Texas House Bill HB460

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to authorizing the county clerk in certain counties to conduct a marriage ceremony and collect a related fee.

Impact

The bill's implementation would directly influence the way marriages are conducted in large Texas counties. By allowing county clerks to perform wedding ceremonies, it is expected to reduce the logistical burden on couples seeking to marry, particularly in urban areas where there might be a higher demand for more flexible and accessible officiants. Additionally, the bill mandates a $25 fee to be collected by the clerks for conducting a marriage ceremony, which is intended to support charitable initiatives that address family violence and neglect. This connection between marriage services and community support could enhance the social welfare efforts in these counties.

Summary

House Bill 460 pertains to authorizing county clerks in certain counties to conduct marriage ceremonies and collect a fee related to this service. Specifically, it allows clerks in counties with a population of at least 1.7 million, which have a municipality where 75 percent of the county's population resides, to officiate marriages. This provision expands the list of authorized officiants beyond traditional religious and judicial figures to include county clerks and their appointed deputies. The bill aims to streamline the marriage process in populous counties by increasing accessibility to officiants.

Contention

Notably, the bill received unanimous support during its passage in the House, with a voting summary indicating 143 yeas and 0 nays. This wide-ranging approval may reflect a shared acknowledgment of the need for more accessible marriage services within populous regions. However, potential points of contention could arise regarding the delegation of such civil responsibilities to clerks, with some arguing that marriage ceremonies are traditional and should remain within specific ceremonial contexts. Additionally, the allocation of collected fees to charitable organizations, while well-intentioned, might prompt discussions about oversight and the specific use of municipal funds in relation to the marriage services offered.