Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple
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.
|
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.
Linear Mode
