Is a marriage license a scam?

[Rudy]

There are 5 short parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tTs5-WtGEI

[n david]

Of course. The government (local/federal) shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. Marriage licenses are just another way for the government to collect another fee.

[Rudy]

Of course. The government (local/federal) shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. Marriage licenses are just another way for the government to collect another fee.

I read or heard it is a $50.000.000. 000 a year industry. If you count in the lawyers.

[Esaias]

Government has a role in marriage: to recognize and protect Biblical marriage and the family.

God never authorized the state to "permit" or forbid whoever the state pleases.

But the insanity will continue until Christians just start living for God, that is, actually follow the Bible in all areas of life in spite of what raging heathens say, want, or do.

[Aquila]

Yes. State Marriage Licenses are a scam. Quakers and other Christian groups have been blessing couples in the eyes of God without involving the state for centuries. Scripture tells us that God joins a man and woman together in marriage, not Caesar:

Mark 10:9 (ESV)
What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

George Fox, founder of the Quaker movement once stated:

"For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or the magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses" ~ George Fox, 1669

Outsiders sometimes criticized Quaker couples for "living in sin" because they married each other without priests or ministers. Some couples choose to marry within the meeting without registering their marriages with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days. If a couple later needs to prove that they are married, the Quaker wedding certificate signed by witnesses at the ceremony is sufficient in states wherein marriage such private marriages are still recognized under common law.

Here are some excerpts from "Faith and Practice": "Quaker Marriage Procedure"...

"Marriage is a sacred commitment of two people to love one another in faithful partnership with the expectation that the relationship will mature and be mutually enriching. Friends know that marriage depends on the inner experiences of the couple who marry and not on any external service or words. Thus, the ceremony in which the couple enter into this commitment is performed by the couple alone, in the presence of God, the families, and the worshiping community. Both the solemnity and the joy of the occasion are enhanced by its simplicity."

Regarding government involvement:

"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law."

In our fellowship's statement of faith it reads:

"F. Elders serving in Christian ministry within the Apostolic Fellowship are to disengage civil marriage from Christian marriage in the performance of pastoral duties. Elders are to refuse to serve as agents of the state in marriage. Elders are to decline from signing government provided marriage licenses and/or certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from any church-related vows, promises, commitments, and/or blessings." (Apostolic Fellowship, Section 4, Paragraph F)

This is consistent with, The 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

Source: https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge


However, please note, this is a minority position among more libertarian or liberal groups. Most mainline conservative teachers will not recognize a couple as married in the eyes of God until they have the State Marriage License and State issued Marriage Certificate.

[Birddog]

Yes, the government might need to stay out of the marriage business. But reality does need to surface here.

If you are going to follow the train of thought that is being suggested here then there are some things to be considered also.

Like....

Property ownership.

Children.

Retirement and pensions....

If you are willing to totally revamp you life the go ahead.

[Aquila]

Yes, the government might need to stay out of the marriage business. But reality does need to surface here.

If you are going to follow the train of thought that is being suggested here then there are some things to be considered also.

Like....

Property ownership.

Children.

Retirement and pensions....

If you are willing to totally revamp you life the go ahead.

Excellent point.

To many, those things aren't important to them.

However, issues relating to property ownership can be handled through wills, powers of attorney, and (in some states) cohabitation agreements.

Issues relating to children are already handled routinely by the courts in most states seeing that many couples have children without having entered into a civil marriage. One would want to check their state's laws on this issue because laws can vary from state to state.

Rewarded benefits regarding retirement and pensions after the death of a spouse are the only things that cannot typically be handled outside of a civil marriage.

To those in a civil marriage, this would indeed be a terrible revamping of their lives. I wouldn't recommend it. If one is in a civil marriage it is best to stay there.

But for those who are not in a civil marriage, I'd still recommend that they seek one. However, I do understand that many couples for various reasons do not desire to have a civil marriage. Reasons I've encountered are:

- Divorcees are often leery of re-entering a civil marriage if the family court system and divorce statutes raked them over the coals or imposed a perceived injustice upon them. For example, I know of a man whose wife abandoned him and refused to file for divorce. He didn't have the money for an attorney and she basically kept him in limbo for over 5 years. She moved away, dated, and moved on with her life without a care in the world. He was in a living hell begging churches, attorneys, and friends for help. Eventually she wanted to remarry and agreed to a disillusion on the cheap. But he was in limbo for over five years before she relented. Had she not done this, he fears he'd still be legally married to her. This man flat out refuses to get a civil marriage again. lol Others report shady tactics by attorneys and biased courts that cost them multiplied thousands of dollars and wrecked everything they had worked for and crushed a family business they had inherited. As this man said when I asked if he'd ever marry his girlfriend, "Nope. Never again." People who have had these unfortunate experiences in the court system commonly prefer a Commitment Ceremony.

- Retirees often run the risk of losing various pension and Social Security benefits upon entering a civil marriage. For many, these benefits are a matter of economic or medical survival. They do not feel that it is entirely fair that the benefits gained after being faithful for decades to a now deceased spouse should just be erased upon remarrying. Especially when losing such benefits would cause significant hardship relating to finances and much needed medical coverage. They feel that until the laws change to protect their interests and honor the time and dedication they put into a previous marriage they are best off having a Commitment Ceremony.

- Mature couples who understand the civil marriage statutes often fear getting entangled in a civil marriage due to the liabilities it brings. Many have had parents, friends, or loved one's experience the horrors mentioned above. These individuals often refused to get married because they often feared the same could happen to them. Now that they are more mature and getting older they don't want to be alone. They want to settle down. However, they are still rather afraid of what could happen if the marriage fails. It is rather common for these individuals to ask about Commitment Ceremonies.

Some churches and religious bodies are compassionate and accommodating for these couples. That's why they perform Commitment Ceremonies to unite such couples in the eyes of God, even if they encourage civil marriage. Ultimately, they leave the decision up to the couple in question.

[Esaias]

Yes, the government might need to stay out of the marriage business. But reality does need to surface here.

If you are going to follow the train of thought that is being suggested here then there are some things to be considered also.

Like....

Property ownership.

Children.

Retirement and pensions....

If you are willing to totally revamp you life the go ahead.

Which is why I mentioned inheritance issues need to be worked out ahead of time.Contractual payments like insurance, retirement, etc can be handled by stating beneficiaries, etc.

It all gets messy though if someone files suit, then everyone has to prove everything and a notation in the Family Bible probably doesn't hold as much weight as it used to.

Of course, one could do it like the wealthy do - establish Trusts that manage everything according to by laws declared by the head of the family. That's how nobility rolls.

[Aquila]

The Quaker couple who originally introduced me to the idea of marrying without involving the government pointed out a passage of Scripture to me that they believe most Christians don't consider when they think about marriage. They point to I Corinthians 6...

I Corinthians 6:1-8 (ESV)
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!

They believe that by entering a civil marriage, a couple is legally obligating themselves to the civil court system and its statutes. Thus issues relating to divorce or other disputes must go through a secular civil court, putting them to open shame before an unbelieving society. They feel that as believers they are able to judge in themselves, and with the assistance of their local meeting, the issues they might face in their union should they be confronted with troubled waters or the need for separation. They'd rather suffer wrong and even be defrauded before allowing their union to become legally entangled in the civil court system.

And so, for this reason they feel the purist form of Christian marriage is government-free.

[Miss Scarlett]

What is the big deal over marriage license? Isn't it a lay to have them to make the commitment legal? I believe in them in order for a number of reasons which does benefit the spouse tremendously.

Are you looking for a way to shack up and say you are a Christian, or what is the deal? Just my uneducated opinion.

[Aquila]

What is the big deal over marriage license? Isn't it a lay to have them to make the commitment legal? I believe in them in order for a number of reasons which does benefit the spouse tremendously.

Are you looking for a way to shack up and say you are a Christian, or what is the deal? Just my uneducated opinion.

Miss Scarlett, I've covered most of that in my previous posts. Check them out.

By the way, there is no "law" requiring a couple to get a marriage license or even to have a civil marriage. In fact, something like 47% of adult Americans admit to having cohabitated with someone outside of civil marriage at some point in their lives. However, if one wants the benefits of this government program, they have to participate in the licensing and enter a civil contract with the state, giving the state full authority over their union.

[Rudy]

What is the big deal over marriage license? Isn't it a lay to have them to make the commitment legal? I believe in them in order for a number of reasons which does benefit the spouse tremendously.

Are you looking for a way to shack up and say you are a Christian, or what is the deal? Just my uneducated opinion.


Why does one need a secular entity to be lord over their marriage? being legal means to be recognized by the state and signing legal documents. Did you watch the videos?

[Miss Scarlett]

Do you have a social security number?
Do you have a drivers license?
Do you file income taxes?
Do you claim your family on your taxes at work and the end of the year?
If so what do you think of all this?

[Esaias]

Do you have a social security number?
Do you have a drivers license?
Do you file income taxes?
Do you claim your family on your taxes at work and the end of the year?
If so what do you think of all this?

Sounds like we're all cattle and 'they' can demand whatever 'they' want.

[Aquila]

Do you have a social security number?
Do you have a drivers license?
Do you file income taxes?
Do you claim your family on your taxes at work and the end of the year?
If so what do you think of all this?

I'm not against the government or any of the things you've listed above. I'm not even against civil marriage. However, I also acknowledge that some couples don't want to involve the government in their unions for many different reasons. And we can either try to FORCE these couples into a civil contract with the government against their wishes... or we can recognize and bless their commitment in the eyes of God.

[Rudy]

Do you have a social security number?
Do you have a drivers license?
Do you file income taxes?
Do you claim your family on your taxes at work and the end of the year?
If so what do you think of all this?

For me marriage is a spiritual/religious issue. Involving God and two people becoming one flesh.

A marriage license is voluntary. A contract that puts the state in-charge. The state allows divorce for almost any reason. Usurping God's command that only fornication is a reason for divorce concerning believers.

Now we see the state usurping God's authority allowing same sex marriage. Are they really married? They have a government license.

I believe it should be governed by the church, for believers that is.

The Catholic church doesn't even acknowledge a justice of the peace marriage. Spiritual reasoning?

Licensing took off after the civil war over interracial marriage.

Did you watch the videos?

Thanks for your input.

[Esaias]

You know its a scam because they want a fee for the license. It provides no service whatsoever, no product whatsoever, just busywork for govt employees, an excuse for bureaucracy, budget allocations, and REVENUE.

Its all about the money.

If licensing was designed to prevent illegal unions (such as incestuous marriages, for example) no fee would be needed. Folks show up at the county clerks office, present birth certificates or other proof they are not prohibited, and get a piece of paper with a "good to go" stamp on it.

Better yet, the state could just say "the following unions are not recognized as lawful" in a simple bill and call it good, no stamp needed.

Like I said, its all about $$$$.

[Aquila]

You know its a scam because they want a fee for the license. It provides no service whatsoever, no product whatsoever, just busywork for govt employees, an excuse for bureaucracy, budget allocations, and REVENUE.

Its all about the money.

If licensing was designed to prevent illegal unions (such as incestuous marriages, for example) no fee would be needed. Folks show up at the county clerks office, present birth certificates or other proof they are not prohibited, and get a piece of paper with a "good to go" stamp on it.

Better yet, the state could just say "the following unions are not recognized as lawful" in a simple bill and call it good, no stamp needed.

Like I said, its all about $$$$.

I agree to an extent. However, while there is no product whatsoever, there are benefits and services. For example, a woman's name is changed through the process. Not to mention the merging of all financial, medical, along with legal rights, and entitlements.

But many couples don't care about those things or prefer to handle things through wills and powers of attorney.

It's a serious step to become entangled with the government. And this is why I think every couple should have the right to choose to do so or not.

[Aquila]

I kind of like this idea:

Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?
Partnerships Could Be Tailored to Fit
By Colin P.A. Jones
Also published in San Francisco Chronicle

A fundamental problem with marriage is that it only comes in one size. As a legal relationship, matrimony is a monopoly product supplied by the government.

At the same time, however, as a personal relationship, the institution has unique, personal importance to those who partake of it. To some it even has deeply felt religious significance.

Thus, there is a mismatch between what is demanded of marriage and what is supplied. It is this imbalance that makes the prospect of same-sex unions a seemingly intractable problem.

Because there is only one legally sanctioned version of marriage, those who personally view homosexuality as a mortal sin (rightly or wrongly) are hostile to the prospect of sharing it with gay couples.

As with many things in life, a free-market solution that offers people choice may provide a solution.

Subject to certain statutory constraints, businesspeople have long been free to form whatever sort of partnership they felt appropriate to their needs. Why not make the same possible for marriage, which is a partnership based on one of the oldest types of contractual relationships?

We are already there in some respects—no-fault divorce states such as California already treat the dissolution of a marriage largely in the same way as the dissolution of a corporate partnership.

Couples entering into marriage should be able to use a partnership agreement that is tailored to their own circumstances and aspirations, one that reflects the values and expectations that they themselves attach to marriage.

Of course, it will be impractical to expect everyone to be able to draft a workable partnership agreement that will govern a (hopefully) lifelong relationship. Off-the-shelf marital partnership kits would be developed by lawyers and other private enterprises to fill this need. Customized products would be available, too.

Even greater participation could be achieved through the establishment of marital corporations (MCs), which could have hundreds or thousands of couples as shareholders, all sharing common values about marriage.

Couples getting married would subscribe to the shares of an existing marital corporation. Its charter documents would set forth the terms of the marriage to which the subscribing couples agree.

Here is where a plethora of choices would become available to prospective newlyweds.

A Catholic marital corporation would forbid its members from divorcing. Progressive marital corporations would allow gay marriage. Islamic or Mormon fundamentalist marital corporations could allow polygamy. Plain vanilla marital corporations would probably be popular among people who just want to get married without thinking about it too much.

Consideration of the wide range of available options might actually encourage people to think about what they want out of their marriage. And once those with strong feelings about homosexuals, divorcees, Republicans or whatever, are able to exclude such people from their own version of marriage by joining a like-minded marital corporation, they are less likely to object to same-sex couples joining more-accepting ones (or even ones that accept only homosexuals).

Exclusivity and the use of choice to define one’s identity are at the core of modern consumer society. Extending this to marriage is only logical. Marital corporations would be a huge boost to the multibillion-dollar wedding industry, while opening up a vast range of possible business opportunities throughout society.

Some could be established as nonprofit organizations that also work in furtherance of social or environmental causes about which some couples have strong feelings.

Others might become investment vehicles, whose assets form the marital nest egg. Still others might charge a subscription fee that would then be invested to pay dividends to lasting marriages upon significant anniversaries.

Very exclusive branded MCs could charge extravagant membership fees; getting married through say, the Tiffany Marriage Corp., could be a huge status symbol for which some people might pay a hefty premium.

Some might become social clubs through which like-minded couples can develop friendships or business contacts. With incentives to develop marital corporations that cater to all sectors of society, marriage would turn into an even bigger business than it already is. This is usually what happens when you offer consumers more choice.

Numerous issues would have to be worked out, of course. Just as with any contractual relationship, minors below a certain age would be excluded from joining a marital corporation.

Exemptions to securities laws would be needed to free marital corporations from having to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Marital corporation shares would not be freely transferable, except perhaps to children (as precious family assets, like Mom’s wedding ring).

The messy issues that arise in a divorce would still be there, just as they are in any bankruptcy or corporate dissolution.

And what do you do if you want to get divorced and remarry but have done your first marriage through a marital corporation that does not permit it?

Subscribe to a marital corporation that allows polygamy, perhaps, or at least be willing to assume whatever financial liabilities a breach of the shareholder terms of your first marital corporation requires.

Freedom of choice means freedom of contract, and freedom of contract includes the freedom to breach a contract if you are willing to accept the consequences.

But because the marital corporation charter would also be a perfect place to include prenuptial terms, divorce might actually be simplified, as more people would be likely to have at least some terms in place clarifying their rights and obligations when the union goes bad.

The reproductive aspects of marriage will also cause issues. Not because marital corporations will change the way the law deals with children in divorce situations (and I am not suggesting we incorporate the parent-child relationship), but because allowing same-sex unions (either through a marital corporation regime or the ad hoc approach some states are already following) will eliminate the presumption of reproduction that underlies traditional marriage.

Big deal, respond gay marriage proponents, who will point out that nobody looks at the reproductive capabilities of male-female couples before allowing them to marry, even after child-bearing age.

However, this argument ignores the fact that reproduction is only a presumption of marriage, but a very useful one, just like the presumption that minors (no matter how precocious) are incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. If the presumption of reproduction is no longer needed, then there is no real reason to prevent incestuous marriages.

This too may sound like a typical alarmist "slippery-slope, where will it end?" argument against gay marriage, but that is not the intent. Marriage may be about a lifelong loving relationship, but in today’s world, it is also about benefits.

I have an unabashedly heterosexual friend who works for a major corporation. Because she lives in Massachusetts, where gay marriage was recently legalized by judicial fiat, she has started talking about marrying one of her best girlfriends for the sole purpose of giving her friend access to her company’s health care benefits.

Fraudulent, some might say, but why not? Does anyone want to get into the business of determining who is really gay and who isn’t?

And once gays can get married in same-sex unions, why can’t heterosexuals? And if my friend can marry her friend to get spousal benefits, why can’t I do the same thing for my widowed mother? Or my sick, unemployed brother?

If marriage is not at least presumptively about reproduction anymore, there is no real reason to disallow any of these things. This is not an endorsement of incest, but if marriage is no longer about sex (hetero, reproductive or otherwise), intra-family marriages cease to be a problem.


While people would be free to use a marital corporation to enter into whatever type of marriage they wish for, governments and corporations would be able to limit the types of marital corporations they will recognize for benefits purposes.

Marital corporations that wish to be eligible for federal spousal benefits might be required to have mandatory provisions in their corporate charters that, for example, prohibit gay unions but permit interracial ones.

Such limitations may reflect public policies, economic realities or both, but at least it will enable us to get the government out of the business of deciding who can and who can’t get married.

Just as corporations will be able to "choose" marital corporations for benefits purposes, employees will be able to choose, too. Businesses that are too restrictive in the range of spouses they offer benefits to will find themselves having trouble attracting qualified employees. The marital corporation regime will not satisfy everyone. But more people will be at least partially satisfied, which is a sign of a good compromise, and will surely be an improvement over the simplistic "marriage/not marriage" dichotomy that currently defines the institution.


More important still, people will be able to exercise some choice in how their marriage is treated, rather than having the result imposed by the government. Yes, you can have a polygamous marriage, but you do so on the understanding that you may sacrifice your access to spousal benefits.

There are, after all, as many types of marriage as there are marriages. Recognizing this reality in the law would doubtless save us all from endless strife among those who would seek to turn the institution into something that they control through defining what it is.

The tremendous business opportunities that privatizing marriage would create would be a happy side benefit.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1657

[Aquila]

Not to mention, no Christian (or Christian couple) should commit to anything that would force them to become beholden to the secular court system. As much as possible, Christians should maintain their lives and affairs in a way in which they can be handled in house:

I Corinthians 6:1-8 (ESV)
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!

[Rudy]

Very interesting bro.

[Aquila]

I stumbled across this and I thought of this thread, so I'll share it here:

We live in a statist culture. Christians who develop their worldview self-consciously understand this fact of life to one degree or another. The problem is, Christians in this country have only ever lived in a statist culture. It is normal to us. We like the leeks and melons. Just like the frog in the pot slowly brought to a boil we sometimes cannot even recognize the danger of our cultural environment. So, we end up baptizing our secular - often thoroughly pagan - activities and think all is well with our Christian life.

The modern state does not care how we interpret our actions or view our relationship to it. We can think what we want. It only cares that we act in obedience and consent to its claims by signing the form. We are so used to the signature ritual, we seldom ask what we are signing away, or signing into. It's all so normal, you see. Everyone does it.

Have you ever asked yourself why Christians get a marriage license when they get married? A license is defined by Black's Law dictionary as;

"The permission by a competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or tort.... Certificate or the document itself which gives permission."

Now, that's interesting. When a Christian couple asks their state government for a marriage license, they are asking permission from that state to get married. Of course, the state doesn't care how future Mr. & Mrs. Christian interpret this act. They can think what they want. But what is important is that they sign the form.

States call this agreement a Marriage Contract. Contracts are always made between or among parties. Do you know who is always a party to any marriage contract? It is not just an agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Christian. (If it was then why would you need to sign the form offered by the state?) It is an agreement among Mr. and Mrs. Christian and the state. There are three parties to every marriage contract.

The civil government is a minister of God. We support and uphold that legitimate function of the state. But is there justification for the idea that the state owns marriage, in such a way that citizens must ask permission from the state to be "lawfully married"? Again, a license is permission to engage in an activity. This claim is not irrelevant, it is real - printed neatly in black and white. And when Christians - whether they understand it or not - ask permission for a marriage license they are agreeing to the claim of the state as being the sovereign and creator of the marriage agreement. Is this Christian or pagan?

How about the idea that the state, together with the man and woman, is a party to the marriage? This gives a whole new meaning to, "being in bed with the state"! To press the metaphor further, this logically means the state has a legal claim to the progeny of that agreement. This is why the state is justified in using force against godly Christian families (e.g.. homeschooling issues). The parents voluntarily gave authority over their children by making the State a party to the contract that produced them. It is time to recognize paganism for what it is. Let's go further. It's time to stop acting like pagan state worshipers when it comes to marriage. Since marriage is a picture of Christ's intimate union with his bride, the Church, inviting any other into this lawful union profanes and adulterates it. In so doing we present a false gospel picture to the world and to ourselves.

Marriage is not a union designed for convenience. It is not the property of the state. It is indeed ordained for three parties but we dare not substitute the "state" for our Lord, Jesus Christ. There is no biblical justification for Christian participation in marriage licenses and contracts. They are pagan to the core. They testify to the "god-state", not to the reality of Christ's relationship to his Church.

[dpseudonym]

Here is a question for you: If a couple had a wedding ceremony in the Church, but did not get a marriage license, are they married in the sight of God?

[Esaias]

Here is a question for you: If a couple had a wedding ceremony in the Church, but did not get a marriage license, are they married in the sight of God?

Only if their marriage can be Biblically defined as marriage. Whether inside or outside of a church building, or with or without a state license, has little bearing on the issue. The church was never authorized by God to be the power that ratifies or solemnizes marriage, neither was the state.

[Aquila]

Here is a question for you: If a couple had a wedding ceremony in the Church, but did not get a marriage license, are they married in the sight of God?

Different churches will most likely have different positions on this. I believe that if their union meets the description of a biblical marriage, it is a marriage... even if the state doesn't recognize it as a "civil marriage".

Quakers have recognized these more private unions as valid marriages in the eyes of God since their founding. And some churches have statements on marriage that read something like this...

Elders serving in Christian ministry within The Graceway Fellowship are to disengage civil marriage from Christian marriage in the performance of pastoral duties. Elders are to refuse to serve as agents of the state in marriage. Elders are to decline from signing government provided marriage licenses and/or certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from any church-related vows, promises, commitments, and/or blessings.

Many churches have committed to, The Marriage Pledge (https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge). It reads:

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

Laymen are welcome to sign to express support for pastors making this pledge. –Ed.

For all media inquiries regarding the marriage pledge, please contact First Things at 212-627-1985 or via email at ft@firstthings.com.


Even the Baptist Standard has several articles on the subject:

Bad idea for ministers to sign marriage licenses, pastors insist
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/texas/17185-bad-idea-for-ministers-to-sign-marriage-licenses-pastors-insist

These Baptist churches went as far as to even design their very own marriage covenant certificates for couples who do not seek government licensing of their unions (as seen in the article above).

Ultimately, it depends on your own faith and conviction, in addition to the position of your church or fellowship.

[Aquila]

Only if their marriage can be Biblically defined as marriage. Whether inside or outside of a church building, or with or without a state license, has little bearing on the issue. The church was never authorized by God to be the power that ratifies or solemnizes marriage, neither was the state.

Our fellowship only blesses couples. We don't perform weddings. We encourage couples to seek civil marriage on their own.

[Rudy]

Here is what's coming down the pipe!!

https://onsizzle.com/i/not-gender-love-is-love-not-race-not-age-not-889705

[Esaias]

That was disgusting. Sorry I clicked on it.

[Rudy]

Yep it is disgusting. They are pushing also to lower the age of consent too. Canada did.

[Aquila]

Here is what's coming down the pipe!!

https://onsizzle.com/i/not-gender-love-is-love-not-race-not-age-not-889705

Man's sinful nature knows no bounds. How do you associate this issue with this topic? I'm just curious.

[Aquila]

Yep it is disgusting. They are pushing also to lower the age of consent too. Canada did.

What are they considering lowering to?

The age for consent here in Ohio is 16 years old. According to, McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, in Judaism, boys could marry or make religious vows at 14-years-old and girls at 12-years-old.

What do you believe the age of consent should be?

[Rudy]

Man's sinful nature knows no bounds. How do you associate this issue with this topic? I'm just curious.


Same sex marriage has open the door. It's about love!!!

[Rudy]

What are they considering lowering to?

The age for consent here in Ohio is 16 years old. According to, McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, in Judaism, boys could marry or make religious vows at 14-years-old and girls at 12-years-old.

What do you believe the age of consent should be?

N.A.M.B.LA wants it lowered.

The purpose of lowering the age of consent is to satisfy their lust. If I could set it / it would be 18.

I think Canada lowered it to 14 could be 16. Reason being so boys can --------------I'll leave it there.

[Aquila]

Same sex marriage has open the door. It's about love!!!

Actually, gay marriage didn't open the door.

When marriage ceased being an issue of common law and the government began requiring a license, it became a "civil institution". The effort was to require a license and then deny licenses to mixed couples to prohibit interracial marriages. However, it backfired. In 1967 the SCOTUS ruled in Lovings vs. Virginia that the state couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity with regards to the issuance of a marriage license. This of course, led to gay marriage, seeing that the government can't discriminate against a person based on their gender or sexuality.

Had marriage been left to common law, it would be society and churches that recognized a marriage and not the government, who is legally bound to be impartial.

[Aquila]

N.A.M.B.LA wants it lowered.

The purpose of lowering the age of consent is to satisfy their lust. If I could set it / it would be 18.

I think Canada lowered it to 14 could be 16. Reason being so boys can --------------I'll leave it there.

I don't know... I'm just going to ramble a bit and let my thoughts flow on this one.... you can share your thoughts too.

God designed us to be ready for copulation and reproduction as a result of puberty. Never before in human history has mankind asked that young people wait so long before getting married. The end result is essentially society battling instinct. In biblical times, the age at which a couple could marry was around 14 for boys and 13 for girls (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia). Think about it... nature (the way God made us) makes us ready for copulation/marriage at about 13 and 14. Ancient societies typically arranged marriages or allowed young people to marry at about 13 and 14. If one was unmarried by 19, they were considered an old maid. In our modern society we expect young people to deny their desire to couple throughout high school at the very least (roughly 17 or 18). If they go to college we expect them to deny their desires to couple until they are at least around 23 or 24. It doesn't surprise me that we have so many unwed mothers, young people slipping around, etc. I'm not saying that it is right, I'm just saying that it's no surprise. But lowering the age of consent would only complicate this. I'm just mentioning it.

Also in America we have this strange sense of wanting to keep kids "innocent". I'm not sure where this came from. Because throughout America's history at about 13 and 14 kids helped manage the home, hunt, fish, and helped work in their father's trade. Shakespeare's Juliet was only 13. And in Medieval and early modern European societies they married little girls off as young as 7 years old, although consummation wasn't until after she entered puberty. English common law set the age of consent at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576. The ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12. Until the mid 1960s, the legal age of consent in Delaware was 7. However, this doesn't mean that the average American married that young. Typically the average American married between 21-26.

Of course, during some of these periods the average life expectancy was 45. So, there was a social reason for some of the younger marriages.

In biblical times young children worked the farm, the goats, etc. They knew the birds and the bees rather early because they worked with it. Also, families typically lived in one room homes wherein the room was converted from living area to sleeping area each evening. This means that families primarily slept in one room. Most likely young people were well aware of what was going bump in the night. Lastly, as with most ancient societies, Israel had public bathing areas. Families would gather, strip down, and bathe together in a local river or local pool. They also saw public executions and saw war first hand. I'm willing to wager that most 15 year olds had the maturity that we typically don't see until around 20 to 25 years of age.

But, having grown up in Ohio, with the age of consent being 16, I can't see it being lowered beyond 16.

[Rudy]

I don't know... I'm just going to ramble a bit and let my thoughts flow on this one.... you can share your thoughts too.

God designed us to be ready for copulation and reproduction as a result of puberty. Never before in human history has mankind asked that young people wait so long before getting married. The end result is essentially society battling instinct. In biblical times, the age at which a couple could marry was around 14 for boys and 13 for girls (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia). Think about it... nature (the way God made us) makes us ready for copulation/marriage at about 13 and 14. Ancient societies typically arranged marriages or allowed young people to marry at about 13 and 14. If one was unmarried by 19, they were considered an old maid. In our modern society we expect young people to deny their desire to couple throughout high school at the very least (roughly 17 or 18). If they go to college we expect them to deny their desires to couple until they are at least around 23 or 24. It doesn't surprise me that we have so many unwed mothers, young people slipping around, etc. I'm not saying that it is right, I'm just saying that it's no surprise. But lowering the age of consent would only complicate this. I'm just mentioning it.

Also in America we have this strange sense of wanting to keep kids "innocent". I'm not sure where this came from. Because throughout America's history at about 13 and 14 kids helped manage the home, hunt, fish, and helped work in their father's trade. Shakespeare's Juliet was only 13. And in Medieval and early modern European societies they married little girls off as young as 7 years old, although consummation wasn't until after she entered puberty. English common law set the age of consent at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576. The ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12. Until the mid 1960s, the legal age of consent in Delaware was 7. However, this doesn't mean that the average American married that young. Typically the average American married between 21-26.

Of course, during some of these periods the average life expectancy was 45. So, there was a social reason for some of the younger marriages.

In biblical times young children worked the farm, the goats, etc. They knew the birds and the bees rather early because they worked with it. Also, families typically lived in one room homes wherein the room was converted from living area to sleeping area each evening. This means that families primarily slept in one room. Most likely young people were well aware of what was going bump in the night. Lastly, as with most ancient societies, Israel had public bathing areas. Families would gather, strip down, and bathe together in a local river or local pool. They also saw public executions and saw war first hand. I'm willing to wager that most 15 year olds had the maturity that we typically don't see until around 20 to 25 years of age.

But, having grown up in Ohio, with the age of consent being 16, I can't see it being lowered beyond 16.

Aquilla, I don't see the use of varying groups did this or that as a guide. There is no-way children can make good choices concerning their sexuality and marriage. We see now the results of free love that has confused so many.

[Aquila]

Aquilla, I don't see the use of varying groups did this or that as a guide. There is no-way children can make good choices concerning their sexuality and marriage. We see now the results of free love that has confused so many.

There's nothing new under the Sun.

And I agree, kids today are not prepared to make good choices regarding sexuality and marriage. I couldn't see the age of consent being lower than 16.

I'm just leery of the state intruding on the more intimate issues of human beings like sexuality and marriage.

[Rudy]

There's nothing new under the Sun.

And I agree, kids today are not prepared to make good choices regarding sexuality and marriage. I couldn't see the age of consent being lower than 16.

I'm just leery of the state intruding on the more intimate issues of human beings like sexuality and marriage.


it's a wonder that government hasn't required a permit for dating.

Ministers attaching themselves to government via a license is a little alarming. The government allows the slaughter of the unborn, same sex marriage, endless wars and so on. And use a ministers license to perform Marriages. It's like getting a license from the Nazis.

[Aquila]

it's a wonder that government hasn't required a permit for dating.

Ministers attaching themselves to government via a license is a little alarming. The government allows the slaughter of the unborn, same sex marriage, endless wars and so on. And use a ministers license to perform Marriages. It's like getting a license from the Nazis.

None of our elders are licensed with the government. We primarily bless couples, we've had one Quaker style wedding, and we advise that if a couple wishes to have the civil benefits of marriage, they pursue a civil marriage at the courthouse prior to any church related blessings or ceremonies.

[Steven Avery]

None of our elders are licensed with the government. We primarily bless couples, we've had one Quaker style wedding, and we advise that if a couple wishes to have the civil benefits of marriage, they pursue a civil marriage at the courthouse prior to any church related blessings or ceremonies.Overall, I think your perspective on this is excellent, especially about eschewing any government license. Earlier you said:

We encourage couples to seek civil marriage on their own.Which sounds different than above. This means receiving a license, and thus acknowledging the authority to license. It seems like you only "encourage" those who want the civil "benefits".

What is your position on the name change question, informally and legally?
Oh, I see you touched on that a bit.

However, while there is no product whatsoever, there are benefits and services. For example, a woman's name is changed through the process. Not to mention the merging of all financial, medical, along with legal rights, and entitlements. But many couples don't care about those things or prefer to handle things through wills and powers of attorney.Thanks!

Steven

[Esaias]

Where in the Bible do ministers or elders have anything to do with marriages?

Or funerals, for that matter?

[Aquila]

Where in the Bible do ministers or elders have anything to do with marriages?

Or funerals, for that matter?

We only see Jesus attending a wedding. Didn't ancient Jewish custom often have a rabbi bless the couple?

[UnTraditional]

Where in the Bible do ministers or elders have anything to do with marriages?

Or funerals, for that matter?

In truth, this is but a tradition, and not written in Scripture. Rabbis did a blessing of the couple under Judaism, and this did carry over. However, where this is not in Scripture, marriage between one man and one woman is under the New Covenant.

IMHO, government should get out of the marriage business. I use the terminology that marriage is an ordinance of the Church, a sacred covenant held through Scripture, and government has no right to tax or mandate what is the biblical authority of Scripture. I'm just saying.

[Aquila]

In truth, this is but a tradition, and not written in Scripture. Rabbis did a blessing of the couple under Judaism, and this did carry over. However, where this is not in Scripture, marriage between one man and one woman is under the New Covenant.

IMHO, government should get out of the marriage business. I use the terminology that marriage is an ordinance of the Church, a sacred covenant held through Scripture, and government has no right to tax or mandate what is the biblical authority of Scripture. I'm just saying.

Wouldn't that imply that people outside of the church's authority are not "married"?

Marriage is a social construct between families. It doesn't belong to government... or the church.

[UnTraditional]

Wouldn't that imply that people outside of the church's authority are not "married"?

Marriage is a social construct between families. It doesn't belong to government... or the church.

Sorry, but marriage is an ordinance of the Church. Ordained and blessed of God. To say otherwise is to degrade the sacredness of the covenant. It may be a foundation of the social construct, but the covenant itself is ordained and blessed by God through the Scriptures.

Does this imply that those outside the church are not married? Since marriage was ordained by God in creation, the very act is sacred. They are married, however, the blessing of the covenant is always accompanied by the blessing of salvation. As Christ loves the Church, so ought a man love his wife.

[Aquila]

Sorry, but marriage is an ordinance of the Church. Ordained and blessed of God. To say otherwise is to degrade the sacredness of the covenant. It may be a foundation of the social construct, but the covenant itself is ordained and blessed by God through the Scriptures.

Does this imply that those outside the church are not married? Since marriage was ordained by God in creation, the very act is sacred. They are married, however, the blessing of the covenant is always accompanied by the blessing of salvation. As Christ loves the Church, so ought a man love his wife.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

[Aquila]

I recently heard of this idea and practice being called, "Sovereign Christian Marriage".

[Rudy]

I wonder if we would re-bell on getting a permit to date? Saying enough!!!

[Aquila]

I wonder if we would re-bell on getting a permit to date? Saying enough!!!

lol

[Scott Pitta]

Please continue to fill out those documents at the courthouse. Those researchers who will sift through the paperwork while writing biographies need them !!!! They are full of useful data for geeks like me.

Harry Morse performed lots of marriages for young Pentecostal ministers and missionaries. I just found one last night. Charles Storey and Mattie Hammond from 1919.

[Aquila]

Please continue to fill out those documents at the courthouse. Those researchers who will sift through the paperwork while writing biographies need them !!!! They are full of useful data for geeks like me.

Harry Morse performed lots of marriages for young Pentecostal ministers and missionaries. I just found one last night. Charles Storey and Mattie Hammond from 1919.

Interesting point. Researchers often have trouble with early Quaker genealogies if records have been lost or are hard to find. But, thankfully many meetings have kept excellent records.