Privatize Marriage???

[Christopher0121]

I continue to read about how the "institution of marriage" is in decline. I began wondering why. It would seem that many believe the problem isn't with morality per se, but rather GOVERNMENT meddling in private matters of the heart and soul of free individuals.

Here's the question: Is it really possible to be married in God's sight without the State licensing the union? Should marriage be a private affair between individuals and their God?

Personally, I find this view interesting because my grandmother was divorced. She never remarried. However, she and my "step grandpa" (my real grandpa for all intents and purposes) were together, loving and faithful, for over 35 years though not legally married. He has since passed away and she's still with us today. But I've often wondered; Were they married in God's sight? I know that's something a lot of people might disagree on. But it's been something I've wondered.

Also, many of us have endured the legal insanity, heartache, and near mental and emotional torture of divorce. And in many cases, as stated in an article above, men have been slaughtered in the arena of the divorce courts. Women have also faced these things in some cases. So many people can relate with the feeling of not wanting to ever experience that horror again at the hands of the state. Many have watched helplessly has family and friends have endured these things and have therefore opted out of getting "legally married".

It would appear that increasing numbers of Americans are choosing to cohabitate instead of "getting married". Not to mention it's increasingly becoming very difficult to survive on one income. Are we really seeing a decline in morality as fewer and fewer are entering the "institution of marriage"... or are we seeing an unspoken, and perhaps even misunderstood, revolt from an overbearing governmental monstrocity that has become known as the "institution of marriage"?

Here's an article on the privatization of marriage. Please share your thoughts...

Five Reasons Why Christians Should Not
Obtain a State Marriage License
by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, “everybody else gets one.” This pamphlet attempts to answer the question—why shouldn’t we go get one?

1. The definition of a “license” demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” Why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says “no.” You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition “confers a right” to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, “your marriage license and their birth certificates.” Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical, immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

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 its unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of idolatry for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents’ permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents’ permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parent’s authority by demanding that the parents’ permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, “You don’t need your parents’ permission, you need our permission.” If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying of a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parent’s authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are literally a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State. Though many doubt you when you say this, nevertheless, it is true.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled “With This Ring I Thee Wed.” It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle “Marriage Vows” states, “Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.”

See, the State knows, the lawyers know, that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to God and your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State, and you are giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons—1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it doesn’t prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses, and that is why witnesses should be recorded both on the marriage certificate itself and by keeping the wedding day guest book.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would be illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they’ll take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, “If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married.” Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, “If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license—who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license?” In reality, this contention that one is not really married unless they obtain a marriage license just reveals how Statist we have become in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone any more than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as a legally binding document in any court of law in America. 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 Trewhella
Mercy Seat Christian Church
10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
​

 

[tturt]

I prefer to have Scripture as the standard.

Rom 13:1-7 So if the interpretation of those Scriptures doesn't mean obey the laws of the land, is there an interpretation of Scripture to explain away adultery and fornication.

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (I John 2:16) such as Gal 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

I think if you want to reduce it to a scriptural basis it all comes down to a semantic argument, which is pointless.

The idea that government needs to be involved in our marriages in some way is laughable to me. Who is our real boss?

Also the idea Christian right's argument that marriage has always been one man and one woman is unbelievably ridiculous. How many wives did David have?

I personally find it disgusting that people use "Christian" morals to say homosexuals should not marry etc. We live in a country where people are free to practice any religion they want. No American should be forced to be subservient to anyone else's ideals that they think their religion dictates.

 

[Christopher0121]

I prefer to have Scripture as the standard.

Rom 13:1-7 So if the interpretation of those Scriptures doesn't mean obey the laws of the land, is there an interpretation of Scripture to explain away adultery and fornication.
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (I John 2:16) such as Gal 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

I understand your concern. However, when it comes to the government it appears that its involvement has actually harmed marriage. We’ve seen marriage laws that allow for gay marriage in some states. We’ve also seen very unfair divorce laws that strongly favor ex-wives over ex-husbands. We’ve seen men left nearly destitute after a divorce, paying at least a third of his income, loosing house, car, and property that he worked for his entire life long, and reduced to being a father 14% of the time. Those who have weathered the storm of a divorce understand the horror of the state tearing what is left of their lives apart. One could argue that marriage law as the state recognizes it is unjust in many ways. This could account for so many choosing not to marry. When laws are unjust or burdensome the people tend to shy away from the institutions of said law.

But what does God require? In the Bible, God required witness of the covenant (typically family). The covenant was a private contract that was only brought before the courts upon disputes of abuse, separation, or divorce.

When we look at the history of marriage we see something interesting. For 16 centuries, Christianity defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows (even out alone by the haystack) the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married. In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce. Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match. The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry. By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce. In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. In the 1950s, government began using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare. Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.

Now add in the problem of the gay marriage debate. Now the state is redefining marriage altogether. Can the church continue to trust the state with governing the institution of marriage? Conservatives of a more libertarian flavor are arguing that the state cannot be trusted with this. In fact, the state’s involvement and the legal system have done more to harm the institution of marriage than to help it. So many are beginning to reconsider the notion of the state government marriage to consider marriage being a private contract between private individuals.

Thoughts?

 

[Christopher0121]

In Judaism a couple needs both a Jewish and a civil marriage. They also need a Jewish and civil divorce.

What this pastor is arguing is... Christians should strictly engage in "Christian Marriage" and leave the Government out of the picture as much as possible. They simply sign the family Bible as being married. And evidently, this is supposed to be able to stand in court should there be a dispute.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

I understand your concern. However, when it comes to the government it appears that its involvement has actually harmed marriagWe’ve seen marriage laws that allow for gay marriage in some states. .

How does gay marriage affect your marriage? Are you less faithful to your spouse now? Is God less pleased with you? Are your children less well cared for?

The idea that gay marriage somehow harms marriage is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. It seems to me that Christians simply try to cover up their utter disgust with homosexuality by attempting argue that they are somehow protecting marriage. The conservative right is willing to sacrifice the freedom and liberty of all Americans by attempting to keep people from being gay.

As an American how is it anyone's right to regulate what consenting adults do with each other?

 

[tturt]

What about the teenagers that hear this? The message from media and many times family is marriage is a temporary commitment. So now some are adding the church to the list. Maybe the Bible that they're being given, they'll read it for themselves.

We need to to do is compare our lives with The Word.

Well, I had heard that pastors weren't really preaching what The Word says anymore. I really thought they were exaggerating but I'm beginning to see they aren't.

I'm not going to change my mind on this and you're (Aquila0121) not going to change yours. So there's no need for me to come back to this thread. I am asking Yahweh to help us all because we all need it.

 

[Christopher0121]

How does gay marriage affect your marriage? Are you less faithful to your spouse now? Is God less pleased with you? Are your children less well cared for?

The idea that gay marriage somehow harms marriage is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. It seems to me that Christians simply try to cover up their utter disgust with homosexuality by attempting argue that they are somehow protecting marriage. The conservative right is willing to sacrifice the freedom and liberty of all Americans by attempting to keep people from being gay.

As an American how is it anyone's right to regulate what consenting adults do with each other?

Other than being morally unacceptable to some, I don't believe gay marriage would harm anyone else's marriage. The two women who live together down the street from me... if they were "married" at their church or what have you, it really wouldn't matter to me personally.

But... being a Christian, I feel called to speak out against certain sin. If society is embracing sin as "normal and acceptable" we have to speak the truth. Personally, I don't care if someone reads Playboy or watches adult entertainment... but as a Christian I should speak out about it being sin. And therefore, I can't support it.

So, it's nothing personal really. It's duty.

 

[Christopher0121]

What about the teenagers that hear this? The message from media and many times family is marriage is a temporary commitment. So now some are adding the church to the list. Maybe the Bible that they're being given, they'll read it for themselves.

We need to to do is compare our lives with The Word.

Well, I had heard that pastors weren't really preaching what The Word says anymore. I really thought they were exaggerating but I'm beginning to see they aren't.

I'm not going to change my mind on this and you're (Aquila0121) not going to change yours. So there's no need for me to come back to this thread. I am asking Yahweh to help us all because we all need it.

A marriage would still be a legally binding contract. It's just it would be privately drawn up by the couple without the state's involvement. Then maybe registered with the state. Disputes/divorces would be handled in civil court as a breach of contract.

 

[Albion]

You could make a case--as many have done--for the government getting out of the marriage business and letting the churches handle it. If that happens, it can hardly be considered a phony marriage. But if one takes the position that living together should be considered a de facto marriage in God's sight, he's only fooling himself.

 

[Albion]

How does gay marriage affect your marriage? Are you less faithful to your spouse now? Is God less pleased with you? Are your children less well cared for?

The idea that gay marriage somehow harms marriage is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. It seems to me that Christians simply try to cover up their utter disgust with homosexuality by attempting argue that they are somehow protecting marriage. The conservative right is willing to sacrifice the freedom and liberty of all Americans by attempting to keep people from being gay.

Hmm. That's a new one in this longrunning argument. Who and how many, I wonder, on the "conservative right" (is there another one, such as the "liberal right???") has been "attempting to keep people from being gay."

A difficult subject like this one really requires that everyone avoid embellishing the facts like we do when writing a 'letter to the editor' of the local newspaper.

 

[Christopher0121]

You could make a case--as many have done--for the government getting out of the marriage business and letting the churches handle it. If that happens, it can hardly be considered a phony marriage. But if one takes the position that living together should be considered a de facto marriage in God's sight, he's only fooling himself.

What if two people living in a state that allows "common law marriage" chose to live together, identify themselves as husband and wife, file taxes as spouses, etc., and were legally married according to "common law" standards? Is their marriage legit? It's legal. Here's the criteria for common law marriage in Texas:

Three elements must be present to form a common law marriage in Texas.

• First, you must have "agreed to be married."
  Second, you must have "held yourselves out" as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as "my husband," or you may have filed a joint income tax return.
  Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife.
  

If legality is the primary issue, these marriages are legally binding and can only be dissolved by a divorce or dissolution.

 

[Albion]

What if two people living in a state that allows "common law marriage" chose to live together, identify themselves as husband and wife, file taxes as spouses, etc., and were legally married according to "common law" standards? Is their marriage legit? It's legal.

Probably so. But since Common Law marriage is rare and getting rarer, I don't know that it adds much to our understanding of this issue. You are presenting it as an interesting footnote, I take it.

 

[Soulgazer]

As a Pastor, I have long maintained that marriages are made in Heaven. All the state or the church can do, is recognize that which God has already made. So, to the OP, if Gramma and Grampa were not married in the eyes of the state, so what? God obviously decided they should be together, and let no man tear them asunder. Look at it this way---some countries have no licensing, or ceremony, and if they had moved here the State would accept them as married.

Marriage licenses were introduced after the civil war to prevent interracial marriages. As such, they are in themselves sinful, but you can't fight city hall as long as everyone is still willing to fork over their ten bucks. When a couple is planning their ceremony, (or lack thereof) that ten bucks is the last thing on their mind.

So much for the ethical issue. The legalities of common law are usually resolved in personal wills.

It is usually less than ethical actions of family members that bring this issue to the forefront. If you can imagine your non-legal spouse of a decade being comatose in the hospital, and his or her parents declaring you persona non grata because they disapprove of your "lifestyle", you would have no legal recourse.

Some states accept a family bible witnessed by two individuals as proof of marriage. You would have to research that one on your own though.

On the other hand, I have witnessed "marriages" that were all neat and tidy legal wise, but no way were the couple married in the eyes of the lord. They usually don't last more than a year or two, and would be less than that except they signed on the dotted line. This speaks to the wisdom of the Jews, who had a "betrothal" which was a "try before you buy" period.

 

[Christopher0121]

Probably so. But since Common Law marriage is rare and getting rarer, I don't know that it adds much to our understanding of this issue. You are presenting it as an interesting footnote, I take it.

Just thoughts to ponder. People are increasingly choosing to live together as opposed to getting legally married. Clearly they feel that they can manage their private lives, relationship issues, and even issues regarding children privately on their own. It's like the government has created an institution that terrifies many people because the stakes of dealing with the government are so high.

If people are co-habitating, having children, and walking hand in hand everywhere they go, why shouldn't they be considered common law husband and wife? After all... they are living as husband and wife. It's almost like the government wants to make the path to marriage even more difficult by forcing people into a marriage license and the legal system. I suspect that the government has found it could make far more money by doing away with common law marriage and requiring that couples purchase a license to marry.

 

[Christopher0121]

As a Pastor, I have long maintained that marriages are made in Heaven. All the state or the church can do, is recognize that which God has already made. So, to the OP, if Gramma and Grampa were not married in the eyes of the state, so what? God obviously decided they should be together, and let no man tear them asunder. Look at it this way---some countries have no licensing, or ceremony, and if they had moved here the State would accept them as married.

Marriage licenses were introduced after the civil war to prevent interracial marriages. As such, they are in themselves sinful, but you can't fight city hall as long as everyone is still willing to fork over their ten bucks. When a couple is planning their ceremony, (or lack thereof) that ten bucks is the last thing on their mind.

So much for the ethical issue. The legalities of common law are usually resolved in personal wills.

It is usually less than ethical actions of family members that bring this issue to the forefront. If you can imagine your non-legal spouse of a decade being comatose in the hospital, and his or her parents declaring you persona non grata because they disapprove of your "lifestyle", you would have no legal recourse.

Some states accept a family bible witnessed by two individuals as proof of marriage. You would have to research that one on your own though.

On the other hand, I have witnessed "marriages" that were all neat and tidy legal wise, but no way were the couple married in the eyes of the lord. They usually don't last more than a year or two, and would be less than that except they signed on the dotted line. This speaks to the wisdom of the Jews, who had a "betrothal" which was a "try before you buy" period.

Very interesting take on it. I've never heard a pastor share an opinion like that before. Which of course leads me to an obvious question. If a couple had been living together for let's say 5 to 7 years in a happy relationship, perhaps even with children, would you challenge them to get legally married? If not, how would you handle the situation? Just curious.

May God bless and keep you and yours.

 

[Albion]

Just thoughts to ponder. People are increasingly choosing to live together as opposed to getting legally married. Clearly they feel that they can manage their private lives, relationship issues, and even issues regarding children privately on their own. It's like the government has created an institution that terrifies many people because the stakes of dealing with the government are so high.

That probably is part of it, yes.

If people are co-habitating, having children, and walking hand in hand everywhere they go, why shouldn't they be considered common law husband and wife?

Two answers:

1. It isn't a common law marriage unless the parties represent themselves as being married. Couples who co-habit customarily do not do that.

2. A common law marriage is a marriage only if the law provides for it. In Texas, apparently there is such a provision. In other states, two people can go so far as to claim to be married but they are not considered married by the state or the church.

After all... they are living as husband and wife.

No, they're not. They are living as friends with benefits.

It's almost like the government wants to make the path to marriage even more difficult by forcing people into a marriage license and the legal system. I suspect that the government has found it could make far more money by doing away with common law marriage and requiring that couples purchase a license to marry.

I can't imagine that the state thinks it's cleaning up by charging $20, or whatever it is, for a marriage license, considering the work required on the part of the authorities issuing the license, recording the marriage, storing the data, giving the STD lecture to the parties that some states require, etc.

 

[Soulgazer]

Very interesting take on it. I've never heard a pastor share an opinion like that before. Which of course leads me to an obvious question. If a couple had been living together for let's say 5 to 7 years in a happy relationship, perhaps even with children, would you challenge them to get legally married? If not, how would you handle the situation? Just curious.

May God bless and keep you and yours.

I just treat them as if they were married. If they need more than that, they will let me know. Of course, if there are children involved and the young man is soon off to a war zone, I would advise them to make it legal for the sake of the children, as soon as possible. Other than that I remain non judgmental, and wait until advice is sought.

 

[Christopher0121]

I just treat them as if they were married. If they need more than that, they will let me know. Of course, if there are children involved and the young man is soon off to a war zone, I would advise them to make it legal for the sake of the children, as soon as possible. Other than that I remain non judgmental, and wait until advice is sought.

That's a very balanced approach. The church I used to attend would have started encouraging marriage or sought to break them up.

 

[Soulgazer]

That's a very balanced approach. The church I used to attend would have started encouraging marriage or sought to break them up.

Thank you. I try to practice what I preach.