In God's Eyes Only:
 

In other threads we've debated about "privatized marriage" vs. "civil marriage".

But here's a question I've wanted to ask and I've yet to get much feed back...

Would you accept a couple into your church who were "spiritually married" in a "government free marriage"? Please explain why you would or why you wouldn't.

Here's an example of a ministry that provides such marriages:

http://ingodseyesonly.com/

They believe:

What We Believe...

•Marriage is a covenant not a contract. Frequently, civil marriage complicates inheritance, pensions, social security, medical care, property ownership and many other areas of a union.
•In God's Eyes Only Marriage is a covenant without a marriage license.
•Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman before God.
•Originally, God brought the idea of monogamy and marriage. Later, men came with the idea of imposing laws around marriage.
•Marriage is a celebration; in fact, Jesus' first miracle was at a wedding where he turned the water into wine.
•Marriage is honorable and blessed of God.
•Marriage declares a partnership between a man and a woman. It celebrates their complementing strengths for each other.
•Marriage is the very sacrament of divine love.
•Marriage is God's answer to loneliness.
•The Bible encourages a man and a woman to commit to each other in the eyes of God.

Links to supplimental articles:

Five Reasons Why Christians (and non Christians) Should Not Obtain A Marriage License:
http://chrisforliberty.blogspot.com/...s-and-non.html

Privatize Marriage:
http://patriot.net/~crouch/act/boaz.html

It's Time To Privatize Marriage:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57749,00.html

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

But what about responsibility? What happens when one of them backslides which quite often happens? Then in the eyes of the state having never been married they just walk away with no consequences.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

If they have children the state can still require child support and parents can claim limited custody rights.

What I'm wondering is... is it the state's business in the first place??? I mean, today we have "no fault" divorce laws, which mean that with an attorney one can essentially walk away from any "civil marriage" without any serious grounds to dissolve the union. Yet we know attorney's nearly ALWAYS raise the stakes and inspire a fight if a divorcing couple isn't careful. This often leads to YEARS of legal wrangling in the courts and THOUSANDS of dollars in legal costs. Many couples DON'T want this should they choose to part ways. They'd rather handle their "divorce" privately without involving the courts or attorneys. In some ways, the legal system as it stands makes divorce a lucrative decision if a couple is having an extremely difficult time. And courts have been significantly biased against men in the past, causing a man to often have to loose nearly half to two thirds of his net wealth... when it was the wife who decided to leave. Courts also rutinely throw out prenupts. This is why nearly 43% to 45% of American couples choose not to become legally married. They know that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Why set themselves up for such a war? So they choose to cohabitate without getting entagled in the legal system. In a way... it's the STATE that has created the circumstances that has made marriage such a high stakes gamble.

Shouldn't marriage be a private contract or covenant? Perhaps they state should get out of the marriage business entirely and allow people to marry according to "contract", the terms of divorce already determined in the contract. Today, the state can hold the cold steel barrel of a gun against a person's head and threaten total financial ruin... unless they can afford a high priced attorney. And even then, if you're a man, the odds are against you being treated fairly in some states.

Paul wrote something interesting about going to courts....

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (ESV)
6 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!

Essentially... Christians shouldn't seek to settle grievances in this world's court systems. We, as believers, are called to make just judgments among ourselves. And interestingly, this is what some Quakers do. Historically, Quakers have refused to get marriage licenses and file their marriages with the state because they don't believe in allowing the state to be involved... and they don't want to go before the courts of the state. They'd rather handle any "divorce" privately. However, due to the state's increased power over marriage... more and more Quakers are filing for marriage licenses. But traditionally speaking... it used to not be so.

Also, we read what Paul wrote concerning an unbelieving spouse (one backslidden from the faith might also be applied here):

I Corinthians 7:12-15 (ESV)
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

An unbelieving spouse who desires to leave is to be allowed to leave freely. The brother or sister is no longer bound to the union in such cases. Theologians debate if remarriage is permissible. I believe that remarriage in this case is permissible because the phrase "not enslaved", or "not bound" (KJV), is common Roman legal-speak for "free to marry again". But that's my take on it.

Throughout the Bible and ancient times, marriage was a covenant between two individuals and/or two families. They had no "marriage license" necessary to file their marriage with the government. In addition, their divorces were witnessed by the elders of their family or community. The "get" (or writ of divorcement) was issued by the husband before two witnesses and it was settled.

In early America George Washington and his wife didn't have a marriage license. The intent to marry was to be declared publically and two witnesses were required to testify to the couple's intent to be married. No government or state involvement. Many common-law-marriage laws date back to this. Marriage licenses were only issued as an attempt to regulate interracial marriages. However, eventually the state required ALL couples to seek marriage licenses. With this... GOVERNMENT hijacked marriage and ever since then... it's gone down hill. With the tax breaks, specified benefits, etc... civil marriage has become a government program... and a high stakes gamble nearly half of American couples don't want to take. In my opinion, GOVERNMENT has nearly ruined the institution of marriage. And now... they want to redefine it to permit same sex couples to marry. Obviously the state can't be trusted with marriage. And again, this is why many devoted couples decide not to become legally married. They don't want the heart ache or head ache that the government's involvement might bring. Dissolving a relationship is hard enough without attorneys and thousands of dollars in legal costs. They'd rather handle their "divorce" privately.

But that's all stuff that's been said before in other discussions. My question here is...

• Would you accept a couple into your church who were "spiritually married" in a "government free marriage"? Please explain why you would or why you wouldn't.

• If the couple were previously a Quaker couple, and their marriage wasn't legally filed with the state, would you require them to file their marriage with the state? Would you declare them "living in sin" or recognize them as being "married"? Please explain why you would or why you wouldn't.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

If we knew Christians living as man and wife would continue being Christians I would be ok with it.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

There is and was a far more devastating thing than this that has destroyed marriage and America with it.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

I see your point. However, as a Libertarian, I have to ask... is it the GOVERNMENT'S job to manage and define marriage?

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

That's interesting. Please elaborate, share your thoughts.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Shacking up!

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Not State Approved = Shacking Up?

The marriage license was even invented in the US to keep people of mixed races from marrying and has only been popular for 70-80 years or so.

But... in that amount of time... this short term way of "validating" marriage has become the end all do all without which a marriage is not valid.

Simply amazing.

This should be moved to the "Conservative or Preservative" thread.

BTW... if your post was tongue in cheek then please don't be offended that I used your post to make a point as many people do feel that way.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

I don't know if your post was tongue in cheek... but I'll offer a resonse to the logic.

Here's a some marriage license history:

http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_hi...-licenses.html

I found it interesting.

George Washington didn't file with the government for a marriage license... neither did Abraham Lincoln. In fact it wasn't a requirement for all couples to file a marriage license with the government until 1923 (Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act). So please note, marriage licenses have only existed on a significant scale since 1929. No one in the US before that was required to have a marriage license in order to practice their fundamental right to marry. It was only needed by interracial couples for the government to "recognize" their marriage (institutionalized racism). And it was created to be used by the state as a power to deny interracial couples the right to marry.

Then we have the Quakers. Traditionally they declined to file their marriages with the government on the grounds of believing in the Separation of Church & State. Many like minded conservatives (such as Pastor Matt Trewhalla) also don't believe in marriage licensing. The reasoning behind this is that marriage is a God given "common right", not a right granted by any government ("What God has joined together...").

Here's an interesting quote from the website posted above:

"Today, some fundamentalist Christians choose to marry without a state-issued marriage license. Pastor Matt Trewhella of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, one of the most outspoken pastors on the subject, refuses to marry anyone with a state-issued license. "When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral," he says. Marriages without state licenses are still legal and hold up in the courts of every state. Two witnesses must sign the marriage certificate issued by clergy, and if desired, it can be filed in the county courthouse."

Read more: The History of Marriage Licenses | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_hi...#ixzz2I9qbhWqD

So, does this mean that all these individuals (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, numerous Quakers and Christian conservatives) were/are "shacking up"???

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Interesting Ron Paul quotes:

"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

"Why should the government be telling you what marriage is all about? You might have one definition. I have another definition." ~ Ron 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

"Licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person’s desire to mold other people’s behavior to their standard." ~ Ron Paul

Why should any self-respecting, conservative, personal-liberties-minded Christian go groveling before the government to get a "marriage license" when marriage is common right from the hand of God? Do we need state issued licenses to perform The Lord's Supper or water baptisms? Of course not. John Knox pointed out that NOWHERE in Scripture do we see a priest presiding over a wedding. With that, he drew the conclusion that a wedding is a private personal matter between two individuals and their families. This is why Quakers traditionally have "self-officiated" weddings wherein the couple solemnizes their own wedding before God and witnesses. No priest officiating... no government filing.

So... some of my questions still haven't been answered...

• Would you accept a couple into your church who were "spiritually married" in a "government free marriage"? Please explain why you would or why you wouldn't.

• If the couple were previously a Quaker couple, and their marriage wasn't legally filed with the state, would you require them to file their marriage with the state? Would you declare them "living in sin" or recognize them as being "married"? Please explain why you would or why you wouldn't.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

So... some of my questions still haven't been answered...

• Would you accept a couple into your church who were "spiritually married" in a "government free marriage"? Please explain why you would or why you wouldn't.

• If the couple were previously a Quaker couple, and their marriage wasn't legally filed with the state, would you require them to file their marriage with the state? Would you declare them "living in sin" or recognize them as being "married"? Please explain why you would or why you wouldn't.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Yep. Because they are married in the same manner that has been acceptable to God & men for most of the time marriages have been taking place. I won't let a handful of decades' "convention" cast doubt on what has been fine enough for most of the history of mankind.

Nope. See comments above.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

D4T,

Thanks for answering.

People seem to be staying away from this topic. lol

(I always pick the controversial stuff) :)

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

I found this interesting. Pastor Matt Trewhella of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin explains his view of a "biblical Christian marriage":

"Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses...

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible... Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we."

Would this be an acceptable "Christian marriage"?

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

I think what our government thinks and expects matters a great deal. At such time it truly becomes only a private/legal matter the government expectation and documentation would change. Until then we need to obey the law if you wish to be married.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

I agree. However, it isn't "illegal" for a couple to declare themselves as being "married" without a state marriage license. The state would only refuse to legally "recognize" said marriage for the purpose of taxation and other government granted "benefits".

Quakers traditionally do not file with the state for a marriage certificate because it requires an "officient" and Quakers traditionall self-officiate their marriages. Another reason is their radical position on the separation of church and state. In Pennsylvania they've legalized "Self-Officiated" marriages to accomodate this tradition. Some conservative Quakers in other states have "government free marriages". Some state courts have used the "marriage certificate" in the front of a family Bible to validate a marriage in cases involving survivor claims. Some Muslims with more than one wife also have Islamic certificates of marriage, though the state doesn't "recognize" the additional unions.

Point is... while the government will only readily "recognize" licensed marriages... the absence of a "marriage license" doesn't invalidate the reality of a "marriage".

Now, if it were illegal to address your partner as your "wife" or "husband" with penalties... I would agree with you completely.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

The law allows for common law marriage. It's the church that doesn't.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

The Libertarian in me wants to say that it's none of the GOVERNMENT's business. Marriage is between the individual, their God, and their love. If they desire the union... and at least two witnesses can testify to our intent to be husband and wife (parents included for a woman never married)... it's a marriage. Rather the government wants to recognize it or not.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Yet the church advocates "law of the land" teaching. If it's legal common law marriage... shouldn't the church accept common law marriage?

"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

"As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State—literally! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of idolatry for me to do so." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella

"Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella

"Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella

"What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” ~ Jesus (ESV)

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Very interesting articles:

Conservative side:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1657

Liberal Side:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._marriage.html

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Interesting book on this subject:

MARRIAGE WITHOUT A LICENSE: A Completely Moral Alternative to Civil Marriage
Laura M. Sands (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/MARRIAGE-WITHO.../dp/B0050VILR8

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Interesting link:

Marriage Without A License Is the Only True Christian Marriage
http://www.boundaries-for-effective-...t-license.html

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Sample of a sovereign Christian Marriage Contract:

Christian Marriage Contract

I. The Authority

In the Name of God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, we, _____________________ and ______________________ , hereby, before these witnesses, are joined in holy matrimony, as God intended in Genesis 2: 21-25, from this day forward until death.

The sole authority in and for this marriage shall be the Almighty God as revealed in the Holy Bible. His words shall be final Authority in every decision and/or dispute.

II. The parties

_______________________ is a man of sound mind and character, and of lawful age, attesting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the preeminence of the Word of God.

_______________________ is a woman of sound mind and character, and of lawful age, attesting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the preeminence of the Word of God.

III. The Benefits

Both of the parties shall have the usual and customary duties of marriage including, but not limited to, the following:

Mutual sexual congress

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable standards of hygiene.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to meet one another’s sexual needs both physical and emotional in a spirit of love, openness, and respect.

Mutual society

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain open communication for the benefit of the home.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain a peaceful home environment.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain respect for one another’s personal property, papers, and effects.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain appropriate respect for one another’s family.

Mutual rearing of children

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain acceptable parenting standards with regards to the children.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to employ reasonable levels of disciple with regards to the children.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable standards of hygiene with regards to the children.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable standards with regards to the education of the children.

Mutual support, including, but not limited to:

Financial: It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable levels of income to sustain the home.


Moral: It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable standards of moral character.


Spiritual: It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to respect and encourage one another’s spiritual development and needs.


Domestic: It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to assist with chores and the maintenance of the home. An addendum with regards to the suitable division of household chores/duties may be added to this contract as agreed upon at a later date.

IV. The Prohibitions

The following activities or behaviors shall be considered violations of the marriage contract:

Adultery:

Adultery is defined as any sexual activity or conduct with any person or persons not a party to this agreement.

Abandonment:

Abandonment shall be defined as either the filing in state court of any instrument seeking either legal separation or legal dissolution of the marriage, or desertion from the marital home for a period of no less than six months - whether support is paid by the deserting party or not.

Assault against a party or child of this marriage:

Assault is defined to be injurious or potentially injurious unwanted physical contact. A child of this marriage shall include any child of either party who is living with the parties and any adopted child.

Criminal behavior:

Criminal behavior shall be defined as one party’s willful and ongoing activities in violation of law such as would subject that party and/or the household to criminal sanctions and incarceration.

Dangerous behavior:

Dangerous behavior shall be defined as one party’s willful participation in behavior that has not been agreed upon by both parties that subjects the other party and/or the household to physical danger.

Ejection:

Ejection shall be defined as one party’s ejection of the other party.

Ejection is the removal of the other person from the marital home.

Ejection need not be by force to be prohibited by this agreement.

Ejection may be demonstrated by removal of the other party’s personal property from the marital home, the changing of the locks, or the mere demand by one party that the other party leave the marital home.

Habitual drunkenness or drug intoxication:

Habitual drunkenness or drug intoxication, whether criminal or not, is prohibited. Habitual drunkenness or drug intoxication shall be deemed to include a party’s being under the influence of alcohol or drugs to a noticeable or perceptible degree more often than ___ days per month.

Illness:

It is specifically agreed upon and understood that becoming physically or mentally ill is not prohibited conduct. The other party’s becoming physically or mentally ill is not, in itself, prohibited by this contract and cannot be the basis for seeking a remedy under this contract.

Misfortune:

It is specifically agreed and understood that becoming financially poor is not prohibited conduct.

V. To Whom Appeal is Made

The first appeal, when one party believes the other party has violated the prohibitions above, shall be in accordance with Matthew 18: 15-18, that is, the offended party shall take the matter to the accused party.

If no resolution results from the first appeal, may demand physical separation from the accused party. See “The remedies” below.

If no resolution results from the first appeal, the offended party shall take the matter to the accused party with two or three impartial witnesses.

If no resolution results, the offended party shall call for the church or family counselor to judge and counsel concerning the matter.

The proceedings of the church or family counselor shall be recorded to whatever extent possible.

The standard of proof shall be preponderance of the evidence.

If a party is found to be at fault, the church or family counselor shall render a decision concerning separation and/or divorce and concerning suggested financial restitution.

All decisions of the church or family counselor shall be binding upon the parties for permanent separation or divorce.

VI. The Remedies

Resolution and reconciliation:

Resolution and reconciliation shall be defined as counsel from godly ministers who are of sound mind and character and believers in the Word of God in attempt to resolve circumstances and issues related to any violation of the above prohibitions.

Separation:

Separation shall be defined as the leaving of or removal of one party at the demand of another party based upon allegation(s) of violation(s) of the contractual prohibitions above. Where physical separation is initiated, the accused party shall leave the domicile, especially where children are part of the household. Physical custody of any children shall remain with the respective parents. The separation demanded, unless otherwise agreed upon or ordered, shall last no longer than 90 days unless the allegation(s) are verified by preponderance of the evidence before the church, family counselor, or state court of law. Resolution and reconciliation may proceed by mutual agreement. Upon a showing that the allegation(s) of contractual prohibitions are true, either by the church, family counselor, or a state court, the separation will be deemed permanent, subject to future consideration, resolution, and reconciliation initiated by the parties involved.

Divorce:

Divorce shall be defined as the complete dissolution of this marriage contract and may only be sought by a party claiming and showing a violation of the contractual provisions against adultery or abandonment. Initial separation shall follow the procedure above. After a hearing of the matter before the church, family counselor, or state court, the prevailing party may, if a state marriage license has been obtained, file for a civil dissolution in state court.

VII. Witnesses and abuse of process

If the church or family counselor determines by clear and convincing evidence that a party has been untruthful or has induced a witness to be untruthful in any proceeding before the church or family counselor, said party shall be deemed guilty of abandonment.

If the church or family counselor deems that a party has repeatedly engaged the process without just cause, that party shall be deemed guilty of abandonment. For purposes of this paragraph, “repeatedly” shall be no fewer than three times.

It is acknowledged by all parties involved that this contract expresses a purely spiritual agreement and is sovereign with relation to all civil legalities.

The undersigned parties do hereby agree to the terms of this contract:


___________________________
Husband


_________________________
Wife


The undersigned do hereby witness the agreement of the parties:


___________________________
Witness

_________________________
Witness

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

It just dawned on me... a lot of this would have been resolved if Common Law Marriage wasn't abolished in my state. According to the laws that used to pertain to common law marriage the following criteria made a common law marriage an actual legal marriage

A common law marriage exists only if all of the following are true:

•The couple has a mutual agreement of marriage "in praesenti" (presently).
•Both people are competent to marry (that is, of age and so on).
•The couple has sexually consummated the marriage and lives together.
•The couple holds themselves out to the public as husband and wife.
•The couple has a reputation in the community as husband and wife.

Interesting.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Perhaps they shouldn't have abolished Common Law Marriage.

Re: In God's Eyes Only:
 

Interesting article:

Christian Marriage Without License and Common Law Marriage: What's the Difference?
By Thomas Drummond
http://ezinearticles.com/?Christian-...e?&id=51340301