Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Marriage Matters
Facebook

Notices

Marriage Matters For discussion of Marital issues


View Poll Results: Do you support marriage privatization?
Yes. 11 78.57%
No. 3 21.43%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 08-05-2018, 12:11 AM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,121
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
LOL

All good points.

You are correct. In states that still recognize common law marriage, a marriage can still be legally recognized by the state if the couple meets the state's minimum requirements for common law marriage. And yes, if recognized by the state, the couple must divorce through the courts the same way those in civil marriages have to go through the courts.

The only states that still recognize common law marriages are:
◾Alabama
◾Colorado
◾District of Columbia
◾Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
◾Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
◾Iowa
◾Kansas
◾Montana
◾New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
◾Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
◾Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma’s laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
◾Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
◾Rhode Island
◾South Carolina
◾Texas
◾Utah
In states where a common law marriage isn't recognized, those who wish to have a "government free marriage" are free to do so without concern that the state will get involved.

You made an excellent point when you said,



I'd only add this...

While there is an element of truth to that, if one examines older Christian traditions, it wasn't uncommon for groups such as Amish, Mennonite, Quakers, etc. to refuse to involve themselves in civil courts or anything that might unnecessarily entangle them with the civil court system. They took I Corinthians 6:1-8 very seriously. These groups actually won the right not to take any oath in court, and to only affirm the truth if forced by law to testify. They even won the right to maintain their hats in the courtroom and in some cases not to rise when the judge entered the chamber. These Christians took their separation very seriously, and their position was quite controversial at the time in some instances. So, it can be more than a mere ideological statement. For some, it can be a core NT doctrine relating to the Christian's relationship with the systems of this world.



Very true. Couples who take the path of government free marriage need to do their homework and realize what limitations their union will have. For example, they cannot file their taxes jointly. Nor can they take advantage of any tax breaks for married couples. Since the state doesn't recognize their union, they must file their taxes as individuals. In addition, they should establish all durable and medical powers of attorney to give one another legal authority over one another's finances and medical. In addition, they should have all wills properly written out, in detail, with proper witness signatures, notarized, and filed with the court. Cohabitation agreements can also establish terms and conditions for various aspects of each of the above. It takes a little more homework, paperwork, and footwork than the rubber stamp provision of civil marriage... but for many couples who wish to manage their own lives and issues privately, it is necessary to secure various rights and protections. A government free marriage is very different from just "shacking up". There is a bit more paperwork involved than most have to worry about who seek a civil marriage.

For many libertarian types and those who have experienced real or perceived injustices in the divorce courts, this gives individual couples more control over their unions, assets, and even their divorces.
Reading this, I realize you are saying that to avoid unnecessary govt involvement a couple must file a multitude of documents with the county clerk, attorneys, courts, etc. Whereas, a state recognized marriage (including a common law marriage), involves almost zero court appearances, filings, attorneys, etc.

ROFL!

Does anyone see the ridiculousness of this? To keep from getting involved (one time) with the govt, you have to get involved with govt repeatedly, over and over, with a maze of documentation.

lol
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-05-2018, 04:23 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,247
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Reading this, I realize you are saying that to avoid unnecessary govt involvement a couple must file a multitude of documents with the county clerk, attorneys, courts, etc. Whereas, a state recognized marriage (including a common law marriage), involves almost zero court appearances, filings, attorneys, etc.

ROFL!

Does anyone see the ridiculousness of this? To keep from getting involved (one time) with the govt, you have to get involved with govt repeatedly, over and over, with a maze of documentation.

lol


Aqualung is a master of complicating the simple.
__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-06-2018, 09:48 AM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Reading this, I realize you are saying that to avoid unnecessary govt involvement a couple must file a multitude of documents with the county clerk, attorneys, courts, etc. Whereas, a state recognized marriage (including a common law marriage), involves almost zero court appearances, filings, attorneys, etc.

ROFL!

Does anyone see the ridiculousness of this? To keep from getting involved (one time) with the govt, you have to get involved with govt repeatedly, over and over, with a maze of documentation.

lol
AMEN!

Now you see part of the frustration. lol

It is ridiculous that any couple would have to get so involved with the process in order to get the government out of their union so that they might manage it in accordance to their religious and/or political convictions.

This is why I agree with Ron Paul and Rand Paul:
"My personal opinion is government shouldn’t be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter." ~ Ron Paul

"The best approach is to make marriage a private matter. When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government expansion, regulating excesses, and a license for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the ideas of liberty are advancing." ~ Ron Paul
“While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.
The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington …
… Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.
I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.” ~ Rand Paul
Read more: http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/06/30/p...#ixzz5NPhMgqNm
The government would do well to just get out of the marriage business. Marriage should be "returned" to being a private contract between individuals, churches, and families. But, I don't see that happening, seeing that so much of the system is interwoven with "civil marriage" status.

I think the best course of action in the mean time is described by, First Things, in The Marriage Pledge:

The Marriage Pledge:
https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

In many jurisdictions, including many of the United States, civil authorities have adopted a definition of marriage that explicitly rejects the age-old requirement of male-female pairing. In a few short years or even months, it is very likely that this new definition will become the law of the land, and in all jurisdictions the rights, privileges, and duties of marriage will be granted to men in partnership with men, and women with women.

As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness. This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-..habitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are ..being tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.

The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ..articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.


Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.

Drafted by:

The Reverend Ephraim Radner

The Reverend Christopher Seitz
The house church that we attended didn't have state licensed ministers. So, they couldn't legally sign marriage certificates, nor did they want to. However, they fully agreed with this portion and even put it in their statement of faith:
We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings.
They would bless couples seeking to marry in the eyes of God and encourage the couple to seek civil marriage separately downtown, if they desired to.

Last edited by Aquila; 08-06-2018 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-06-2018, 10:04 AM
n david n david is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
The only states that still recognize common law marriages are:

◾Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Meaning Ohio doesn't recognize common law marriage and hasn't since 1991.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-06-2018, 01:15 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
Meaning Ohio doesn't recognize common law marriage and hasn't since 1991.
That's true.

But common law marriage isn't entirely what is in view here. For common law marriage will still subject your marriage to the law of Caesar.

What is at issue are couples who would rather manage their marriages privately without state interference.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-14-2020, 08:34 PM
LetUsReason LetUsReason is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 39
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Are you limiting the privatization to two people? The next frontiers of the Left are group "marriages" and pedophilia. A marriage is the basic unit of any functional society. Governments incentivize marriage because it is the social construct that best produces good citizens and grooms the next generation to take part in society constructively. That is why government has historically been involved in marriage. Now with gay marriage and all of its downstream implications, you can make the argument that the original reason to support traditional marriage has been corrupted. The argument boils down to the fact that children need a mother and father to thrive best. If governments are incentivizing gay marriages, this contradicts the reason for incentivizing marriage in the first place. As I see it, either we get back to incentivizing traditional marriages for the reasons stated above, or we get out of government being involved in marriage altogether. However, there is also the moral aspect to this. Government is established by God to affect the safety and civility of the citizens. Morality has a huge part in this, and it is government's job to curtail behaviors that have a deleterious effect on society. One could argue that since traditional marriage is the necessary base building block of any good society, a government needs to somewhat be involved in prohibiting certain types of "marriages" that would have a negative impact on society. It will not stop with gay marriage. At some point, government must intervene. For instance, incestuous relationships or pedophilic relationships. My concern is if the government gets out of marriage totally, how does society not eventually destroy itself given these eventualities? Just some thoughts to chew on.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-15-2020, 04:57 AM
jediwill83's Avatar
jediwill83 jediwill83 is offline
Believe, Obey, Declare


 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tupelo Ms.
Posts: 3,878
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetUsReason View Post
Are you limiting the privatization to two people? The next frontiers of the Left are group "marriages" and pedophilia. A marriage is the basic unit of any functional society. Governments incentivize marriage because it is the social construct that best produces good citizens and grooms the next generation to take part in society constructively. That is why government has historically been involved in marriage. Now with gay marriage and all of its downstream implications, you can make the argument that the original reason to support traditional marriage has been corrupted. The argument boils down to the fact that children need a mother and father to thrive best. If governments are incentivizing gay marriages, this contradicts the reason for incentivizing marriage in the first place. As I see it, either we get back to incentivizing traditional marriages for the reasons stated above, or we get out of government being involved in marriage altogether. However, there is also the moral aspect to this. Government is established by God to affect the safety and civility of the citizens. Morality has a huge part in this, and it is government's job to curtail behaviors that have a deleterious effect on society. One could argue that since traditional marriage is the necessary base building block of any good society, a government needs to somewhat be involved in prohibiting certain types of "marriages" that would have a negative impact on society. It will not stop with gay marriage. At some point, government must intervene. For instance, incestuous relationships or pedophilic relationships. My concern is if the government gets out of marriage totally, how does society not eventually destroy itself given these eventualities? Just some thoughts to chew on.



Some of you jokers want let a guy in your pulpit with their sideburns too long and you want to tell me that the government is the arbiter and gatekeeper to morality and virtue?


Government is set up by God to be moral like the old rusted rusted out junker on blocks in the back yard is built for traveling.


Its current state isnt optimum to its original purpose and design.


When has a government EVER in recent years been pleasing to God?


It doesn't matter what the ORIGINAL design snd intent is/was...its whether or not what was designed is fulfilling its purpose.
__________________
Blessed are the merciful for they SHALL obtain mercy.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-15-2020, 09:56 AM
Hoffman Hoffman is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 76
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jediwill83 View Post
Some of you jokers want let a guy in your pulpit with their sideburns too long and you want to tell me that the government is the arbiter and gatekeeper to morality and virtue?


Government is set up by God to be moral like the old rusted rusted out junker on blocks in the back yard is built for traveling.


Its current state isnt optimum to its original purpose and design.


When has a government EVER in recent years been pleasing to God?


It doesn't matter what the ORIGINAL design snd intent is/was...its whether or not what was designed is fulfilling its purpose.
Amen.

Who defines marriage? I thought it was God! Yet, the church today got their underwear tied in a knot because Government made it legal for 2 queers or Lesbians to get “married”. And somehow the church believes the US government is the final authority on the issue.

🎶🎵Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie....🎶🎵
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-15-2020, 12:57 PM
jediwill83's Avatar
jediwill83 jediwill83 is offline
Believe, Obey, Declare


 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tupelo Ms.
Posts: 3,878
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoffman View Post
Amen.

Who defines marriage? I thought it was God! Yet, the church today got their underwear tied in a knot because Government made it legal for 2 queers or Lesbians to get “married”. And somehow the church believes the US government is the final authority on the issue.

🎶🎵Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie....🎶🎵



People have some biiiig blinders on when it comes to their government. Organized society has become mans way of standing shoulder to shoulder united, thinking that collective identity allows for equal distribution of guilt and that equal distribution lightens our collective weight on our souls.


Government provides the structure and framework for that particular vine to grow...we think its a platform of Godliness to the point where we give blank checks of absolution with only at the most token protests and if we are really serious we might rouse ourselves to shamble off to the voting booth steadfast in our determination to do our part...our dead level best to stave off societal damnation by choosing the lesser of evils in our humble yet loudly expressed opinions.
__________________
Blessed are the merciful for they SHALL obtain mercy.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-16-2020, 01:04 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,121
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetUsReason View Post
Are you limiting the privatization to two people? The next frontiers of the Left are group "marriages" and pedophilia. A marriage is the basic unit of any functional society. Governments incentivize marriage because it is the social construct that best produces good citizens and grooms the next generation to take part in society constructively. That is why government has historically been involved in marriage. Now with gay marriage and all of its downstream implications, you can make the argument that the original reason to support traditional marriage has been corrupted. The argument boils down to the fact that children need a mother and father to thrive best. If governments are incentivizing gay marriages, this contradicts the reason for incentivizing marriage in the first place. As I see it, either we get back to incentivizing traditional marriages for the reasons stated above, or we get out of government being involved in marriage altogether. However, there is also the moral aspect to this. Government is established by God to affect the safety and civility of the citizens. Morality has a huge part in this, and it is government's job to curtail behaviors that have a deleterious effect on society. One could argue that since traditional marriage is the necessary base building block of any good society, a government needs to somewhat be involved in prohibiting certain types of "marriages" that would have a negative impact on society. It will not stop with gay marriage. At some point, government must intervene. For instance, incestuous relationships or pedophilic relationships. My concern is if the government gets out of marriage totally, how does society not eventually destroy itself given these eventualities? Just some thoughts to chew on.
Government involvement with marriage is limited Biblically to refusing to recognise Divinely forbidden unions and punishing them accordingly, and providing rewards to proper Biblical unions. "Licensing" is technically a usurpation of Divinely established parental authority. Preachers never did have Biblical authority to "officiate" marriages.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What comes after same sex marriage? Sam Political Talk 10 09-17-2012 01:29 AM
Marriage Privatization: Thoughts? Aquila Fellowship Hall 10 06-29-2012 06:29 AM
Gay Marriage: For or Against? Charnock Fellowship Hall 636 11-19-2010 02:44 PM
Same Sex Marriage Sam Fellowship Hall 0 02-06-2009 05:28 PM
Gay Marriage Dedicated Mind Fellowship Hall 43 11-18-2008 09:14 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.