Re: Marriage.
I have seen many people who are dependent on government services and cannot legally marry without those benefits being forfeited. I sympathize for those circumstances, but I often wonder what has brought them into such a circumstance. I believe this is a difficult subject of whether or not we should validate our marriage with the laws of the land. I am of the pursuasion that although marriages are not made valid by the government we should still recieve marital recognition from the government. It reminds me of Abraham lying to the Egyptions and Philistines about Sarai for fear of what they might do to him.
I still am open minded on this subject because I know people personally who are in a covenant relationship, but cannot go through state process in making it legally recognized because of the loss of much needed medical ins. |
Re: Marriage.
Quote:
One thing that a civil marriage does is it binds you legally in a manner that should the marriage fail, you have to go before the civil courts to divorce. And most divorce law isn't biblical anymore seeing that divorce is granted on a "no fault" basis and assets are divided equally, with child support rendered according to income and custody determined by statute, regardless as to who was at fault. In addition, Paul admonished against going before unbelieving courts: 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 King James Version (KJV)Paul said that it would be better to suffer being defrauded, or ripped off, than to go before the unbelieving courts of this world to settle our disputes. In fact, for old world groups like the Quakers, refusal to be subject to civil authority is considered a part of one's Christian testimony. Ultimately, I think it is up to individual couples to decide what works for them in relation to what their church teaches. The civil marriage system is there to participate in if a couple wishes. But for many couples (for reasons such as what you mentioned) it would be far more of a liability than a benefit. If these couples enter a covenant commitment and wear wedding bands to publically affirm that they are in union with another, I don't judge. |
Re: Marriage.
Quote:
|
Re: Marriage.
Quote:
In Paul's day, among the Jews a divorce was typically a "writ of divorcement", or "get". It was a written decree written and issued by the husband terminating the marriage. It was often reviewed by a rabbi prior to being delivered to the wife. No government courts were necessary. Disputes relating to the separation were handled by the synagogue, not the Roman courts. In the early Christian church, marriage and divorce laws primarily applied to those who were official Roman citizens. This citizenship was either granted according to birth or upon purchase. The majority of people under Rome's authority were not classified as official citizens, and so Roman courts felt no need to even involve themselves in their marriages or divorces. So, the average marriage was established by a private contract between families or individual couples. It was also terminated by private decree in accordance to local family traditions. So essentially, for the most party, marriages were a private contract, agreement, or arrangement between families or individuals. Today, since the government took over marriage and states have abolished common law marriage laws in all but a handful of states, marriage is now a "civil contract" with the government. And termination of the contract essentially becomes a lawsuit to be settled in a court of law in accordance to civil statute. So, while divorce wasn't similar to a lawsuit in Paul's day, it is today. |
Re: Marriage.
In the early church marriages were also established by couples who privately committed to one another, even if alone behind a barn. These couples didn't go to the church to have their union established, churches only blessed marriages that couples established. After marriage was declared a "sacrament" a priest was required to officiate. All marriages established privately by couples were then deemed lawful in the church, but were labeled "illicit marriages", seeing they were entered into outside of the church's authority.
After the Protestant Reformation, Protestant churches increasingly divested themselves from having authority over marriage and began recognizing marriages through common law, cohabitation and repute. Common law evolved into tort and civil laws and so secular government authorities began claiming more legal power over marriage. In the American colonies and on the frontier common law marriage was rather common. Church weddings were also common. Marriages were recorded in family Bibles. Soon, Bibles started to be printed with marriage certificates and family trees. Yep, that's why so many Bibles come with those things! It's an early American marriage tradition. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't have marriage licenses, their marriages were just recorded in their family Bibles. After the Emancipation states began requiring licenses to keep mixed couples from marrying. You see, they'd deny the license to interracial couples, thereby keeping them from marrying. More and more states began requiring the licensing and civil marriage laws as we know them began to take shape. Mixed couples didn't get their right to a license until the 1960's. |
Re: Marriage.
I was just surfing for a few minutes on this topic and I found this interesting article from WorldNetDaily:
Stay single, young man! |
Re: Marriage.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If a couple wants to have a private ceremony with family and their Pastor, I'm fine with that. What I'm not okay with is the claim that all a couple needs to do is jump in bed together and have sex and God is good with that. Not so. |
Re: Marriage.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To say that Paul would admonish Christians not to settle matters in the courts of the unbelievers, but would support Christians turning to the courts of the unbelievers in divorce is to create a duplicity. When Paul speaks of "lawsuits" (as you put it) it includes any legal dispute "of this world", that includes divorce. Quote:
Quote:
What I'm saying is when a couple is truly committed to one another, they enter into the marriage covenant through cohabitation (leaving father and mother and cleaving unto one another). This was deemed the most basic of marriages. If the man took a woman under his roof and committed to care for her he was her "husband". He "husbanded" her. He became her caretaker, provider, and defender. To "husband" (as a verb) is to engage in husbandry, the care and cultivation of another (although today we use it strictly to speak of the care of animals because women are no longer considered "property"). The commitment to live together and build a life together was (and is) the essence of the covenant. This is why common law marriages going all the way back to ancient Greece were established by cohabitation and repute. You take her in, you claim her as your wife, consummate, you present her as your wife, the two of you sire children, and the two of you raise the children. You build a home and family together = Married. It's a natural right, not a civil right. And so instead of officiating these unions as churches do today, in early Christianity the church would either bless these unions or condemn them, and it didn't matter if the state was involved or not. Your statement begs the question, "Then what is fornication?" And this is an important question. Transient sexual encounters (promiscuity), going to prostitutes, participating in revelries, sex without the commitment of care and cohabitation, etc., are all "fornication" (sexual immorality). And if one is committed to another, such sins are adultery. |
Re: Marriage.
Quote:
Quote:
If a Christian chooses a civil marriage, they should abide by the ordinance of that marriage, including divorce court. Again, 1 Cor 13 has nothing to do with divorce. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Marriage.
I would think it is against the law of the land to marry a couple without the wedding license. It would not be legal. I know my husband will not marry anyone unless he has possession of the license and he mails it in himself. It was a state law where we lived that the person performing the ceremony had to mail in the license - no exceptions.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.