Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeUncommon
You know, I actually agree that government should not be involved in marriage. I have long said that the church should give marriages, the govt should give civil unions, and people could get both, either or neither.
|
It's like this in conservative and orthodox Judaism.
Quote:
|
But we don't live in a world where that is true today. I hope we do someday. But until then, we marry in the way that is customary here.
|
We do? Who is this "we" that you're representing? Quakers don't. Those in states that recognize Self-Officiated or Common Law Marriage don't. Many Christians in conservative churches today aren't. In fact... well over a third of all couples in the United States choose not to marry because they don't want the legalities imposed by government managing their relationships. I know a woman in Kentucky who wears a ring and has been with her "husband" for nearly 19 years. She said, "Honey, why ruin a good thing over a piece of paper? God brought us together and that's all we need to know." ... 19 years. Almost half of the American public is “iffy” on the whole “governmental” institution of marriage.
Quote:
|
However, I know MANY Christians today who don't believe marriage is necessary. They believe once you have sex with someone, you are married in God's eyes, so just do the deed and live together and that's the same as marriage.
|
I agree with you here. Just because one has sex with another it doesn’t mean that they are married. A marriage has to be a contractual commitment either civil or private. For example, some have “Cohabitation Agreements” that stipulate responsibilities to one another etc. Some localities allow for statements of “Domestic Partnerships” that are binding agreements. Some couples who don’t want a “civil marriage” ensure that their partner has beneficiary rights to various insurance policies and powers of attorney that secure many of the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy. Marriage is contractual… even if it is simply a couple signing their family Bible as husband and wife (with witnesses), the Bible itself serving as their “marriage contract”. Merely shacking up isn’t marriage. However, a contractual commitment is established in a marriage. Be it through civil or private means.
Quote:
|
Most I know personally who are of that opinion actually think that just having sex and living together is superior to traditional marriage because God doesn't like government or something like that.
|
I’ve seen that position taken too. However, they have a few valid points that I think warrant consideration. First, the Bible states that “What God has joined together…” thereby making marriage something established by God…not government. If we are to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s… marriage shouldn’t be under the authority of Caesar. Even when Rome banned marriage outright due to war and the need to essentially force men into the Roman army, the church still performed marriages secretly. Government doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage. We’ve slowly forgotten that prior to the “marriage license” marriage was a private contract. Marriages were privately arranged by couples and/or families and privately dissolved. Couples only went to court to contest some injustice in their separation, and even then courts were cautious with getting involved in domestic disputes.
Also, in
I Corinthians 6 Paul speaks against going before the courts of the unbelievers. Paul said that it would be better to be defrauded than to wreck Christian witness by taking disputes into civil courts. This is why many more private communities of Christians handle their disputes and divorces “in house” and privately.
So, while one might not agree with what appears on the surface to be “anti-government” philosophy… if they look at it deeper they realize there is a “biblical” logic to the position. And this is most likely more common among conservatives who believe in “limited government” and who are greatly disturbed by the government trying to redefine marriage.
Quote:
|
There is a way that seems right to man... But I think if that's what He meant, it would be clear in the scriptures that we should just shack up. There are so many Biblical references to marriage that I really don't think it is meaningless to God.
|
You’re right. The Bible displays marriage as God’s will, God’s design. However, the Bible doesn’t require a marriage to have “government sanction” to be a marriage. In fact, if government banned marriage today, Christians would still establish unions wherein couples are committed to one another before friends and family. If you look closely… the Bible doesn’t even require an “officient”. Meaning… the Bible doesn’t even require clergy to preside over a wedding. It’s a private family matter. The church can bless a union or denounce it. But it is ultimately a private agreement between two adults or their families. Families conducted weddings at home… in fields… in barns… in inns… rented rooms… and even synagogues (if they needed the space). But frankly… in the Bible… the most basic marriage was self-officiated or officiated by the parents of the couple.
So my point is… while the Bible speaks of marriage as God’s will… let’s not super-impose our 21st century concept of marriage on the ancient biblical text. Let’s see marriage as it was in the text itself. Then we can step back and determine if the form of marriage we have today reflects what God clearly revealed is His will or not.
Linear Mode
