Statism and Marriage

[Aquila]

If gay marriage becomes recognized by the state... I see a freedom of speech and religion battle brewing. Interestingly, I predict that we'll win that one.

[Aquila]

I've experienced the pain and financial devestation of divorce. The idea of getting married again leaves my blood running cold, even when I consider marrying a woman that I dearly love. A young lady that I've been interested in is also a divorcee who is leery of marrying again. Both of us have children and the desire to build a "family" to meet all of our needs (spiritual, financial, emotional, physical) is very appealing. But it's the idea of being "married" and possibly facing the court system again should the relationship fail that keeps us at bay.

I was discussing this with a dear Christian brother who serves as an elder in his church. He and his wife were also divorcees. He's an older man and I was desperately seeking some wisdom and counsel on the matter. After some time talking he voiced how much he could relate. He then began to explain that he and his wife of over 10 years aren't "legally married". Apparently she has some serious health conditions and while divorced with children she qualified for certain health insurance benefits that would pay for some extremely expensive treatments. Had they legally married, she would have lost her health insurance and his insurance wouldn't cover the cost. He explained that in the privacy of their living room they exchanged vows, rings, and prayed for God's strength and God's blessing upon their union. They only document they have stating that they are married is the marriage certificate they have in the front of their family Bible. He said, "The Bible is our marriage contract." I was beside myself. He stated that they were married in the eyes of God and not the state, and they like it that way. He also explained that no church has ever questioned their marriage. He explained that if we felt "God leading" us to form a family, that we should and that we could find a beautiful place that we both enjoy to commit to one another under God, exchange rings, and accept one another as husband and wife. Yes, we might want wills, living wills, trusts, and a legal name change to secure our interests... but we'd be married in the eyes of God.

I asked about if his wife ever left him and he stated that should she cease to be a believer, or cease to believe in their marriage covenant under God, and depart... Paul states that he is not bound to her in God's sight. He'd begin living that new chapter of his life the very next day. After talking and praying they came to the conclusion that this was best for them. After two failed marriages, and 40k in legal expenses, spousal support, child support, etc. later... he wanted to have a government free marriage. And that's what they built.

He turned me onto a link that describes "spiritual marriage" and that began my study on the subject of marriage, it's legality, it's theology, and state intrusion. In today's world the STATE has made marriage a high stakes gamble. If the marriage struggles and things are undesirable the law actually gives incentives for divorce in the way of spousal support. Of course, all of this comes at a pretty heavy financial cost... money in the pockets of attorneys who nearly always instigate fighting between the divorcing couple.

Imagine if marriage was indeed "government free". Imagine if the dissolution of the marriage brought neither party financial gain. Is there any wonder why a growing number of couples in America are choosing not to legally marry? We all know couples like this. Most of the time they are honest, upstanding, law abiding citizens. Many of these couples even quietly attend our churches. Over half of these couples have one or both parties who have been previously married. Yet they are opting out of legal marriage. We often judge them for "living in sin", as though the STATE defines sin and marriage. Are they living in sin? If a couple had a "Quaker wedding" in their living room and took one another as husband and wife before God, are they living in sin? Is it possible that these couples know all too well the pain and cost of legal marriage in the United States and have chosen to refuse government involvement in their relationships?

The STATE'S intrusion upon marriage and private associations has made "civil marriage" another "government program" with "benefits" for those involved. And it is a far cry from what the Bible defines as a marriage. This is why I think a growing number of pastors have considered privatized government free marriage as a viable option in their fellowship.

Maybe we need to get back to the basics. One man... one woman... uniting in a spiritual covenant under God. Marriage should be defined as follows:

•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 the Bible 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.

Some might say, "But that makes it too easy to divorce or separate." Perhaps. But God never stated that divorces were to be a painful and a nearly devastating financial event in one's life. In fact, God granted Moses the writ of divorcement due to our hard hearted nature. A way of quick and merciful release from the painful or abusive relationship. Paul also explained that a Christian wasn't bound to the relationship if an unbelieving spouse departed (abandonment). No writ of divorcement required, for the Christian isn't bound by the law of Moses. However, the GOVERNMENT has allowed the legal system to use divorce as a revenue generating industry. And so marriage is a high stakes gamble wherein the winner takes the "spoils" and leaves the other financially wrecked, sometimes for life. Divorce is unholy enough as it is without the system exploiting it for profit. It's truly unholy upon unholy. And perhaps we've made a mistake in handing the STATE authority over this blessed relationship.

[Aquila]

I said all of that to say this...

Today we're in a legal battle of unprecedented proportions. This is because the GOVERNMENT is seeking to redefine marriage in ways that we never imagined that they would. Yet we fail to recognize... WE are the ones who gave the GOVERNMENT that authority by not keeping marriage a private association within the community of faith. The Bible states that we are to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. However, God alone joins a man and woman together, not Caesar. We've rendered unto Caesar the sacred covenant that was God's and God's alone.

This is the harvest of STATIST thinking.

Maybe more believers should begin abandoning the "state institution of marriage" for a more spiritual and biblical form of marriage. We should come out from among them and be separate. Refusing to make our marriages subject to the courts of the unbelievers in this world.

[Aquila]

Interestig 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

"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

One of the best quotes I've found was by Christian, C. S. Lewis...

“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.” ~ C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (p. 112 in the 2001 Harper San Francisco printing)

To "Christianize" our own marriages... we have to take marriage back from the STATE.

[jen4yeshua]

Interesting discussion. I have come across a lot of add-ons and misinterpretations of the bible on this and related issues ( such as "illegitimacy"), which have had devastating consequences by allowing the government, churches and social workers to meddle and sever the bond between a man and a woman, and a woman and her child. Social engineering in the name of "decency", which was anything but decent. We will all have to answer for our own lives in this crazy mixed up world. Thank God for mercy!

[UnTraditional]

Marriage is an institution ordained by God between 1 man & 1 woman. It is not regulated by the state, because it was not ordained by the state. Gay marriage is an oxymoron, plain and simple. You cannot have marriage between 2 men or 2 women, because it goes against the very principle of marriage. Government needs to get out of the church's business.

[SiblingRevelry]

I'm absolutely certain that if we were to get into a time machine and go back 50 years, we'd hear the same rhetoric about interracial marriage. Absolutely certain, because people were really, really, REALLY upset about those "uppity Negroes" getting civil rights and all that. The Supreme Court case which struck down anti-miscegenation laws was four years in the future (Loving v. Virginia, 1967).

I'd also like to remind you all that during the slavery era in the USA, slaves were not allowed to legally marry because they were PROPERTY. Oh yeah, and that was supported by all the good (Southern) Christians of the day.

One more thing: Married women were considered property/legal children under the law until the 1890s here in the USA (and not competent to sell their own separate property without a husband's signature in Texas until 1968). I wish I could say it was women's rights that brought about emancipation, but no, it wasn't. It was lawsuits brought against husbands for the tortious acts of their wives. Example: Sally Doe carelessly burns trash and John Smith's house catches on fire. Prior to 1890, you'd sue Tom Doe, Sally's husband and he would be legally and monetarily responsible. After 1890, you'd sue Sally and Tom Doe's assets would generally be protected. (This hypothetical brought to you by a fermenting haystack that set a house on fire in Britain in the 1600s which I had to learn about in law school.)

So please let's not get into this business of saying that marriage has been the same through the ages. It's been restricted to certain classes and the rights of parties in the marriage have been decidedly unequal until relatively recently.

But seriously, how is giving gays and lesbians the right to marry going to hurt your marriage? Outside of putting your noses permanently out of joint because those awful sinners got legal rights?

[SiblingRevelry]

Originally Posted by UnTraditional

Marriage is an institution ordained by God between 1 man & 1 woman. It is not regulated by the state, because it was not ordained by the state. Gay marriage is an oxymoron, plain and simple. You cannot have marriage between 2 men or 2 women, because it goes against the very principle of marriage. Government needs to get out of the church's business.

Please don't give me the one man-one wife routine when I can pull up the story of Jacob, Rachel and Leah and read it in the pages of my own Bible. And I don't recall Jacob being told by God at any time to get rid of Leah, Bilhah and Zilphah (the concubines who also bore Jacob children because Rachel and Leah were trying to one-up each other in the kid race) either.

[Bishop Cleatus]

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry

I'm absolutely certain that if we were to get into a time machine and go back 50 years, we'd hear the same rhetoric about interracial marriage. Absolutely certain, because people were really, really, REALLY upset about those "uppity Negroes" getting civil rights and all that. The Supreme Court case which struck down anti-miscegenation laws was four years in the future (Loving v. Virginia, 1967).

I'd also like to remind you all that during the slavery era in the USA, slaves were not allowed to legally marry because they were PROPERTY. Oh yeah, and that was supported by all the good (Southern) Christians of the day.

One more thing: Married women were considered property/legal children under the law until the 1890s here in the USA (and not competent to sell their own separate property without a husband's signature in Texas until 1968). I wish I could say it was women's rights that brought about emancipation, but no, it wasn't. It was lawsuits brought against husbands for the tortious acts of their wives. Example: Sally Doe carelessly burns trash and John Smith's house catches on fire. Prior to 1890, you'd sue Tom Doe, Sally's husband and he would be legally and monetarily responsible. After 1890, you'd sue Sally and Tom Doe's assets would generally be protected. (This hypothetical brought to you by a fermenting haystack that set a house on fire in Britain in the 1600s which I had to learn about in law school.)

So please let's not get into this business of saying that marriage has been the same through the ages. It's been restricted to certain classes and the rights of parties in the marriage have been decidedly unequal until relatively recently.

But seriously, how is giving gays and lesbians the right to marry going to hurt your marriage? Outside of putting your noses permanently out of joint because those awful sinners got legal rights?

Good post.

[Dante]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree with your overall premise. However, I want to expand upon it a little. In your post you stated...



The problem I have with your statement is this... marriage isn't even under the authority of the church. Nor is marriage defined by the church. The reason I say this is based upon Christ's own statement concerning marriage.

Mark 10:9
"What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Marriage originated in Eden. God formed man of the dust of the earth and woman from man. They were given unto one another by God. There wasn't any human government, there wasn't any religion, there wasn't any church, and there wasn't any clergy. We see no ceremony, ritual, or sacrement. We see God giving man and woman to one another to be mates. For this reason, choosing a mate (husband, wife, life partner, whatever you want to call it) is a "natural right" endowed by one's creator... and even initiated by one's creator. God, who is love, brings two human beings together in the bonds of His very essence... love.

Marriage is then a "common right" and has been regarded as so since the most ancient of times. In the OT a man could have permission from a woman's father to marry her, take her, and declare her his wife. The father's permission was only necessary if she were still living under her father's authority. If living on her own, such as with Ruth, a man could take a woman as his wife before God out in his field. No government, religion, church, or clergy necessary. As a result, every ancient culture saw marriage as a private arrangement between private individuals and/or families under common law; hense "common law marriage". It was the state church that began regulating marriage with licenses during the Middle Ages to prevent people from marrying below their class and thereby scattering the inheritance of the wealthy to the masses of commoners. In the early colonies of America marriage licenses were unheard of and marriage was once again an issue of common right/common law. A man and woman could declare themselves husband and wife out on their farm. Clergy and the church could bless their union or condemn it... nevertheless, they were regarded as being married eyes of God. As whites and blacks began marrying, the state began to issue marriage licenses to prevent interracial marriage. Soon, every state required a license for anyone seeking to marry. As a result, the state took over the private social arrangement of marriage.

Thus, in my opinion "marriage" is a private commitment between each couple and/or their family before God. No state, church, or clergy necessary.

Quakers have an interesting tradition. Historically they "self-officiated" their marriages. Having no clergy, and believing in the separation of church and state, a couple would declare their intent to marry. If nothing was found to present a case as to why they shouldn't be married in the community, the couple could stand, give their "promises" (vows), and take one another as husband and wife before God, friends, and family. No clergy. No filing with the state. States wherein common law marriage is still recognize acknowlege these marriages as legally binding. States that do not recognize common law marriage do not.

So, I argue that "marriage" isn't under any authority other than the couple themselves, and perhaps their families in various circumstances. And in all cases, the arrangement is entirely private.

Hope that made sense. God bless.

Thank you for this lengthy discourse. Had you not reproved me I would have continued to walk in darkness. Thank God for scholars of your magnitude, friend.