The state, marriage, and tradition

[98cwitr]

It has of late perplexed me as to why the state would have anything to do with marriage or legal unions.

To any who prescribe that we are, or ever were a "Christian nation" I would ask: Then why does the state facilitate divorce when God Himself told us:

Mark 10:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

So, that being ever apparent to us, is there any scenario where the state should have any say whatsoever in marriage; or should that be, under the 1st amendment, protected as a religious ruling only?

Certainly there are legal benefits to marriage under the state, but I cannot think of anything, apart from Social Security (which we should have never permitted in the first place) that benefits a married couple who are truly brought together by God.

As Christians, should we be refusing and opposing the state's legalities on a union by which only God has formed, and not man?

 

[devin553344]

It has of late perplexed me as to why the state would have anything to do with marriage or legal unions.

To any who prescribe that we are, or ever were a "Christian nation" I would ask: Then why does the state facilitate divorce when God Himself told us:



So, that being ever apparent to us, is there any scenario where the state should have any say whatsoever in marriage; or should that be, under the 1st amendment, protected as a religious ruling only?

Certainly there are legal benefits to marriage under the state, but I cannot think of anything, apart from Social Security (which we should have never permitted in the first place) that benefits a married couple who are truly brought together by God.

As Christians, should we be refusing and opposing the state's legalities on a union by which only God has formed, and not man?

I thought the same thing when my wife divorced me. Her vows were flawed and meant nothing.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It has of late perplexed me as to why the state would have anything to do with marriage or legal unions.

Because the state has a compelling interest in understanding marriage when it comes to matters of inheritance, custody, visitation, taxation and so forth. Whether the libertarians like it or not, the state absolutely has skin in this game.

The state recognizes that marriage often results in children and children are a benefit to society. It is therefore very much the state's business whether two people are married to one another, whether they have children, etc.

As Christians, should we be refusing and opposing the state's legalities on a union by which only God has formed, and not man?

No. We should not. Partly because, as above, it's very much the state's business who gets married. But mostly, the people who advocate this approach are trying desperately to find a way out of settling the issue of marriage on a societal level in a way which doesn't require any risk or effort on their part.

That approach won't solve society's marriage problem.

EDIT- I should say that what I interpreted from the OP was a recommendation that Christians avoid obtaining civil marriage licenses as an act of legal disengagement from government coercion. If that wasn’t the OP’s intent... my bad!

 

[Resha Caner]

It has of late perplexed me as to why the state would have anything to do with marriage or legal unions.

The state has a huge interest in marriage. Marriage has several facets, and the spiritual is only one of them.

The reason for the state's interest is twofold: 1) stability, 2) property.

 

[devin553344]

Till death do we part?

 

[98cwitr]

The state has a huge interest in marriage. Marriage has several facets, and the spiritual is only one of them.

The reason for the state's interest is twofold: 1) stability, 2) property.

1) If God has formed the union, then stability is assumed

2) Homes can go into more than one person's name, so both interests are satisfied.

 

[Resha Caner]

1) If God has formed the union, then stability is assumed

2) Homes can go into more than one person's name, so both interests are satisfied.

I'm not saying there aren't alternative ways to write contracts that would achieve the same thing. But there is a looooooooooong legal tradition surrounding marriage and it would take a loooooooooooong time to untangle them. It's not a simple solution.

With that said, I'd prefer the U.S. move toward one of the alternatives.

 

[SummerMadness]

Why are we all of a sudden concerned about the government's role in connection to marriage? I also think it's odd to ask this question of legal unions as "legal" is the operative word. Why is this an issue now? It didn't seem to be a problem 20 years ago.

 

[devin553344]

Genesis 2:24 what does that mean?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Why are we all of a sudden concerned about the government's role in connection to marriage? I also think it's odd to ask this question of legal unions as "legal" is the operative word. Why is this an issue now? It didn't seem to be a problem 20 years ago.

Back then, most people didn't think men could have relationships with other men and call that "marriage".

 

[98cwitr]

Back then, most people didn't think men could have relationships with other men and call that "marriage".

While this isn't the source of my thought process, this is a very true point you've made as well.

 

[Rubiks]

Well, for one, the Bible doesn't really give a clear stance on divorce and remarriage. The Law of Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife for essentially any reason. The only restriction on remarriage was one cannot remarry a previous spouse.

Jesus, on the other hand, appears to affirm the basic goodness of the Law of Moses while fundamentally disagreeing with it. There are many different interpretations of "[the law] was given because of the hardness of your hearts." Some of which have some serious theological implications.

 

[Rubiks]

EDIT: double post

 

[SummerMadness]

Back then, most people didn't think men could have relationships with other men and call that "marriage".

That reminds of me of segregation era attitudes. You enjoy a privilege/accommodation and then someone previously barred from consideration now has equal access. In response, the plan is to take away the privilege for everyone. Marriage benefits via the government were fine until gay people could also receive those benefits, but now it's time to end all those benefits.

 

[devin553344]

That reminds of me of segregation era attitudes. You enjoy a privilege/accommodation and then someone previously barred from consideration now has equal access. In response, the plan is to take away the privilege for everyone. Marriage benefits via the government were fine until gay people could also receive those benefits, but now it's time to end all those benefits.

Sure but I'm not sure how a biologist would feel about that idea, being a scientist.

 

[98cwitr]

Why are we all of a sudden concerned about the government's role in connection to marriage? I also think it's odd to ask this question of legal unions as "legal" is the operative word. Why is this an issue now? It didn't seem to be a problem 20 years ago.

I'm definitely not the first to ponder this: Marriage w/o a license?

And then there's the Amish....

 

[98cwitr]

Well, for one, the Bible doesn't really give a clear stance on divorce and remarriage. The Law of Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife for essentially any reason. The only restriction on remarriage was one cannot remarry a previous spouse.

Jesus, on the other hand, appears to affirm the basic goodness of the Law of Moses while fundamentally disagreeing with it. There are many different interpretations of "[the law] was given because of the hardness of your hearts." Some of which have some serious theological implications.

I guess as Christians then, we follow the teachings of Christ then.

 

[devin553344]

I'm definitely not the first to ponder this: Marriage w/o a license?

And then there's the Amish....

I'm curious about the Amish, can you elaborate please?

 

[Resha Caner]

That reminds of me of segregation era attitudes. You enjoy a privilege/accommodation and then someone previously barred from consideration now has equal access. In response, the plan is to take away the privilege for everyone. Marriage benefits via the government were fine until gay people could also receive those benefits, but now it's time to end all those benefits.

Yep.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That reminds of me of segregation era attitudes. You enjoy a privilege/accommodation and then someone previously barred from consideration now has equal access. In response, the plan is to take away the privilege for everyone. Marriage benefits via the government were fine until gay people could also receive those benefits, but now it's time to end all those benefits.

That's literally the opposite of what I said. I said, essentially, that the only legally valid unions should be between one man (who was born with male parts) and one woman (who was born with female parts). Anything else is not a marriage and the law should recognize that.