with the question of whether the respondents are representative of the population from which the sample was taken. Were the respondents typical or were they unusual? For example, 53% of the respondents to our survey were women and 47% men (not 50/50 as might be expected). Also, 38% were Democrats, 32% Republicans, and 30% Independent or Unaffiliated (rather than the 33% for each class as might be expected). The analysis did not cross-correlate factors, e.g., how many respondents were female Democrats or male Republicans.
 
These caveats notwithstanding, the survey produced some very interesting information, which we herewith present.
Age and Years of Service
Age. More than half (62%) of our respondents were over 50 years old, including 17% over 65! Of the rest, 26% were in their 40's and 6% in their 30's. Four percent were under 30. (Two percent didn't answer.)


Years of Service.  Most respondents (64%) were JPs for fewer than 10 years, including 38% for less than 5 years (in their first term). Of the long-termers, four had been JPs for more than 20 years.


Conclusion: There is no such thing as a typical Justice of the Peace -- except for age. JPs are just as likely to be men as women and members of either political party (or unaffiliated). People tend to become JPs when they are older (and have more time). The fact that there is turnover in the job is encouraging both for the vitality of the position and for people eager to become JPs.

Why You Became a JP 
 Most respondents (44%) became JPs so that they could "do" weddings. Other reasons: a desire to serve the community (20%); seized the opportunity (13%); felt they were qualified (9%). Quite a few became JPs so they could officiate at a friend or relative's wedding (8%). A small number (2%) thought it would be "fun" while a handful needed the income it provided. Two old-timers couldn't remember why.
   
NOTE: In my informal discussions with town political leaders, I learned that a political party may bestow the title Justice of the Peace in  recognition of a person's service to that party. These JPs may enjoy the title but never choose to exercise the rights conferred by it, including officiating at weddings.

The following quotes capture the enjoyment and dedication expressed by so many JPs about their role:

  • It's pure joy seeing couples unite
  • To provide an economical service to those wanting to get married
  • Love what I do; love weddings
  • For the fun of it
  • To be able to provide a wonderful service to those wanting to get married!
  • It was something I always knew I would be good at
  • Because there are very few female JPs
Wedding, weddings, more weddings:   Number of weddings performed
There was a great variety in the number of weddings reported. Exactly half of the respondents said they perform fewer than ten weddings a year; of these, most (59%) did five or fewer. On the other hand, some JPs are really active. Of the group that officiated at ten or more weddings, half did 25 or more! And four JPs said they typically marry more than 50 couples each year.
 
Why they chose you. Half of the time, a JP is selected to marry a couple because s/he knows the couple or has been recommended to them by someone else. About 20% are selected because they are listed on our website (h'ray for us) while 21% are selected from the list maintained by the town. Seven percent of all business comes from the JPs self-advertisements (yellow pages, own website).
Fees
Money may be the root of all evil but it an important issue for JPs, drawing many comments. Most (68%) consider the fees they charge "average," while 23% say they are low and 9% high. We didn't ask you to share the actual fee you charge. The four JPs who volunteered that information either don't charge or leave the amount up to the couple. One said, "My fee is $50 or what they can afford."
  • I do it for nothing as a public service.
  • I ask the couple to make a contribution from a list of charities I provide.
  • What's average?
  • You get what you pay for
  • Whatever they give me
  • What the traffic will bear
  • Depends on the kind of reception they have
  • I get really annoyed at jp's that over charge for a wedding ceremony
  • I'm cheaper than most ministers.
Multifaith. Almost half the time (47%), JPs officiate at weddings in which the couple comes from different religious backgrounds. Note: I have found that most clergy will not marry parishioners of different faiths, so this doesn't surprise me. One JP wrote, "I believe individuals have the right to marry without religious commitments."
Meeting the Couple An overwhelming 72% of JPs always meets with the couple before the ceremony. The remaining 28% meet the couple some of the time. No one said never.
Who Writes the Service  Most JPs (71%) work together with the couple to write the wedding service while 26% use their own service. It is rare (3%) for the couple to write the service alone and ask the JP only to lead it.
Memorable Moments   Every wedding is unique. Here are some of the most memorable moments reported.
  • I married a couple at the maximum security prison couple in Somers, CT
  • I  performed a surprise wedding. The family thought they were just visiting. When I showed up, I was introduced as a friend of the bride, then...........it was a lot of fun.
  • The last time I performed a marriage at the Mill on the River, I met two separate couples that I had married previously, having dinner there.
  • At my first wedding, the family dog was ring bearer.  It was quite cute, and the dog did his part well.
  • I performed a marriage in costume (as a friar) in a Robin Hood-like setting at Hammond Castle in Gloucester.
  • I married a couple at Lizzie Borden's Bed and Breakfast, and the bride had a rubber hatchet tucked in with her silk flowers, and it squeaked.
  • I did a wedding ceremony at a lakefront. The bride was dressed as Cleopatra and the groom as Mark Anthony.  All the attendants and guests wore togas.  The groom decided to REALLY celebrate and had a fireworks display at the end.
The Big Issue: Gay Marriage
We asked your opinions about gay marriage, an issue that has been very much in the news. More JPs chose to comment on this issue (on both sides) than on any other question in the survey.The results:
  • Our respondents are in favor of gay marriages, 55 to 45%.
  • However, they would prefer civil unions for gays rather than marriage (60%).
  • A surprising 63% would officiate at a marriage ceremony for gays and 86% at a civil union.
Clearly, some JPs said they would officiate at a gay wedding even though they opposed them. One wrote, "As a sworn Justice of the Peace, I will abide by the law as enacted even though I might have my own feelings on the subject." While the vast majority of survey respondents said they would officiate at either ceremony, 13% did not answer this question.
Here are some comments, reflecting the broad spectrum of opinion:

PRO    

  • Yet another example of the government overriding the equal rights of everyone.
  • Everyone should be able to enjoy the same benefits, legally and emotionally, as a traditionally married couple.  Marriage should be marriage, regardless of whether the couple are the same or different gender.
  • I don't believe I have the right to judge people on how they choose to live and whom they choose as their mate in life.  I will abide by the laws and perform a same-sex ceremony as I would a traditional ceremony.  I have no problem with either type.
  • I celebrate love and commitment and justice for all.  I refuse to stand in judgment of one person's preference over another's.  I am honored to share in the celebration of a couple's public declaration to such a commitment.
  • I have met many gay people whose relationships are filled with love, tenderness and sharing.  I think it is sad that they are so far unable to reap the benefits of marriage or have the duties of a married person, especially in old age.
  • This is a matter of equal protection under the law. Religious groups are still free to limit performance of ceremonies as they see fit. But civil marriage should be recognized between all couples under the principle of equal protection.
  • We live in free country; free to love whom we love even if it is a same sex partner.  If I fall in love with a same sex partner and wish to marry I would want respect and equal rights.
  • I believe a marriage is a bond between two people who love each other and want to share their lives together.

CON

  • I feel that it is wrong and I would never compromise my principles by performing such a ceremony.
  • Marriage is for a man and a woman, to have children and establish a STABLE and SECURE HOME WITH SOUND VALUES and MORALS.
  • A marriage between a man and a woman should be sacred and the word 'marriage' should be reserved for that union. A 'civil union' could be recognized with rights and responsibilities but not considered a 'marriage' but a 'domestic partnership'.
  • Same sex marriages and civil unions should not be permitted, period.
AMBIVALENT
  • I guess it depends. If indeed it does become the law of the land, then I would consider doing it. Politicians should recognize that we are all humans and should be treated that way.
  • This is really tough. Just because times are changing doesn't mean we need to change our values. It is difficult because I have some gay friends who are couples.
  • I still am up in the air on this.

WHAT'S HAPPENING ELSEWHERE ON THIS ISSUE
  • President Bush has expressed support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
  • Next November, voters in Georgia, Utah and Massachusetts will get to vote on whether a ban on same-sex marriage should be added to their state constitutions. . Alaska and Hawaii have already amended the state constitution to define marriage as a ceremony between a man and a woman. 
  • In Massachusetts, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is in the works after the state's Supreme Court ruled that gays have the right to marry. If approved, such an amendment could not take effect until 2006. As it stands now, gay marriage will be legal on May 17.
  • Other states likely to put constitutional amendments against gay marriage on the ballot this year are Alabama, Mississippi and Michigan.
  •  About two dozen states (including Georgia) already have laws banning same-sex marriage.
  • Only Vermont recognizes same-sex relationships as a "civil union" and grants all the state benefits and responsibilities of marriage to them. Hawaii and New Jersey give partial benefits. California's domestic partnership law will provide the same benefits to gay couples as to heterosexuals when it takes effect in 2005.
  • In the last few months, same-sex couples have been married by city officials and ministers in San Francisco, New Paltz, NY and Sandoval County, NM without state clarification or approval.
  • In Connecticut, Diane Farrell, First Selectwoman of Westport and candidate to unseat Republican Chris Shays for Congress, asked Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to clarify the state's same-sex marriage laws. Ms. Farrell said, "I'm a Justice of the Peace too and I just wanted to be clear as to what the laws were."
As always... do let us know if you prefer not to receive this Newsletter and we'll take you off the list. We continue to welcome and encourage your feedback. Please send your suggestions, comments and submissions to jpnewsletter@jpus.org

Saul Haffner