How Many Gays Does It Take to....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Ferd

There are a couple of things I know about marriage.

First it is impossible for the state to sanction marriage. Marriage is a covanant between God, a man, and a woman. There is no room for the state to be involved in the covanant.

Does this imply that a couple might privately sanctify their relationship by professing to be married in God's eyes before witnesses as the Quakers who traditionally don't seek marriage licenses or registration with the state?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Does this imply that a couple might privately sanctify their relationship by professing to be married in God's eyes before witnesses as the Quakers who traditionally don't seek marriage licenses or registration with the state?

Yes.

More than imply. I firmly believe that we need to change the law so that contract law handles a law of Primary relationship.

such law would allow any two people to inter into such an agreement. Neither marriage, nor sexual involvement would inter into the concept.

two people who are married could create such a thing, as two gay people who represent themselves as such could, or two elderly people who rely on one another but are nothing more than friends could as well.

All extension of benifits that are assumed now as part of the state sanctioned marriage would be part of this.

Marriage however, would be the perview of the individaul entirely and that would allow the church to return to its JOB of insuring its adhearants understand that their marriage is their covanant not just with their spouse but with GOD.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Yes.

More than imply. I firmly believe that we need to change the law so that contract law handles a law of Primary relationship.

such law would allow any two people to inter into such an agreement. Neither marriage, nor sexual involvement would inter into the concept.

two people who are married could create such a thing, as two gay people who represent themselves as such could, or two elderly people who rely on one another but are nothing more than friends could as well.

All extension of benifits that are assumed now as part of the state sanctioned marriage would be part of this.

Marriage however, would be the perview of the individaul entirely and that would allow the church to return to its JOB of insuring its adhearants understand that their marriage is their covanant not just with their spouse but with GOD.

I absolutely agree. I tried to attach a sample private "marriage contract". Tell me what you think.

http://www.portlandporcupine.com/smc...gecontract.doc

My and my lady friend have considered a private, government free, marriage. We've both been married before and under NO circumstances do we want to take the risk of having to deal with the family court system again should one or both of us become idiots. Having had to endure a divorce after 12 years of marriage to my high school sweet heart I can say, you never REALLY know a person... and people often change. Our divorces were brutal and expensive. Not to mention, Paul admonishes believers not to take one another before unbelieving courts:

I Corinthians 6:1-7 (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?

Based on this... I believe Paul would have believers settle differences privately among the family of God, not in the courts, and this includes "divorce".

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I absolutely agree. I tried to attach a sample private "marriage contract". Tell me what you think.

http://www.portlandporcupine.com/smc...gecontract.doc

My and my lady friend have considered a private, government free, marriage. We've both been married before and under NO circumstances do we want to take the risk of having to deal with the family court system again should one or both of us become idiots. Having had to endure a divorce after 12 years of marriage to my high school sweet heart I can say, you never REALLY know a person... and people often change. Our divorces were brutal and expensive. Not to mention, Paul admonishes believers not to take one another before unbelieving courts:

I Corinthians 6:1-7 (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?

Based on this... I believe Paul would have believers settle differences privately among the family of God, including divorce.

I cant get to the link as it is a blocked site. However while I agree with you on the part about the government not being involved for religious reasons.

Marriage is sacred and anyone seeking to be married in the eyes of God needs to look at this as a perminant state. Marriage should be a sacred ceremoney that takes place before a duely appointed minister of God's church. I make no room for wiggling on that point for those working around the state system.

I firmly believe that two people can be married in the eyes of God without the state being involved in the process.

I have reservations with the idea, that one would do this to avoid the costs and headache of dealing with the state if the marriage should fail... The point should be that a marriage that is truely a covanant with God should be done with the intent that it will be stronger and longer lasting than something the state sanctions.

I think you and I are on the same page on this issue though.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I cant get to the link as it is a blocked site. However while I agree with you on the part about the government not being involved for religious reasons.

Marriage is sacred and anyone seeking to be married in the eyes of God needs to look at this as a perminant state.

Amen. However, I looked at my first marriage that way too... but as it turns out... she didn't. I firmly believe in the sanctity of marriage. However, I'm all too well versed with human nature. In my mind, all contractural partnerships should have terms of dissolution. It's only wise. It would be specified that she keep what she brought into the relationship and I'd keep what I brought into the relationship. We'd then have to work out any mutually shared property that we couldn't agree upon in arbitration. Shared custody could be stipulated in the contract accept in cases of abuse.

Marriage should be a sacred ceremoney that takes place before a duely appointed minister of God's church. I make no room for wiggling on that point for those working around the state system.

We might have slight disagreement on this point. Going all the way back to Genesis, "marriage" (the union of one man and one woman in bonds of love) predates religion, government, ceremonies, churches, and established clergy systems. Therefore, choosing a mate is a "natural right". In ancient times a marriage was essentially a private contract between two families uniting their families through arranged marriage... or it was a private contract between two individuals who were of age and capable of declaring vows to one another before God. A couple might seek a "blessing" from their elders... but the marriage itself is something so sacred and personal... it's even beyond the reach of church authority. Governments have twisted and abused marriage through regulation and various legal statutes. Churches and clergy would most likely do the same. Cut out all middle men... an elder could choose to bless or not to bless a union. But the union itself is a natural right belonging to the couple in question and their respective families.

So, in my concept of private marriage the union of man and woman is entirely the domain of individuals and the family. Not the government. Not the church. Not the clergy.

The traditional Quakers come to mind. They have self-officiated, non-licensed, weddings because they have no clergy. The couple stands before the congregation and anounces their desire to marry. A finding committee determines that there isn't any reason why the two shouldn't be married and counsels them on what marriage is about. Then in another meeting the couple stands, professes their love to one another and vow to be husband and wife before God, family, and friends. Some non-Quaker couples have been of the opinion that if Quakers can do this... why can't they? Here's a video on this form of marriage as it relates to a non-Quaker couple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ae8fmy4oGg

I firmly believe that two people can be married in the eyes of God without the state being involved in the process.

That's a very bold position. I've not heard many men of God willing to take such a radical stand.

I have reservations with the idea, that one would do this to avoid the costs and headache of dealing with the state if the marriage should fail...

I see where you're coming from. However, if one has had to endure the insane fighting instigated by attorneys, flaky decisions of a family court judge, had their entire lives (including their religion) called into question, been threatened with limited time with their own child, and the never ending costs and fees throughout the process... I'm sure they'd understand. Any individual having endured such Hades would be wise to ask themselves, "How can I prevent EVER going through that again?" So, I view this as wisdom and caution born from experience.

The point should be that a marriage that is truely a covanant with God should be done with the intent that it will be stronger and longer lasting than something the state sanctions.

Amen.

I think you and I are on the same page on this issue though.

Our views are strickingly similar.

God bless you and yours Ferd.