The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

I was just doing some reading regarding Common Law Marriages. These marriages are unions that are legally recognized though not solemnized by the state. In states where Common Law Marriages are recognized the law requires a legal divorce or dissolution of marriage for the union to be broken. Most states that recognize common law marriages have a certain criteria that must be met. These would be as follows,

* live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
* hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and
* intend to be married.

Recognition of Common Law Marriages vary by state. Here is a listing of states wherein Common Law Marriages are recognized,

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
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

Seeing that I weary of Government's involvement in marriage, I find notion of two people simply choosing to be married in the eyes of God without state sanctioned solemnization interesting. My question is however, should churches where Common Law Marriages are legally binding recognize such unions?

Just an interesting subject. What are your thoughts?

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

I coulda swore virginia had common law marriages.

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

Looks like you need to get officially hitched jfrog. :lol

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

I feel the same way about the State's involvement in marriage. The whole issue of gay marriage only exists because we have let marriage become a state defined entity.

If marriages where were they should be... in the church... and not licensed by the state then the only decider in that battle would be the church and the church alone.

It is a shame that Gods children have come to the point that they don't view a marriage as valid unless it is sanctioned by the state.

The odd thing is that they do consider it valid if it isn't done before God... but not if it isn't done before the state.

Someone can go to the Justice of the Peace... a state entity... and get married completely outside the church body... it's valid... because the state said so.

Someone can get married and say they are not going to get a state marriage license... there are questions.

God isn't good enough when it comes to marriage these days but the state will serve just fine.

How odd.

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

I suppose the greater question would be: Did God give the authority to the church or to the government to perform marriages?

If to the church, how do non-christians become married. If to the church would a Jehovah's Witness Church actually have the authority to perform marriages? If you answer no, I'm sure they would disagree with you. They would probably even doubt your churches authority to perform marriages.

In other words, in many cases churches would teach that only marriages performed by a church with similar views could be considered a legitimate marriage. So, I actually think that marriage is more ably handled in the governments hands than it is in the hands of all the different religions of America. At least no one can tell you that you aren't really married when the government does it. Well, I guess we might tell the gays and lesbos that...

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

One question I just thought of...

I know many early christians didn't get married, but does anyone know how marriage happened for the ones that did?

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

It’s my conviction that marriages should be private arrangements. Certainly churches could solemnize marriage; however, two individuals should be able to solemnize their marriage privately. All that I think should be necessary is record of the two proclaiming to be married by using same name etc. I don’t believe the government should regulate the most private and intimate arrangements of adults. The Bible tells us, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:9). The key here for me is, “What therefore God hath joined together,” God is the one who unites couples… not the state, not the church. Even allowing the church authority to solemnize marriage is uncomfortable. Remember, it was the Roman Catholic Church that outlawed marriage for priests and even regulated the marriage of soldiers and nobility. Yes, churches also abuse their power in this area. Some would refuse to solemnize interracial couples. I vote that marriage should be a private matter determined by two adults, much like common law marriage standards. But that’s just me.

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

I wouldn't disagree with that.

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

I believe there needs to be SOME government meddling in the sense that married couples enjoy many legal rights.

However I completely agree with the bolded part. Ever hear the horror stories of couples trying to get married on bible colleges? Or some more UC church's where a number of "permissions" are required, such as from pastors and parents?

Re: The, eh, stuff that marriages are made of...
 

In today's world, there needs to be more than a private commitment. Even years ago, I knew a girl who made a private commitment-to a man in each of about 5 cities!! Since the private commitments weren't legally recognized, she wasn't considered a polygamist, and had convinced herself she wasn't in fornication. However, by her actions, she was edangering herself, the guys she was with, and all of their partners too. She was also creating difficulties for any children that might come from one of the arrangements, due to the need for paternity tests and the legalities of child support.

That was 20 years ago. Those arrangements are much more common now. I have a relative who engaged in such an arrangement. Probably more than one. And I'm from a conservative family. The thing is, if the arrangement isn't legalized and legitimized, if there is ever a split, there will be no protection for either party. Thankfully the law does somewhat protect any children born to the arrangement. There isn't always in cases of divorce, either, and I understand that. But it does present some special problems.

In Bible times, when a man slept with a single woman, he was stuck with her for life. That is not the case in today's society. The law is there to protect the family structure. It doesn't always do a good job of it, but it does help, IMO.

Of course, I'm also very much for pre-nups, and many OPs would have my head for that! Talk it out, put it in writing, decide it all before the vows. It will save a lot of disputes later if it is well discussed beforehand. Not because you might get divorced, but as a written plan for how things will work so that you don't get divorced. Again, JMO