Cal. Codes » Family Code / DIVISION 3. MARRIAGE / PART 3. SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE / CHAPTER 1. Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage
California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 400 (2026)

Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Although marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil, and not a religious, contract, a marriage may be solemnized by a priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination who is 18 years of age or older. A person authorized by this subdivision shall not be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of the person’s faith. Refusal to solemnize a marriage under this subdivision, either by an individual or by a religious denomination, shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any entity.

(b)Consistent with Section 94.5 of the Penal Code and provided that any compensation received is reasonable, including payment of actual expenses, a marriage may also be solemnized by any of the following persons:

(1)A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state.

(2)A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.

(3)Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States:

(A)A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme Court.

(B)A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district court, or a court created by an act of the United States Congress the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior.

(C)A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.

(D)A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.

(c)Except as provided in subdivision (d), a marriage may also be solemnized by any of the following persons who are 18 years of age or older:

(1)A Member of the Legislature or constitutional officer of this state or a Member of Congress of the United States who represents a district within this state, or a former Member of the Legislature or constitutional officer of this state or a former Member of Congress of the United States who represented a district within this state.

(2)A person that holds or formerly held an elected office of a city, county, or city and county.

(3)A city clerk of a charter city or serving in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 36501 of the Government Code, while that person holds office.

(d)(1)A person listed in subdivision (c) shall not accept compensation for solemnizing a marriage while holding office.

(2)A person listed in subdivision (c) shall not solemnize a marriage pursuant to this section if they have been removed from office due to committing an offense or have been convicted of an offense that involves moral turpitude, dishonesty, or fraud.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2004–2016 · leading case: Lockyer v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459 (Cal. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lockyer v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 2× “These statutes contain a list of the numerous persons who may solemnize a marriage under California *238 law (Fam.Code, § 400), and require the person solemnizing a marriage (1) to require the applicants to present the marriage license to him or her prior to solemnization (Fam.”
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “* * * [Religious practices and ceremonies] have no particular bearing on the validity of marriages. Any clerics, ministers, rabbis, et cetera, that were accustomed to * * * performing marriages, only do so because the state has given them authority to do that.”
Wechsler v. Superior Court, 224 Cal. App. 4th 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “(Fam. Code, § 400.) A judicial officer’s officiating role thus derives from his or her governmental position and does not necessarily reflect a- personal or social relationship.”
Schuett v. FedEx Corp., 119 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “; solemnization, see Cal. Fam. Code §§ 400 , et seq.; and authentication by returning the license to the county recorder, see Cal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.