When a minister of any religious denomination produces before the circuit court of any county or city in the Commonwealth, or before the judge of such court or before the clerk of such court at any time, proof of his ordination and of his being in regular communion with the religious society of which he is a reputed member, or proof that he is commissioned to pastoral ministry or holds a local minister's license and is serving as a regularly appointed pastor in his denomination, such court, or the judge thereof, or the clerk of such court at any time, may make an order authorizing such minister to celebrate the rites of matrimony in the Commonwealth. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time by the court or by the judge thereof. No oath shall be required of a minister authorized to celebrate the rites of matrimony, nor shall such minister be considered an officer of the Commonwealth by virtue of such authorization.
Code 1919, §§ 5079, 5080; 1962, c. 362; 1980, c. 154; 1981, c. 295; 2012, c. 565; 2016, c. 611.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case:
Cramer v. Commonwealth, 202 S.E.2d 911 (Va. 1974).
Cramer v. Commonwealth, 202 S.E.2d 911 (Va. 1974).
· cites it 31× “1 Appellants appeal this final judgment and petition that we reverse the action of the lower court, declare Code § 20-23 to be null and void, and hold that “any minister providing documentary substantiation of ordination from any organization purporting to be a religious…”
Richard S. Levick v. Deborah MacDougall, 782 S.E.2d 182 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Code § 20-31 contemplates the want of authority in an officiant who, while "professing to be authorized to solemnize” the marriage, has not actually been authorized to “celebrate the rites of matrimony in this Commonwealth” under Code §§ 20-23, -25, or -26. 7 . Many decisions of…”
Landes (W.D. Va. 2026).
· cites it 43× “at 563, 568 (quoting Va. Code Ann. §§ 20-23 , 20-26). Plaintiffs are correct that “[a] law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.”
Gottlieb v. Crouch, 44 Va. Cir. 268 (Arlington Cir. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 5× “The duties of an officiant of a marriage ceremony are governed by Va. Code § 20-23. A minister may obtain a license to perform a wedding in any Circuit Court in the state.”
In re Ginsburg, 372 S.E.2d 387 (Va. 1988).
· cites it 16× “This appeal presents the question whether the regularly selected Clerk of a Quaker Meeting may qualify as a “minister” pursuant to Code § 20-23 for the purpose of celebrating marriages.”
In re Dhanoa, 86 Va. Cir. 373 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 31× “Initially pro se, each submitted a form Petition available on the Court’s website intended for applications under Va. Code § 20-23. The Court reviewed their applications and determined the statements contained therein did not qualify them as “ministers” eligible for appointment…”
In re Kooiman, 45 Va. Cir. 503 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 22× “Va. Code Ann. § 20-23 . Kooiman applied for a license under this latter section.”
Deborah MacDougall v. Richard S. Levick (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The General Assembly, however, has contemplates the want of authority in an officiant who, while “professing to be authorized to solemnize” the marriage, has not actually been authorized to “celebrate the rites of matrimony in this Commonwealth” under Code §§ 20-23, -25, or -26.…”
Richard S. Levick v. Deborah MacDougall, 776 S.E.2d 456 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Code § 20-31 contemplates the want of authority in an officiant who, while “professing to be authorized to solemnize” the marriage, has not actually been authorized to "celebrate the rites of matrimony in this Commonwealth” under Code §§ 20-23, -25, or -26. 6 . We note our…”
Deborah MacDougall v. Richard S. Levick (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Code § 20-31 contemplates the want of authority in an officiant who, while “professing to be authorized to solemnize” the marriage, has not actually been authorized to “celebrate the rites of matrimony in this Commonwealth” under Code §§ 20-23, -25, or -26. - 13 - death of the…”
Deborah MacDougall v. Richard S. Levick (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Code § 20-31 contemplates the want of authority in an officiant who, while “professing to be authorized to solemnize” the marriage, has not actually been authorized to “celebrate the rites of matrimony in this Commonwealth” under Code §§ 20-23, -25, or -26. - 13 - death of the…”
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.