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

[Paidiske]

Efficient? Are we talking about the same public service?

More efficient than church bureaucracy. Oh so much more efficient.

It cuts both ways. Churches may have their own marriage rules that need enforcing. Apart from Catholics (who have a different definition of marriage), churches in Australia can rely on the Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages to keep records. Sever the link completely, and some churches at least will need their own bureaucracy to keep track of who is validly married. That probably means more work for the clergy, not less.

There are some different things; I need the bishop's permission to marry a divorced person; I need to check that at least one of the couple has been baptised; etc. But that's nothing compared to the government requirements (and the forms, in triplicate, and all the rest of it).

If we had a system where a couple would come to the church with the bit of paper signed and stamped by the government to say they're legally married, so I didn't need to do the notice of intent, the statement of no legal impediment, the proof of identity and age checks, and all of that... it would definitely take some of the work and stress out of it.

 

[Radagast]

If we had a system where a couple would come to the church with the bit of paper signed and stamped by the government to say they're legally married, so I didn't need to do the notice of intent, the statement of no legal impediment, the proof of identity and age checks, and all of that... it would definitely take some of the work and stress out of it.

Only if Church and State operated under the same definition of marriage. Separate the two for a few decades, and the definitions would begin to diverge (as has happened with the Catholics, who don't recognise divorces and remarriages; and who also don't recognise certain other State marriages as canonically valid).

It's always hard to predict what the future will be like, but experience suggests that it's never as rosy as one would wish.

 

[Paidiske]

Only if Church and State operated under the same definition of marriage. Separate the two for a few decades, and the definitions would begin to diverge (as has happened with the Catholics, who don't recognise divorces and remarriages; and who also don't recognise certain other State marriages as canonically valid).

It's always hard to predict what the future will be like, but experience suggests that it's never as rosy as one would wish.

My point is, right now I'm doing a bunch of stuff that the church doesn't need, it's purely state administration that they're palming off to me. Let the state do that part of it, and we can worry about the church part of it.

We could treat the legal marriage as necessary but not sufficient for a church ceremony. I really don't see that it would become a big problem. (After all, the French have managed it that way for centuries).

 

[Radagast]

My point is, right now I'm doing a bunch of stuff that the church doesn't need, it's purely state administration that they're palming off to me. Let the state do that part of it, and we can worry about the church part of it.

I'm not disagreeing; I'm saying that there will be longer-term consequences that will come back to bite the next generation.

We could treat the legal marriage as necessary but not sufficient for a church ceremony. I really don't see that it would become a big problem. (After all, the French have managed it that way for centuries).

AFAIK, the Catholic Church in France has maintained a parallel bureaucracy for centuries.

 

[buzuxi02]

It's not just determining parentage, it's also a matter of preventing bigamy--something the Church has an interest in as well.

So can we get rid of marriage once they ok bigamy? I know plenty of people who have separated and are living with others now. What's the difference?

 

[Serving Zion]

What lying? As far as the law is concerned, they're not getting married. Period. The government has no interest in how they view their relationship and no power to say whether they are married in the eyes of God or not.

If they show a different thing than what God see's, it is a lie.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If they show a different thing than what God see's, it is a lie.

Remember that if a man takes a woman out in a field, or is with a prostitute even,
it is written (God see's) that they become ONE FLESH. That is what God see's (and what God says).
Should they tell everyone , government, church, and so on ?

 

[RDKirk]

So can we get rid of marriage once they ok bigamy? I know plenty of people who have separated and are living with others now. What's the difference?

I can't answer that question unless you identify who "we" are. Are you saying the Church can get rid of marriage?

Otherwise, it doesn't matter to Christians what pagans do.

 

[actionsub]

We had a similar situation in my old church. Two senior citizens wanted to marry, but there were some legalities which meant the "bride" would lose her pension if they got a marriage license and did it the legal way.
Bear in mind this was a small town and everybody knew everybody, and this was a non-denominational church pastored by a pretty strict independent Baptist. The pastor and board deliberated over this for awhile and it was finally determined that given the situation and the people involved, to go ahead and solemnize the marriage in the church but not in the courthouse, so to speak.

 

[RDKirk]

What lying? As far as the law is concerned, they're not getting married. Period. The government has no interest in how they view their relationship and no power to say whether they are married in the eyes of God or not.

Actually, as far as the state is concerned, if they're pooling their money and resources as married people would, in issues like social welfare benefits the state will consider them married and act on the presumption that they have been defrauding the government (once the state finds out about their living arrangement).

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's not just determining parentage, it's also a matter of preventing bigamy--something the Church has an interest in as well.

It also determines debt as if there are say back taxes owed or credit card debt. Student loans or a spouse can get access to pensions. A person I knew retired from the Navy after 20 years and their spouse got a percentage of their penaion.

 

[Radagast]

Actually, as far as the state is concerned, if they're pooling their money and resources as married people would, in issues like social welfare benefits the state will consider them married and act on the presumption that they have been defrauding the government (once the state finds out about their living arrangement).

This is the 21st century. Any strategy that includes the words "the government will never find out" is doomed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, it would. The third requirement to a common law marriage is usually satisfied by some kind of joint filing on tax, banking, or insurance paperwork. Once that's in the system, whichever agency is responsible for disability benefits will eventually find it, realise that a common law marriage has taken place, and respond accordingly (which may involve legal proceedings if whichever agency is responsible for disability benefits thinks that fraud has taken place).

As somebody has already said, if you go down that road you potentially spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder.

You're probably right. But if the intent is not to compromise some kind of benefits a single person receives, it is a way around that. And the two could pledge to each other and God without legally formalizing the union I would imagine for a very long time.

 

[Radagast]

You're probably right. But if the intent is not to compromise some kind of benefits a single person receives, it is a way around that. And the two could pledge to each other and God without legally formalizing the union I would imagine for a very long time.

It's not, that's my point.

In states that have common law marriage, a common law marriage is just as legal and just as formal as the other kind.

In fact, in those states it's actually possible to get married without realising it; somebody can petition a judge to declare that you've been married for several years (with whatever financial and legal consequences that entails).

 

[Foxfyre]

Correct. But this is why in today's age there is no reason for government to be in marriage. Inheritance is dictated by a will. Medical decisions are granted to those with a durable power of attorney. Paternity can be verified through DNA tests, etc. Civil marriage is a complete political scam like the gay marriage nonsense to create new political voting blocs.

There are countless western missionaries in remote parts of Africa. Obviously therei is no paper work to file. Heck many of these villages probably have no paper and pens or a town hall to file in. On the other hand they have always celebrated the marriage of their children with certain rituals and festivities usually involving the entire village. What is being described in these posts are "first world problems".

I suppose I see a more practical side to formal marriage. I appreciate limiting hospital visits to immediate family in the case of critical patients both for the patient's sake and that of the hospital staff. My husband and I were married for a very long time before we got around to making a will. We probably should have done so earlier but each would have legally inherited whatever the other had, no questions asked, should one of us have departed the Earth during that time. The only reason we bothered to make one at this stage in our lives was to eliminate any friction or possibility of disagreement between our children who will inherit our modest estate and to allow them to avoid the headaches and expense of probate.

There are many other reasons I support legalized marriages but that is sufficient for now.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not, that's my point.

In states that have common law marriage, a common law marriage is just as legal and just as formal as the other kind.

In fact, in those states it's actually possible to get married without realising it; somebody can petition a judge to declare that you've been married for several years (with whatever financial and legal consequences that entails).

What I am saying though is that if the couple does not go through the process of declaring themselves married to anyone but themselves, then the state will have no reason to consider them a common law marriage. They would give up all the protections that marriage provides them, but they might think their circumstances justified that.

 

[Radagast]

What I am saying though is that if the couple does not go through the process of declaring themselves married to anyone but themselves, then the state will have no reason to consider them a common law marriage.

If that's what you mean, there's been a lengthy discussion on the thread already about (1) the honesty or otherwise of that and (2) the feasibility of that, given that many pastors would not wish to cooperate (or would not legally be able to cooperate) with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

If that's what you mean, there's been a lengthy discussion on the thread already about (1) the honesty or otherwise of that and (2) the feasibility of that, given that many pastors would not wish to cooperate (or would not legally be able to cooperate) with that.

I appreciate that many would disapprove. But the question was whether it is a sin to live together as husband and wife without legally formalizing it. I'm not going to make that call. Are you?

 

[Radagast]

I appreciate that many would disapprove. But the question was whether it is a sin to live together as husband and wife without legally formalizing it.

A number of issues have been raised on the thread. I won't repeat them -- in part because we only have the sketchiest idea of what the actual situation is.

 

[RDKirk]

I appreciate that many would disapprove. But the question was whether it is a sin to live together as husband and wife without legally formalizing it. I'm not going to make that call. Are you?

If they're not Christian, it doesn't matter what they do.

If they are Christian, then they have a relationship with the Body of Christ that will require openness and honesty about the relationship they have with each other. Yes, that means a formal announcement and living the way scripture teaches a husband and wife must live and by whatever rules their denomination lays down.