Does marriage in the eyes of God have to be legalized?

[PaulCyp1]

Only in the sense that God requires us to give to the state what is rightfully theirs. If you marry without a license, you are married in God's eyes, but have violated the law in the view of the state, which could result in your having to purchase the license plus fees.

 

[Celticroots]

I am not sure if God recognizes this as a marriage?

They are not legally married but make commitments to stay together and love one and other, sometimes before God if that is what they wish. Just because they are not marriage vows does not mean they should not be taken seriously and are meant to be honored. They can be religious or not religious depending on the preferences of the couple.

Since losing disability payments are not an option for some with a the disability, a commitment ceremony may be their only choice.

I don’t believe anyone should be denied love because of something because they have no control over.

Look up something called the Marriage Penalty and how commitment ceremonies are options for some because of it.

 

[Radagast]

However, a number of states recognize common law marriages--those that have not been officially formalized. I think the current list includes Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington, D.C. If I recall correctly, there may be others that recognize common law marriages from other states?

But common-law marriages are themselves legal government marriages, as @RDKirk said. They are created by (1) the couple living together as man and wife and (2) the couple presenting themselves "to the community" as a couple. Generally that second step involves letting the government know in some way. See Common-law marriage in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Only in the sense that God requires us to give to the state what is rightfully theirs. If you marry without a license, you are married in God's eyes, but have violated the law in the view of the state, which could result in your having to purchase the license plus fees.

What exactly is rightfully theirs? Money? Because this is the only issue at hand here. Who gets the money and who keeps the money. Now is this the premise for a God sanctioned marriage? I say a resounding no. I have not read a convincing argument for a legal marriage other than the protections given to each individual if divorce occurs which by the way , is not God sanctioned, yet the very money we gave to the government say's its OK.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I used to think it was OK. I told myself that when Isaac married Rebekah, he took her into his mother's tent, and she became his wife. If that's all there is to it, then why does the government need to get involved?

Then too, there is the matter of disability. As someone who is disabled, getting married did cost me my monthly disability benefits. I still cannot work yet. My husband has to fully support me now, and he has to pay for my medical coverage. If we had gone to a liberal-minded religious institution, exchanged vows without government involvement, and considered each other husband and wife afterward, I would still be drawing government assistance, but he didn't want to do it that way.

If two people on disability get married, their total benefits are decreased 25%. Yet if they only live together , there is no decrease, and each can get their full monthly check and health coverage. In this situation, what is the advantage to getting married?

So, I used to think it was fine to exchange vows without registering the marriage in a courthouse somewhere, and consider yourselves married afterward. But since then it has been explained to me that this is demonstrating a lack of faith in God. Who should we put our faith in, to provide and take care of us? The government? Or Him?

 

[Radagast]

Except that the church uses the government to help it keep its own rules.

Indeed.

The government keeps track of who is married. Someone's got to do that.

 

[Celticroots]

I used to think it was OK. I told myself that when Isaac married Rebekah, he took her into his mother's tent, and she became his wife. If that's all there is to it, then why does the government need to get involved?

Then too, there is the matter of disability. As someone who is disabled, getting married did cost me my monthly disability benefits. I still cannot work yet. My husband has to fully support me now, and he has to pay for my medical coverage. If we had gone to a liberal-minded religious institution, exchanged vows without government involvement, and considered each other husband and wife afterward, I would still be drawing government assistance, but he didn't want to do it that way.

If two people on disability get married, their total benefits are decreased 25%. Yet if they only live together , there is no decrease, and each can get their full monthly check and health coverage. In this situation, what is the advantage to getting married?

So, I used to think it was fine to exchange vows without registering the marriage in a courthouse somewhere, and consider yourselves married afterward. But since then it has been explained to me that this is demonstrating a lack of faith in God. Who should we put our faith in, to provide and take care of us? The government? Or Him?

Yes that is unfortunate. I would lose my benefits as well if I were to marry, although right now I am single.

 

[Celticroots]

That is what the welfare\nanny state does. Makes you a slave, by design. I have offered guys a job and all they can think about is losing their benefits even though I'm paying them four times a much as their benefits do. Its crazy the subjugation of the mind.

Provided the person does not make above the allotted amount in SSI payments, they are able to hold down a part time job if they are physically able.

I was able to hold down part time work and keep my SSI.

 

[buzuxi02]

What exactly is rightfully theirs? Money? Because this is the only issue at hand here. Who gets the money and who keeps the money. Now is this the premise for a God sanctioned marriage? I say a resounding no. I have not read a convincing argument for a legal marriage other than the protections given to each individual if divorce occurs which by the way , is not God sanctioned, yet the very money we gave to the government say's its OK.

There is no real reason to get a government license for marriage other than it's an insurance policy for the woman and offers some tax incentives.
Church and State are connected when it comes to the marriage business on the state level. For example in New York it is illegal for any clergy to officiate at a wedding even if the couple has a valid license from another state! In other words a couple residing in New Jersey who may want to have their wedding in a cathedral in New York must apply for a NY marriage permit as a NJ permit is not recognized! Furthermore New York City requires those clergy officiating within the city limits must have a local NYC permit to officiate at weddings. You can be a clergy of the largest mega church in the suburbs of NYC and without registering with the city your marriages conducted within the cith will not count as legally binding.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There is no real reason to get a government license for marriage other than it's an insurance policy for the woman and offers some tax incentives.
Church and State are connected when it comes to the marriage business on the state level. For example in New York it is illegal for any clergy to officiate at a wedding even if the couple has a valid license from another state! In other words a couple residing in New Jersey who may want to have their wedding in a cathedral in New York must apply for a NY marriage permit as a NJ permit is not recognized! Furthermore New York City requires those clergy officiating within the city limits must have a local NYC permit to officiate at weddings. You can be a clergy of the largest mega church in the suburbs of NYC and without registering with the city your marriages conducted within the cith will not count as legally binding.

Government union...just great. I think I will stick to God's union but with that being said, I appreciate the protection if one needs it.

 

[RDKirk]

For example in New York it is illegal for any clergy to officiate at a wedding even if the couple has a valid license from another state! In other words a couple residing in New Jersey who may want to have their wedding in a cathedral in New York must apply for a NY marriage permit as a NJ permit is not recognized!

If they live in NJ, then the question is whether NJ recognizes the marriage in NY. If the state of residence recognizes the marriage, then every other state will recognize it as a matter of federal compact.

 

[RDKirk]

What exactly is rightfully theirs? Money? Because this is the only issue at hand here. Who gets the money and who keeps the money. Now is this the premise for a God sanctioned marriage? I say a resounding no. I have not read a convincing argument for a legal marriage other than the protections given to each individual if divorce occurs which by the way , is not God sanctioned, yet the very money we gave to the government say's its OK.

That's all fine, but remember that every entity that does business with the state will follow the state's rules in considering a couple married. That includes hospitals, insurance companies, banks, et cetera. There is a reason homosexual couples have pushed for state-legalized marriages.

So be prepared to go it alone...I hope your church is prepared to fill the voids.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

My friend wants to know if it's a sin to marry without a marriage license. She is planning on marrying her boyfriend but she said all of her Christian friends and family are giving her a hard time about it because her boyfriend can't sign a marriage license or he'll lose his disability check. They pretty much tell her that if she doesn't have a marriage license, she'll be living in sin and will no longer be considered a Christian. But she doesn't believe that. She thinks it's not a sin but her Christian friends will not stop pestering her about it. What are your opinions?
I can understand if someone is capable of signing a paper and doesn't do it, then that wouldn't be right. But if the person legally can't do it and that person is deeply in love, what do they do? Suffer all because of what one Christian thinks? I personally think denominations ruin Christianity. They all have different beliefs and if you don't listen to one of those beliefs, you're considered not a Christian. For example, The non denominational church believes it's not a sin to drink alcohol and yet the baptists do. Which one is right? Which one is wrong? Who's going to hell and who isn't? It's not right that the baptists get to point fingers at a person for believing differently. Am I right?

Sounds like her Christian friends and family have judgment and condemnation as the key words of their religious experience. They may have forgotten, or never learned that the key words of the way Jesus approached people are "grace" and "power". They are throwing their spiritual "stones" at her, even though they have sin in their own lives.

Jesus said that the same measure will be used to judge us as the one we use to judge others. Therefore, the family and friends are using judgment and condemnation to deal with her, therefore, the Lord will turn His search light into their own lives and hook out every little sin they are committing and judge them with the same attitude of judgment and condemnation.

But those who approach others on the basis of grace and power - the grace of God to work things out for the couple, and the power to make it happen God's way, they will be treated in the same way - by grace and power.

People can use the Bible as a big judgment stick to belt others into submission (to their own religious will), or they can use it to show the love and compassion of Jesus to a woman and her boyfriend who are in difficult circumstances and don't need religious friends and family with their filthy stinking self-righteous pride to pour condemnation on them.

I would not be surprised if the couple abandoned the church with all its hypocrites, and may sadly, even abandon Christ - and guess whose hands their blood will be on? Those perverse judgmental and condemning friends and family!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, one way of reading the OP is that he's not really disabled, and that signing something would prove that he can actually use his hand.

I hope that that's not what's going on.



Lying for dishonest financial gain would not be "good."

So your judgment of the man is that he is either pretending or lying? What would the Lord find in you if He used the same measure of judgment on you and the areas of your life that might not be quite right with Him? Because that is what Jesus said about judging others.

 

[Messerve]

I don’t know the boyfriend’s particular disability, but that money for some pays for things that are essential to some individual’s survival. (Having workers come in to dress and feed you if you are incapable of doing those things for yourself because of being wheelchair bound because of muscular dystrophy for example.) Having it taken away is absolutely not an option for some people.

Having a disability makes one a realist. We do not compromise on the things we need to survive, as doing so could be dangerous.

And the care the person with the disability may need may cost thousands of dollars, an amount that the non disabled spouse may not be able to afford.

And the non disabled partner will be the sole breadwinner as well as care taker to the disabled person, which is an unfair amount of stress to put on anyone. And very few people want that responsibility.

But... we don't really know what his disability is. All your points are possible, but we really need more details. I know what it's like to have a physical problem which can leave me more or less handicapped. When I'm healthy, I take for granted the fact that all the pharmacies in this rural area close down at 9PM. But when I need medicine, it suddenly becomes a scary reality. So I'm sure this is similar to that.

I never said it was fair for the government to take away the money, only it may boil down to living by faith and trusting God to do something miraculous or living in "comfort" and never knowing what it's like to fully trust Him with the future.

Just a thought.

 

[Radagast]

So your judgment of the man is that he is either pretending or lying?

Please read what I said: "one way of reading the OP is ... I hope that that's not what's going on."

Obviously there are other ways of reading the OP (which is somewhat ambiguous). Without more information, one cannot possibly judge.

However, I stand by the general principle that "lying for dishonest financial gain would not be good." Don't you?

 

[ToBeLoved]

My friend wants to know if it's a sin to marry without a marriage license. She is planning on marrying her boyfriend but she said all of her Christian friends and family are giving her a hard time about it because her boyfriend can't sign a marriage license or he'll lose his disability check. They pretty much tell her that if she doesn't have a marriage license, she'll be living in sin and will no longer be considered a Christian. But she doesn't believe that. She thinks it's not a sin but her Christian friends will not stop pestering her about it. What are your opinions?
I can understand if someone is capable of signing a paper and doesn't do it, then that wouldn't be right. But if the person legally can't do it and that person is deeply in love, what do they do? Suffer all because of what one Christian thinks? I personally think denominations ruin Christianity. They all have different beliefs and if you don't listen to one of those beliefs, you're considered not a Christian. For example, The non denominational church believes it's not a sin to drink alcohol and yet the baptists do. Which one is right? Which one is wrong? Who's going to hell and who isn't? It's not right that the baptists get to point fingers at a person for believing differently. Am I right?

Why the lie though?

What except deception is telling people you are married when your not.

Personally, I wouldn’t lie about it. I would do something like a commitment ceremony or something else.

Marriage is a specific thing.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't think we need the state's approval or legalization to be married, especially if we live in western style governments who have long ago abandoned the pretense of marriage being informed by some sort of Christianity.

Now the state can recognize the marriage performed in the Church but even if it doesn't, I wouldn't take the words of the state seriously. Especially if we believe marriage is a sacrament at heart.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Please read what I said: "one way of reading the OP is ... I hope that that's not what's going on."

Obviously there are other ways of reading the OP (which is somewhat ambiguous). Without more information, one cannot possibly judge.

However, I stand by the general principle that "lying for dishonest financial gain would not be good." Don't you?

Even mentioning it as a hint has a judgmental angle to it. Grace sidesteps even the mention of it even as a hint!

 

[buzuxi02]

don't think we need the state's approval or legalization to be married, especially if we live in western style governments who have long ago abandoned the pretense of marriage being informed by some sort of Christianity.

Its primarily western governments that are obsessed with having their tentacles into the marriage business.
Originally it made sense. Before DNA tests a legal marriage assured whosoever offspring popped out of the wife the husband would be responsible for them. Today in the west most women are employed and DNA tests can be used for paternity(something the female political base are dead against and a primary reason government wont get out of the marriage business). The state could also want to keep track of population growth, offer incentives to married couples to stabilize the tax base and other socio-economic reasons.
Today western governments just collect fees, you can be elderly and get married, a musician in Austria legally married his guitar etc. Its obselete.