this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
108 points (98.2% liked)

News

30709 readers
3408 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"It was found during a follow-up investigation with the reverend that Kristin Spearman pursuant to the scheme of obtaining a marriage certificate, convinced the reverend to certify the victim and Kristin in the Holy Union of Matrimony without the knowledge of the victim and his required presence," the release reportedly said.

Spearman then allegedly took the certified license to the county clerk's office, where it was filed as a "certificate of official marriage."

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago

Seems like there's a chunk missing here... What was her cock and bull story that got this approved?

[–] XiberKernel@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

So many words for what’s essentially a 2 sentence story.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago

What we all want to know though is: did she successfully change his name too?

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Never date a crazy.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This article is a mess.

Firstly, "Reverend" is an adjective, not a title. Sounds like it was a priest, minister, or pastor depending on denomination. It would be like referring to a judge as "an honourable" for an entire article.

Secondly, even if this minister pushed through the paperwork, there is no way it's valid. Both parties have to sign the completed document at the time of the wedding itself, and it typically has to be also signed by witnesses. "Pre-signing" it would indicate it. It's not a legally valid document.

Ironically, marriage documentation is pretty tight about the consent of both parties and witnesses to prevent women from being married off against their will.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

From the article you linked:

"This has traditionally been considered incorrect on the basis that it is equivalent to referring to a judge as being an honourable or an adult man as a mister, both of which are also grammatically improper.[8][9] It is likewise incorrect to form the plural reverends. Some dictionaries,[10] however, do place the noun rather than the adjective as the word's principal form, owing to an increasing use of the word as a noun among people with no religious background or knowledge of traditional styles of ecclesiastical address."

I wouldn't correct someone who dropped this in casual conversation, but I do expect more from a news source that should be employing people with a better grasp on the English language.